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 compliance with all federal and local laws. There are no known unresolved conflicts or issues with members of the public, organizations, or other agencies related to this amendment.

The Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management is based on careful consideration of current national and bureau direction and policies; the environmental impacts identified in the analysis; the Resource Protection Measures and FWS Terms and Conditions incorporated into the Proposed Action alternative to reduce resource conflicts; the input submitted from the public, other federal agencies, and the State of Utah; and the safety and well- being of the public, firefighters, and communities. This amendment provides consistent, clearly- defined fire and fuels management goals and objectives for BLM-administered lands in the 17 land use planning areas in Utah.

9/26/2005 ______State Director Date of signature

Attachment #1: Resource Protection Measures identified in the Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management.

Attachment #2: FWS Incidental Take Statement, including Reasonable and Prudent Measures, Terms and Conditions, and Reporting Requirements for ESA Species of the Biological Opinion (pp. 326-338, September, 2005)

September 2005 - FONSI/DR Attachment #1:

Resource Protection Measures, Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management

Resource Protection Measures

Applicable fire management practices: SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Air A-1 Evaluate weather conditions, including wind speed and atmospheric stability, to predict impacts from smoke from prescribed fires and wildland fire use. Coordinate with Utah Department of Environmental Quality for prescribed fires and wildland fire use. (RX, WFU) A-2 When using chemical fuels reduction methods, follow all label requirements for herbicide application. (NF) Soil and Water SW-1 Avoid heavy equipment use on highly erosive soils (soils with low soil loss tolerance), wet or boggy soils and slopes greater than 30%, unless otherwise analyzed and allowed under appropriate NEPA evaluation with implementation of additional erosion control and other soil protection mitigation measures. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) SW-2 There may be situations where high intensity fire will occur on sensitive and erosive soil types during wildland fire, wildland fire use or prescribed fire. If significant areas of soil show evidence of high severity fire, evaluate the area for soil erosion potential and downstream values at risk and implement appropriate or necessary soil stabilization actions such as mulching or seeding to avoid excessive wind and water erosion. (SUP, WFU, RX) SW-3 Complete necessary rehabilitation on firelines or other areas of direct soil disturbance, including but not limited to waterbarring firelines, covering and mulching firelines with slash, tilling and/or subsoiling compacted areas, scarification of vehicle tracks, OHV closures, seeding and/or mulching for erosion protection. (SUP, WFU, RX) SW-4 When using mechanical fuels reduction treatments, limit tractor and heavy equipment use to periods of low soil moisture to reduce the risk of soil compaction. If this is not practical, evaluate sites, post treatment and if necessary, implement appropriate remediation, such as subsoiling, as part of the operation. (NF) SW-5 Treatments such as chaining, plowing and roller chopping shall be conducted as much as practical on the contour to reduce soil erosion (BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (NF, ESR) SW-6 When using chemical fuel reduction treatments follow all label directions, additional mitigations identified in project NEPA evaluation and the Approved Pesticide Use Proposal. At a minimum, provide a 100-foot-wide riparian buffer strip for aerial application, 25 feet for vehicle application and 10 feet for hand application. Any deviations must be in accordance with the label. Herbicides would be applied to individual plants within 10 feet of water where application is critical (BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (NF) SW-7 Avoid heavy equipment in riparian or wetland areas. During fire suppression or wildland fire use, consult a resource advisor before using heavy equipment in riparian or wetland areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) SW-8 Limit ignition within native riparian or wetland areas. Allow low-intensity fire to burn into riparian areas. (RX) SW-9 Suppress wildfires consistently with compliance strategies for restoring or maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] water bodies. Do not use retardant within 300 feet of water bodies. (SUP, WFU) SW-10 Plan and implement projects consistent with compliance strategies for restoring or maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] water bodies. Planned activities shall take into account the potential impacts on water quality, including increased water yields that can threaten fisheries and aquatic habitat; improvements at channel crossings; channel stability; and downstream values. Of special concern are small headwaters of moderate to steep watersheds; erosive or saline soils; multiple channel crossings; at-risk fisheries; and downstream residents. (RX, NF, ESR)

Resource Protection Measures

Applicable fire management practices: SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Vegetation V-1 When restoring or rehabilitating disturbed rangelands, non-intrusive, nonnative plant species are appropriate for use when native species: (1) are not available; (2) are not economically feasible; (3) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as nonnative species; and/or (4) cannot compete with already established native species (Noxious Weeds Executive Order 13112 2/3/1999; BLM Manual 9015; BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (RX, NF, ESR) V-2 In areas known to have weed infestations, aggressive action will be taken in rehabilitating firelines, seeding and follow-up monitoring and treatment to reduce the spread of noxious weeds. Monitor burned areas and treat as necessary. All seed used will be tested for purity and for noxious weeds. Seed with noxious weeds will be rejected (ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Special Status Species SSS-1 Initiate emergency Section 7 consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) upon the determination that wildfire suppression may pose a potential threat to any listed threatened or endangered species or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. (SUP) SSS-3 Prior to planned fire management actions, survey for listed threatened and endangered and non-listed sensitive species. Initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS as necessary if proposed project may affect any listed species. Review appropriate management, conservation and recovery plans and include recovery plan direction into project proposals. For non-listed special status plant and animal species, follow the direction contained in the BLM 6840 Manual. Ensure that any proposed project conserves non-listed sensitive species and their habitats and ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by BLM does not contribute to the need for any species to become listed. (RX, NF, ESR) SSS-4 Follow Terms and Conditions identified in the Biological Opinion (See attachment to the FONSI/DR). (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Fish and Wildlife FW-1 Avoid treatments during nesting, fawning, spawning, or other critical periods for wildlife or fish. (RX, NF, ESR) FW-2 Avoid if possible or limit the size of, wildland fires in important wildlife habitats such as, mule deer winter range, riparian and occupied sage grouse habitat. Use resource advisors to help prioritize resources and develop Wildland Fire Situation Analyses (WFSAs) and Wildland Fire Implementation Plans (WFIPs) when important habitats may be impacted. (SUP, WFU) FW-3 Minimize wildfire size and frequency in sagebrush communities where sage grouse habitat objectives will not be met if a fire occurs. Prioritize wildfire suppression in sagebrush habitat with an understory of invasive, annual species. Retain unburned islands and patches of sagebrush unless there are compelling safety, private property and resource protection or control objectives at risk. Minimize burn-out operations (to minimize burned acres) in occupied sage-grouse habitats when there are no threats to human life and/or important resources. (SUP) FW-4 Establish fuel treatment projects at strategic locations to minimize size of wildfires and to limit further loss of sagebrush. Fuel treatments may include greenstripping to help reduce the spread of wildfires into sagebrush communities. (RX, NF) FW-5 Use wildland fire to meet wildlife objectives. Evaluate impacts to sage grouse habitat in areas where wildland fire use for resource benefit may be implemented. (WFU, RX) FW-6 Create small openings in continuous or dense sagebrush (>30% canopy cover) to create a mosaic of multiple-age classes and associated understory diversity across the landscape to benefit sagebrush-dependent species. (WFU, RX, NF) FW-7 On sites that are currently occupied by forests or woodlands, but historically supported sagebrush communities, implement treatments (fire, cutting, chaining, seeding etc.) to re-establish sagebrush communities. (RX, NF) FW-8 Evaluate and monitor burned areas and continue management restrictions until the recovering and/or seeded plant community reflect the desired condition. (SUP, WFU, RX, ESR)

Resource Protection Measures

Applicable fire management practices: SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation FW-9 Utilize the Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program to apply appropriate post-fire treatments within crucial wildlife habitats, including sage grouse habitats. Minimize seeding with non-native species that may create a continuous perennial grass cover and restrict establishment of native vegetation. Seed mixtures shall be designed to re-establish important seasonal habitat components for sage grouse. Leks shall not be re-seeded with plants that change the vegetation height previously found on the lek. Forbs shall be stressed in early and late brood-rearing habitats. In situations of limited funds for ESR actions, prioritize rehabilitation of sage grouse habitats. (ESR) Wild Horses and Burros WHB-1 Avoid fencing that would restrict access to water. (RX, NF, ESR) Cultural Resources CR-1 Cultural resource advisors shall be contacted when fires occur in areas containing sensitive cultural resources. (SUP) CR-2 Wildland fire use is discouraged in areas containing sensitive cultural resources. A Programmatic Agreement is being prepared to cover the finding of adverse effects to cultural resources associated with wildland fire use. (WFU) CR-3 Potential impacts of proposed treatment shall be evaluated for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Utah Statewide Protocol. This shall be conducted prior to the proposed treatment. (RX, NF, ESR) Paleontology P-1 Planned projects shall be consistent with BLM Manual and Handbook H-8270-1, Chapter III (A) and III (B) to avoid areas where significant fossils are known or predicted to occur or to provide for other mitigation of possible adverse effects.(RX, NF, ESR) P-2 In the event that paleontological resources are discovered in the course of surface fire management activities, including fires suppression, efforts shall be made to protect these resources. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Forestry F-1 Planned projects shall be consistent with HFRA Section 102(e) (2) to maintain or contribute to the restoration of old-growth stands to a pre-fire suppression condition and to retain large trees contributing to old- growth structure. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF) F-2 During planning, evaluate opportunities to utilize forest and woodland products prior to implementing prescribed fire activities. Include opportunities to use forest and woodland product sales to accomplish non-fire fuel treatments. In forest and woodland stands, consider developing silvicultural prescriptions concurrently with fuel treatments prescriptions. (RX, NF) Livestock Grazing LG-1 Coordinate with permittees regarding the requirements for non-use or rest of treated areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) LG-2 Rangelands that have been burned, by wildfire, prescribed fire or wildland fire use, will be ungrazed for a minimum of one complete growing season following the burn. (SUP, WFU, RX) LG-3 Rangelands that have been re-seeded or otherwise treated to alter vegetative composition, chemically or mechanically, will be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons. (RX, NF, ESR) Recreation and Visitor Services Rec-1 Wildland fire suppression efforts will preferentially protect Special Recreation Management Areas and recreation site infrastructure in line with fire management goals and objectives. (SUP) Rec-2 Vehicle tracks created off established routes will be obliterated after fire management actions in order to reduce unauthorized OHV travel. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Lands and Realty LR-1 Fire management practices will be designed to avoid or otherwise ensure the protection of authorized rights-of-way and other facilities located on the public lands, including coordination with holders of major rights-

Resource Protection Measures

Applicable fire management practices: SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation of-way systems within rights-of-way corridors and communication sites. (WFU, RX, NF, ESR) LR-2 Fire management actions must not destroy, deface, change or remove to another place any monument or witness tree of the Public Land Survey System. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Hazardous Waste HW-1 Recognize hazardous wastes and move fire personnel to a safe distance from dumped chemicals, unexploded ordnance, drug labs, wire burn sites or any other hazardous wastes. Immediately notify BLM Field Office hazmat coordinator or state hazmat coordinator upon discovery of any hazardous materials, following the BLM hazardous materials contingency plan. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Mineral Resources M-1 A safety buffer shall be maintained between fire management activities and at-risk facilities. (SUP, WFU, RX) Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) Wild-1 The use of earth-moving equipment must be authorized by the field office manager. (SUP, WFU, RX, ESR) Wild-2 Fire management actions will rely on the most effective methods of suppression that are least damaging to wilderness values, other resources and the environment, while requiring the least expenditure of public funds.(SUP, WFU) Wild-3 A resource advisor shall be consulted when fire occurs in Wilderness and WSA. (SUP, WFU)

Attachment #2:

FWS Incidental Take Statement, including Reasonable and Prudent Measures, Terms and Conditions, and Reporting Requirements for ESA Species of the Biological Opinion (pp. 326-338, September, 2005)

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction...... 1-1 1.2 Background ...... 1-1 1.3 Need for Proposed Action...... 1-5 1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action ...... 1-5 1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans...... 1-7 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or Other Plans...... 1-7 1.7 Identification of Issues ...... 1-9 1.7.1 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Natural, Cultural, and Biological Resources...... 1-9 1.7.2 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Resource Uses...... 1-10 1.7.3 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Special Designations...... 1-10 1.7.4 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Social Science Considerations ...... 1-11 1.8 Summary ...... 1-11

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2.1 Introduction...... 2-1 2.2 Alternative A: Proposed Action...... 2-2 2.2.1 Proposed Action: Landscape Level Fire Management Goals and Objectives ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Proposed Action: DWFC and Management Strategies and Actions to Meet DWFC ...... 2-3 2.2.2.1 Proposed Action: Management Strategies and Actions to Meet DWFC...... 2-3 2.2.2.2 DWFC and Management Actions by Vegetation Group...... 2-4 2.2.3 Proposed Action: Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit...... 2-9 2.2.4 Proposed Action: Maximum Burned Areas and Treated Areas for Analysis ...... 2-10 2.2.5 Proposed Action: Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities …………………………………………………………………………………….…….2-12 2.2.6 Proposed Action: Resource Protection Measure for Fire Management Practices ...... 2-13 2.3 Alternative B: No Action...... 2-17 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 2-18 2.4.1 Historical Fire Alternative...... 2-18 2.4.2 Non-Fire Treatment Alternative...... 2-19

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3.1 Introduction...... 3-1 3.2 General Setting...... 3-1 3.3 Fire Ecology...... 3-1 3.4 Critical Elements of the Human Environment and Other Resources Brought Forward for Analysis ...... 3-3 3.4.1 Air ...... 3-3 3.4.1.1 Air Quality Standards...... 3-3 3.4.1.2 Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas ...... 3-4 3.4.1.3 Sensitive Areas...... 3-5 3.4.2 Soil and Water...... 3-5 3.4.2.1 Soils...... 3-5

September 2005 i 3.4.2.2 Water...... 3-6 3.4.3 Vegetation ...... 3-8 3.4.3.1 Vegetation Types...... 3-10 3.4.3.2 Noxious Weeds...... 3-18 3.4.4 Special Status Species...... 3-19 3.4.4.1 Species Composition...... 3-19 3.4.4.2 Species Habitat...... 3-21 3.4.5 Fisheries and Wildlife...... 3-23 3.4.5.1 Fisheries...... 3-25 3.4.5.2 Non-Game Species ...... 3-26 3.4.5.3 Big Game Species ...... 3-27 3.4.6 Cultural Resources ...... 3-29 3.4.6.1 Prehistoric Resources ...... 3-30 3.4.6.2 Historic Resources ...... 3-31 3.4.6.3 Places of Traditional Cultural Importance ...... 3-32 3.4.6.4 Native American Consultation ...... 3-32 3.4.7 Visual Resources ...... 3-32 3.4.8 Naturalness, Solitude and Primitive Recreation ...... 3-33 3.4.8.1 Non-Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) with Wilderness Characteristics...... 3-33 3.4.8.2 Non-WSA Lands Likely to Have Wilderness Characteristics...... 3-34 3.4.9 Forestry...... 3-35 3.4.10 Livestock Grazing ...... 3-35 3.4.11 Recreation and Visitor Services ...... 3-36 3.4.12 Special Designations...... 3-37 3.4.12.1 Congressional Designations ...... 3-44 3.4.12.2 Administrative Designations...... 3-44 3.4.12.3 Other Administrative Designations...... 3-47 3.4.13 Socioeconomics...... 3-48

Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4.1 Introduction...... 4-1 4.2 Alternative A: Proposed Action...... 4-2 4.2.1 Air...... 4-2 4.2.2 Soil and Water...... 4-3 4.2.2.1 Soil ...... 4-3 4.2.2.2 Water...... 4-5 4.2.3 Vegetation...... 4-7 4.2.3.1 Noxious Weeds...... 4-10 4.2.4 Special Status Species...... 4-10 4.2.5 Fish and Wildlife...... 4-18 4.2.6 Cultural Resources ...... 4-20 4.2.7 Visual Resources ...... 4-24 4.2.8 Naturalness, Solitude and Primitive Recreation ...... 4-25 4.2.9 Forestry...... 4-26 4.2.10 Livestock Grazing ...... 4-27 4.2.11 Recreation and Visitor Services ...... 4-28 4.2.12 Special Designations...... 4-29 4.2.13 Socioeconomics...... 4-30 4.2.14 Mitigation Measures ...... 4-32

September 2005 ii 4.2.15 Residual Impacts...... 4-32 4.2.16 Monitoring and Compliance...... 4-32 4.3 Alternative B: No Action ...... 4-33 4.3.1 Air...... 4-33 4.3.2 Soil and Water...... 4-33 4.3.2.1 Soil ...... 4-33 4.3.2.2 Water...... 4-34 4.3.3 Vegetation...... 4-35 4.3.3.1 Noxious Weeds...... 4-37 4.3.4 Special Status Species...... 4-37 4.3.5 Fish and Wildlife...... 4-38 4.3.6 Cultural Resources ...... 4-39 4.3.7 Visual Resources ...... 4-40 4.3.8 Naturalness, Solitude and Primitive Recreation ...... 4-40 4.3.9 Forestry...... 4-41 4.3.10 Livestock Grazing ...... 4-41 4.3.11 Recreation ...... 4-42 4.3.12 Special Designations...... 4-42 4.3.13 Socioeconomics...... 4-43 4.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis...... 4-43 4.4.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario...... 4-44 4.4.1.1 Air ...... 4-44 4.4.1.2 Soil and Water (including floodplains and riparian and wetland zones)...... 4-45 4.4.1.3 Vegetation (including invasive and non-native species management) ...... 4-45 4.4.1.4 Special Status Species ...... 4-46 4.4.1.5 Fish and Wildlife ...... 4-46 4.4.1.6 Cultural Resources (including Native American religious concerns) ...... 4-47 4.4.1.7 Visual Resources...... 4-47 4.4.1.8 Naturalness, Solitude and Primitive Recreation...... 4-48 4.4.1.9 Forestry ...... 4-48 4.4.1.10 Livestock Grazing...... 4-48 4.4.1.11 Recreation and Visitor Services...... 4-49 4.4.1.12 Special Designations ...... 4-49 4.4.1.13 Socioeconomics (including WUIs associated with BLM lands and adjacent ownerships)...... 4-50

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5.1 Introduction...... 5-1 5.2 Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted ...... 5-1 5.3 Summary of Public Participation ...... 5-2 5.3.1 Notice of Intent...... 5-3 5.3.2 Public Involvement Plan...... 5-3 5.3.3 Planning Bulletin...... 5-4 5.3.4 Public Scoping Meetings...... 5-4 5.3.5 Public Scoping Comments ...... 5-5 5.3.6 Release of Draft EA and Public Review and Comment Period...... 5-5 5.4 Response to Public Comments ...... 5-6 5.5 List of Preparers ...... 5-11

September 2005 iii 5.5.1 BLM Preparers...... 5-12 5.5.2 Maxim Technologies Preparers ...... 5-12

Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6.1 References...... 6-1 6.2 Glossary ...... 6-11

Appendices APPENDIX A: Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist...... A-1 APPENDIX B: Current and Proposed Land Use Plan Fire Management Direction ...... B-1 APPENDIX C: Wildland Fire Management Policy ...... C-1 APPENDIX D: Fire Regime and Condition Class Analysis and Historic Fire Return Intervals .. D-1 APPENDIX E: Prehistoric, Historic, and Traditional Cultural and Religious Site Types in UtahE-1 APPENDIX F: ESA-Related Species Found within the Planning Area ...... F-1 APPENDIX G: BLM Sensitive Species Found within the Planning Area...... G-1 APPENDIX H: Utah Urban Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands that Are at High Risk from Wildfire (DOI, 2001) ...... H-1

September 2005 iv Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern NAA Non-Attainment Area AMR Appropriate Management Response NAAQs National Ambient Air Quality Standards ATV All-Terrain Vehicle NCA National Conservation Area AUM Animal Unit Month NEPA National Environmental Policy Act BA Biological Assessment NHPA National Historic Preservation Act BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices NOA Notice of Availability CAA Clean Air Act NOI Notice of Intent CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service DOI U.S. Department of the Interior NRHP National Register of Historic Places DR Decision Record NSO No Surface Occupancy DWFC Desired Wildland Fire Condition NSS Native Species Status EA Environmental Assessment NWCG National Wildfire Coordination Group EIS Environmental Impact Statement OHV Off-Highway Vehicle EO Executive Order ONA Outstanding Natural Area EPA Environmental Protection Agency ORV Off-Road Vehicle ESA Endangered Species Act PFC Proper Functioning Condition ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation PM10 Particlate Matter with an Aerodynamic Diameter of 10 Micrometers or Less FFSL Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands PM2.5 Particulate Matter with an Aerodynamic Diameter of 2.5 Micrometers or Less FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act RDCC Resource Development Coordinating Committee FMP Fire Management Plan RMP Resource Management Plan FMU Fire Management Unit RNA Research Natural Area FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ROD Record of Decision FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class ROI Region of Influence FRI Fire Return Interval RPM Resource Protection Measure GIS Geographic Information System RRF Red Rock Forests GSENM Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument SCFC Summit County Fire Chief HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act SFW Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife HMP Habitat Management Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Office HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IM Instruction Memorandum SIP State Implementation Plan ISA Instant Study Area SMA Special Management Area LUP Land Use Plan SMP Smoke Management Plan MC Mixed Conifer SPS Sensitive Plant Species MFP Management Framework Plan STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database MMP Monument Management Plan SUWA Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance MS Mountain Shrub TCP Traditional Cultural Properties MSA Management Situation Analysis TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads

September 2005 v

TWS The Wilderness Society VRM Visual Resource Management UCC Uintah County Commission WCED Wayne County Economic Development UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality WFIP Wildland Fire Implementation Plan UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality WFSA Wildland Fire Situation Analysis UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources WO Washington Office UFB Utah Farm Bureau WSA Wilderness Study Area USFS U.S. Forest Service WSC Wildlife Species of Concern USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WSR Wild and Scenic River USMP Utah Smoke Management Plan WUI Wildland Urban Interface

September 2005 vi

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

1.1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the Utah Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposal to amend 21 Land Use Plans (LUPs). This proposed amendment would incorporate current planning requirements associated with fire management on BLM-administered public lands within the state of Utah. Fire management refers to the spectrum of activities including wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation. This proposed amendment represents the Proposed Action for the EA. This EA is a broad analysis of potential impacts that could result from either the implementation of the Proposed Action or the continuation of current management strategies (No Action). This EA is intended to assist the BLM in updating existing LUPs to incorporate current fire management requirements; to ensure compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations; and to determine whether “significant” (as defined by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in Regulation 40 CFR Part 1508.27) impacts could result from the analyzed actions. An EA provides evidence for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) statement. A Decision Record (DR), which includes a FONSI statement, is a document that briefly presents the reasons why implementations of the Proposed Action would not result in significant environmental impacts (i.e., effects) beyond those already addressed within each LUP. If the decision maker determines that this project would have significant impacts as indicated by the analysis in this EA, then an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, a DR may be signed for the EA approving the Alternative selected. The DR would identify the fire management objectives and actions and would provide the language upon which future fire management planning and implementation actions could tier (as per 40 CFR Part 1502.20). Issues identified for further analysis within this EA are included as Appendix A: Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist. Appendix A includes the resource concerns identified in the EA, including those resources considered Critical Elements of the Human Environment, and related issues derived from the BLM, affiliated agency reviews, and comments received during scoping. 1.2 BACKGROUND In 2004, the BLM Utah State Office evaluated 21 of 25 existing LUPs within Utah and found that they do not adequately reflect current fire management issues and policies set forth in the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995, 2001) and BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, 11/22/00)) as amended by Instruction Memorandum IM-WO-2004-007. Ecosystem changes, the scale of rehabilitation and stabilization activities, and the scale of fuel treatments called for by the National Fire Plan and Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 were unforeseen at the time the LUPs were written. Four LUPs (for the Vernal and Price BLM Field Offices) were not reviewed in 2004, because they are currently undergoing major revisions for all actions and will be updated to comply with current fire policy as part of those planning processes. The proposed amendment encompasses fire management planning for approximately 19 million acres of public lands within Utah managed by the BLM (referred to as the planning area), as shown in Table 1.1. The boundaries of BLM field offices and LUP boundaries affected by the Proposed Action are shown on Figure 1.1. The boundaries of BLM support centers and field offices affected by the Proposed Action are shown on Figure 1.2. The proposed amendment would incorporate the necessary planning requirements to bring each of the selected LUPs administered by the identified field offices into conformance with current planning policy. The proposed amendment would replace all existing fire management language with direction that reflects current federal requirements for fire management.

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-1

Table 1.1 BLM Land Administration and Areas Proposed for Amendment

Lands Acres (approx.) Total Land and Water Area in Utah 54,247,283 Total Federal Lands in Utah 34,860,878 BLM-administered Surface Lands in Utah 22,931,060 BLM-managed Lands in Utah proposed for Fire Management Amendment 18,830,276

The BLM field offices in Salt Lake City, Richfield, Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City and St. George, and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), administer the LUPs identified for amendment. Of these 21 LUPs, the Box Elder Resource Management Plan (RMP), Pony Express RMP, House Range RMP and Warm Springs RMP will be included in this assessment for analysis purposes. 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 the plan amendment process be completed in accordance with regulations in 43 CFR Part 1600. This EA will serve as the NEPA analysis document of record for BLM’s determinations with respect to amending these four LUPs in the future. For purposes of analysis, references in this EA to the proposed amendment of 21 LUPs include these four LUPs. Table 1.2 lists the 21 LUPs to be amended by the Proposed Action, 14 of which have existing fire management direction.

[Notes on Figure 1.1 and Table 1.2: Portions of the Paria and Escalante MFPs are managed by the GSENM. Cedar City, Richfield and Kanab Field Offices each manage portions of the Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP.]

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-2

Figure 1.1 Boundaries of BLM Field Offices and LUP Boundaries Affected by the Proposed Action

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-3

Table 1.2 LUPs to be Amended by the Proposed Action

Existing Fire Management Land Use Plan Year Last Updated Direction Salt Lake Field Office Box Elder RMP*† 1986 Yes Iso-Tract Management Framework Plan (MFP)† 1985 Yes Park City MFP† 1975 Yes Pony Express RMP*† 1990 Yes Randolph MFP† 1980 Yes Richfield Field Office Forest MFP 1977 Henry Mountain MFP 1982 Yes Mountain Valley MFP 1982 Parker Mountain MFP 1982 Fillmore Field Office House Range RMP* 1987 Yes Warm Springs RMP* 1987 Yes Moab Field Office Grand RMP 1985 Yes Monticello Field Office San Juan RMP 1991 Yes 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 Yes Pinyon MFP 1983 Yes St. George Field Office St. George RMP 1999 Yes Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) GSENM Monument Management Plan (MP) 1999 Yes * These four LUPs are included for analysis purposes and may be amended later. See Section 1.2 Background. † The Salt Lake District BLM Proposed Fire Management Plan Amendment UT-020-98-08 of July 1998 amended fire policy within these LUPs. The BLM fire management program is organized within the state through five support centers. These centers include: • Salt Lake Support Center (encompasses the Salt Lake Field Office) • Richfield Support Center (encompasses the Richfield and Fillmore Field Offices) • Moab Support Center (encompasses the Moab, Price and Monticello Field Offices) • Southern Utah Support Center (encompasses the Kanab, Cedar City and St. George Field Offices and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument) • Vernal Support Center (encompasses the Vernal Field Office) The Salt Lake, Richfield, Moab and Southern Utah Support Centers would develop Fire Management Plans (FMPs) that would be based upon the goals and objectives developed for this planning amendment. These FMPs would be considered program implementation plans which address more specific issues and considerations in the Support Center areas, while adhering to the broader goals and objectives laid out

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-4

in this amendment. Since the Price Field Office in the Moab Support Center and the Vernal Field Office within the Vernal Support Center are currently developing fire management direction as part of their Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision processes, planning considerations for these two planning areas have not been included as part of this amendment. 1.3 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The BLM Utah State Office needs to amend eight RMPs, twelve Management Framework Plans (MFPs) and one Monument Management Plan (MMP) to bring these LUPs into conformance and meet current BLM planning directives. National fire management policy has evolved in response to the increased fatalities, property loss, local economic disruptions and risk to ecosystems associated with increasingly severe wildland fire seasons and increasing Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) conflicts. Federal agencies must change their fire management practices to increase protection of human life and decrease natural resource and private property damage as mandated by national policy. Current scientific understanding of the benefits of fire to natural ecological processes needs to be incorporated into the management of fire. Successful implementation of a fire management amendment would result in clear fire management direction that is compliant with national and interagency direction. 1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The current LUPs do not meet BLM’s goal to incorporate consistent BLM fire management direction. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to accomplish the required updates by incorporating fire management direction into existing LUPs. The fire management amendment, in consideration of other federal, state, local and Tribal land management plans, would provide a consistent approach to incorporating policy associated with the National Fire Plan into LUPs. The updates would minimize conflicts with other existing LUP decisions and provide the necessary tools to public land managers across the state to meet other resource objectives described in the existing LUPs. In order to fulfill this purpose, the following objectives shall be met: • Establish landscape level fire management goals and objectives. • Describe Desired Wildland Fire Conditions (DWFC) using Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC), and the suite of management strategies and actions to meet DWFC and land use allocations. • Describe 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. • Identify Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) for fire management practices (wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use for resource benefit, prescribed fire treatments, non-fire fuel treatments and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions) to protect natural or cultural resource values. • Identify criteria used for establishing fire management priorities. • For analysis purposes, identify maximum burned areas and treatment acres (for the 15-year life of plan) for wildland fire, wildland fire use for resource benefit, prescribed fire treatments, non- fire fuel treatments and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions.

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-5

Figure 1.2 Boundaries of BLM Support Centers & Field Offices Affected by the Proposed Action

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-6

Fire Regime Condition Class FRCC: a description of vegetation conditions based on the change from natural fire regime; includes effects of fire suppression (fuel loading and encroachment) and invasive species invasion FRCC 1: within historical range for fire return interval and vegetation attributes FRCC 2: moderately altered from historical range FRCC 3: substantially altered from historical range and vegetation attributes

The following underlying goals drive the objectives: • Protection of human life would be the prime suppression priority. Setting priorities among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements and natural and cultural resources would be done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety and costs. • The full range of fire management actions would be used to achieve ecosystem sustainability. • Hazardous fuels would be reduced. • Ecosystems would be restored. • Communities at risk would be protected. 1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH BLM LAND USE PLANS The 21 LUPs proposed for amendment were reviewed for potential conflicts among resource goals and fire management direction in the Proposed Action and none were found. Fourteen of the 21 LUPs have existing fire management direction that would be replaced by the Proposed Action, if selected (see Table 1.2). The current fire management direction in these 14 plans can be found in Appendix B. The remaining seven LUPs either do not have goals, objectives, and direction specifically related to fire management, or they describe fire within the context of other resource management needs. The discussion of fire as a management action for other resource management needs is focused on prioritization of fire as a tool to manage vegetation for rangeland management (Randolph MFP, Paria MFP, Vermilion MFP); consolidated lands treatment (Paria MFP); preservation of wildlife values and habitat (Paria MFP, Escalante MFP); and, soil loss and watershed health (Paria MFP, Vermilion MFP). As stated in Section 1.4, the LUPs would be amended to address current fire management direction and developed to minimize conflicts with other LUP decisions, resource goals, and objectives. This amendment is consistent with goals, objectives, and decisions for other resources within the 21 LUPs affected. The proposed fire management direction would provide necessary tools to public land use managers across the state to meet other resource objectives described in the existing LUPs. 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS OR OTHER PLANS This document was prepared in adherence to relevant BLM planning and CEQ guidance for the completion of a land use plan amendment EA. CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) detail the process of preparing NEPA documents, while the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA 43 USC 1711) and the Code of Federal Regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 1600 regulate the BLM’s land use planning process. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, 3/11/05) contains guidance and outlines the BLM’s LUP amendment process. Appendix C of the Land Use Planning Handbook contains specific guidance on resource management to be incorporated into a LUP.

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-7

In October 2003, IM-WO-2004-007 was issued to revise Appendix C of BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, 11/22/00) with regard to fire management guidance. The issuance of this IM prompted Utah BLM to review existing LUPs for compliance, which initiated the need for this LUP Amendment EA. On March 11, 2005 the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, 3/11/05) was re-issued to revise the 2000 Handbook and incorporate a variety of BLM-issued planning Instruction Memoranda, including IM-WO-2004-007. The language provided in Appendix C of the revised BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, 3/11/05) regarding fire and fuels management differs slightly from that issued with IM-WO-2004-007. The intent and general guidance laid out in BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, 3/11/05) is not inconsistent with IM-WO-2004-007. Therefore, the stated purpose and need of this Proposed Action is compliant with the 2005 Handbook. In addition to meeting the goals, objectives and intent of BLM planning guidance, other applicable fire management planning goals, policy statements and specific fire management decisions considered and addressed by the Proposed Action include: • Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995) • Review and Update of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001) • A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: Ten-Year Comprehensive Strategy (2001) The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and the Review and Update of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy mandate that firefighter and public safety is the first priority in any fire management action. For suppression activities, the protection of human life is the most important priority. Setting priorities among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements and natural and cultural resources would be done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety and the costs of protection. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy identifies the reduction of hazardous fuels and the restoration of ecosystems as goals to be considered when amending the LUPs. In addition to these requirements, a full range of fire management activities must be used to achieve ecosystem sustainability. Several past EISs, present BLM plans, and NEPA documents identify hazardous fuels reduction treatment objectives and analyze impacts of vegetation treatments [i.e., Final EIS Vegetation Treatment on BLM lands in Thirteen Western States (1991)]. In consideration of these planning and fire management specific requirements, the Proposed Action considers and has been developed in compliance with other applicable environmental laws, policies and Executive Orders. These authorities include (but are not limited to) the Healthy Forests Restoration Act; the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts; the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; the Endangered Species Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; the Archaeological Resource Protection Act; and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The Proposed Action is in compliance with Utah’s laws for air pollution and it is consistent with Utah BLM’s Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997) as well as the Native American Trust Resource Policies. Planning and resource management considerations incorporated into the development of the Proposed Action include those associated with Planning Land Orders for a variety of lands and realty actions within the state and with a variety of Executive Orders (EOs). These EOs include EO 11514 (Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality); EO 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment); EO 11988 (Management of Floodplains); EO 11990 (Management of Wetlands and Riparian Areas); EO 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review); EO 12898 (Consideration of Environmental Justice Issues); EO 13112 (Management of Invasive Species); and EO 13186 (Management of Migratory Birds). Specific land management and wildland fire management policy are shown in Appendix C.

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-8

The Proposed Action would be consistent with adjacent federal land agency, state of Utah and affiliated Native American Tribal planning. If inconsistencies are brought forward, the BLM would consider adjustments to fire and/or fuel treatments during implementation planning through coordination and cooperation with adjacent entities. Fire management would be as consistent as possible with the fire management strategies employed on adjacent lands (as administered by other federal, state and Native American Tribal authorities). The appropriate response to a fire potentially impacting adjacent non-BLM- administered lands is considered in the Proposed Action as criteria for making suppression and wildland fire use decisions. Resources managed by other federal, state and Tribal agencies were also taken into consideration during the development of Resource Protection Measures within the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action has been developed in consideration of statewide local government planning concerns. No inconsistencies with those concerns were identified during public scoping or brought forward during the public review of the draft EA. 1.7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES In consideration of the previously discussed regulatory conformance and compliance requirements, the BLM provided a draft Purpose and Need statement and an outline of the decisions to be made in the Proposed Action during the public scoping and comment period. The comments that were received from the public during the scoping period were considered by the BLM as the Proposed Action was being developed and as other action alternatives were discussed. As a result of those considerations, the BLM has developed this EA to disclose the impact of one action alternative (the Proposed Action) and the No Action Alternative (continuation of current management). The analysis and findings described in this EA will help the BLM State Office decide: • Whether to continue with current fire management direction in the LUPs or change the management direction • What management direction is necessary and where should the direction be applied to address the Purpose and Need As part of the process to determine the project’s scope, agency coordination and notification, BLM took actions to inform and obtain input from federal, state, Tribal and local agencies about this LUP amendment, the schedule and the steps being taken to complete the project. The agencies were given the opportunity to participate and comment, as detailed in Section 5.2. Appendix A includes the resource management concerns identified (including those resources considered as Critical Elements of the Human Environment) and related issues derived from the BLM, affiliated agency reviews and comments received during scoping. The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with other existing resource goals and objectives in the LUPs. However, issues have been identified for this EA that are based on conflict with resource management actions identified within the existing LUPs. The issues identified, including those with potential for conflict with such actions, helped shape the management strategies and resource protection measures associated with the Proposed Action. The issues identified by the BLM Interdisciplinary Team have been organized below by (a) resources associated with natural, biological and cultural resources; (b) resource uses; (c) special designations; and (d) social science considerations.

1.7.1 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Natural, Cultural, and Biological Resources Air • Impacts on Class I visibility • Impacts on human health from particulate matter

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-9

Soil and Water (including Floodplains and Wetland/Riparian Zones) • Impacts on soils, including nutrient cycling, infiltration/runoff (compaction) and erosion/sedimentation • Impacts on water quality and beneficial use • Impacts on floodplain resources from suppression activities • Impacts on floodplain resources from fuel treatments and wildland fire • Impacts on wetland/riparian zones Vegetation (including Invasive and Non-Native Species Management) • Impacts on vegetation condition goals and objectives • Impacts on vegetation communities from noxious weed encroachment Special Status Species • Direct and indirect impacts on listed/candidate species and their habitats and designated critical habitats • Impacts on special status plant species management goals and objectives Fish and Wildlife • Loss or modification of crucial habitats and/or disturbance or displacement of fish and wildlife species as a result of habitat alterations Cultural Resources (including Native American Religious Concerns) • Impacts on sites of cultural and archaeological value • Impacts on traditional use of vegetation and cultural or religious sites Visual Resources • Impacts on visual resources Naturalness, Solitude, and Primitive Recreation • Surface-disturbing impacts from fire management activities (including rehabilitation actions) on the natural character of the landscape, on outstanding opportunity for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation and to any supplemental values 1.7.2 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Resource Uses Forestry • Impacts on biomass availability (including firewood collection) and healthy forest conditions (including old growth) Livestock Grazing • Impacts on allotment use Recreation and Visitor Services • Impacts on developed recreation sites and facilities 1.7.3 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Special Designations Congressional and Administrative Designations [including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs); and lands suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) system] • Impacts on the relevant and important resource value at issue per ACEC • Direct and indirect impacts on wilderness and suitability of WSAs

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-10

• Impacts on naturalness resulting from infestation of noxious weeds and other plants after suppression activities • Impacts on outstanding remarkable values, tentative classification and free-flowing nature of WSR eligible segments 1.7.4 Issues Identified for Analysis Pertaining to Social Science Considerations Socioeconomics (including WUIs associated with BLM lands and adjacent ownerships) • Impacts on socioeconomics

1.8 SUMMARY This chapter presented the Purpose and Need of the proposed LUP Amendment, as well as relevant issues associated with resources that may be affected by the proposed fire management amendment. This EA will contain a planning-level discussion and analysis of potential conflicts with other resource management actions, rather than conflicts with other resource goals and objectives. Site-specific analysis of resources within LUP areas that would tier off the decision associated with this planning effort would be analyzed within future fire management planning and implementation actions. There are four Fire Management Plan EAs for the Salt Lake, Richfield, Moab and Southern Utah Support Centers under development that will be based upon the proposed amendment as described within this EA. In order to meet the Purpose and Need of the proposed fire management amendment in a way that resolves the raised issues, the BLM has developed a single action alternative, the Proposed Action. This alternative, as well as the No Action Alternative, is presented in Chapter 2. The potential environmental impacts or consequences resulting from the implementation of each alternative are then analyzed in Chapter 4 for each of the identified issues.

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-11

September 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1-12

Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

2.1 INTRODUCTION There are 21 LUPs proposed for potential amendment of fire management direction. This chapter describes the alternative fire management directions being evaluated for potential use in this amendment. The existing fire management direction in these LUPs (referred to as Alternative B: No Action) is, in many instances, inconsistent with “on-the-ground” fire management practices and it does not comply with national fire management policies or BLM guidance. To address these problems, four alternatives were evaluated and considered. One has been brought forward for further analysis as Alternative A: Proposed Action. Discussion of Alternative A is presented in Section 2.2. Discussion of Alternative B: No Action is presented in Section 2.3. The two other alternatives considered were eliminated from further detailed analysis and are presented in Section 2.4. The following criteria were used in the development and consideration of the fire management alternatives presented in this section: • Integrate fire management direction with other resource needs and uses within each LUP area • Comply with 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and BLM planning guidance The existing fire management direction at the LUP-level in the 21 planning areas is diverse and cannot be characterized by a few simple statements. However, existing goals, objectives and decisions generally lean toward suppression of wildland fire, limited use of prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatments, and no wildland fire use. The two alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis (Section 2.4) only meet portions of the Purpose and Need for action. Alternative A on the other hand, considers wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments, as valuable tools when used in appropriate locations. It conforms to national fire policy as well as the current understanding of fire’s role in healthy ecosystems and its use as a tool in avoiding catastrophic and uncontrollable wildfire events. The fire management objectives for Alternatives A and B can be broadly stated as: • Alternative A: Proposed Action Manage fire using a full suite of tools that allows for the graduated movement to a more ecologically sustainable condition and reduction of hazardous fuels. • Alternative B: No Action Continue suppressing most/all wildland fires with limited use of prescribed fire and other means of fuels reduction. Moving natural systems to an ecologically sustainable condition using fire management actions and hazardous fuels reduction are not primary goals.

A more comprehensive comparison of Alternative A and Alternative B is presented in Appendix B. The alternative selected and how it addresses potential issues associated with other resource values and uses will determine the tools available to manage wildland fire, hazardous fuels, ecosystem restoration (related to fire) and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation. Resource concerns have been identified from comments received from the public, collaborating agencies and through the internal BLM review of potential resource conflicts. Section 1.7 and Appendix A describe the resources identified through scoping and the issues derived from comments received during scoping and BLM resource review. These issues helped shape the management strategies associated with the Proposed Action. In implementation of any alternative selected, agency personnel would work collaboratively with other federal agencies, state government, county governments, Tribal governments, other interested Native American groups, and the public in implementing projects. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that environmental conditions pertaining to fire management are constantly in flux due to uncontrollable changes, such as invasive species establishment or weather patterns. Land managers would take local

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-1

conditions into consideration when following fire management guidelines. This is part of an adaptive management strategy that refines and updates desired conditions and management strategies as the BLM obtains new information over the life of a BLM LUP (typically 15 years). 2.2 ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action meets the Purpose and Need of incorporating new fire management direction on BLM-administered public lands in Utah. In addition to this proposed LUP Amendment, more detailed and specific information is provided in four FMPs prepared for each of the planning areas as described in Chapter 1. In order to meet fire management needs and comply with current fire policy and guidance, this LUP Amendment would amend existing LUP fire management decisions, establish DWFC and provide for fire management actions that address BLM policy. Specifically, the Proposed Action would:

• Establish landscape-level, fire management goals and objectives • Describe DWFC by FRCC and the management strategies (considering firefighter and public safety) and actions (appropriate management response and hazardous fuel treatments) to meet DWFC and land use allocations • Describe 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 • Identify Resource Protection Measures for fire management practices (wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use for resource benefit, prescribed fire treatments, non-fire fuel treatments and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions) to protect natural or cultural resource values • Identify criteria that would be used for establishing fire management priorities • Identify maximum burned areas and treatment acres (for the 15-year life of plan) for wildland fire; wildland fire use for resource benefit; prescribed fire treatments; non-fire fuel treatments; and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions

2.2.1 Proposed Action: Landscape Level Fire Management Goals and Objectives • Firefighter and public safety would be the primary goal in all fire management decisions and actions • Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, be allowed to function in its natural ecological role • Hazardous fuels would be reduced to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities • Fires would be suppressed at minimum cost, taking into account firefighter and public safety and benefits and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives • BLM would provide a consistent, safe and cost-effective fire management program through appropriate planning, staffing, training, equipment and management • Every area with burnable vegetation would have an FMP based on a foundation of sound science • Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts would be undertaken to protect and sustain resources, public health and safety and community infrastructure • BLM would work together with their partners and other affected groups and individuals to reduce risks to communities and restore ecosystems

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-2

Appropriate Management Response A wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire requires an appropriate manage-ment response (AMR). The AMR can range from full suppression to managing fire for resource benefit (fire use). It is guided by the strategies and objectives outlined in the development of the LUP, reflecting land and resource values and objectives. The FMP outlines fire management activities and procedures to accomplish those objectives.

2.2.2 Proposed Action: DWFC and Management Strategies and Actions to Meet DWFC The general DWFC is to have ecosystems that are at a low risk of losing ecosystem components following wildfire and that function within their historical range. In terms of FRCC, the DWFC outside the WUI is to trend to a lower FRCC using the least intrusive method possible. In other words, the DWFC is to move lands in FRCC 3 to FRCC 2 and lands in FRCC 2 to FRCC 1 through fire and non- fire treatments where wildland fire use is the preferred method of treatment, when feasible. Inside the WUI, the general DWFC is to have less potential for values to be threatened by wildland fire, usually through some modification of fuels. Determinations of FRCC should be made in varying scales for different purposes. For analysis purposes and to comply with BLM policy, this EA makes coarse FRCC determinations across Utah (see Appendix D). It must be noted that there is limited applicability of the coarse FRCC assessments presented in this document to site-specific areas.

Fire Regime Fire Regime refers to the historical fire frequency (called fire return interval) and the severity with which fire occurred. Vegetation types in the west developed under these fire regimes. Fire Regime I low-severity fires with a frequency of 0-35 years. Fire Regime II stand replacement fires with a frequency of 0-35 years. Fire Regime III mixed-severity fires with a frequency of 35 to 100 years. Fire Regime IV stand replacement fires with a frequency of 35-100 years. Fire Regime V stand replacement or mixed-severity fires with a frequency of 200+ years.

2.2.2.1 Proposed Action: Management Strategies and Actions to Meet DWFC In all fire management decisions, strategies and actions, firefighter and public safety would be the first and highest priority. The full range of management strategies and actions would be used to protect firefighter and public safety. This priority overrides all other strategies and actions. Further, the full range of fire management actions, consistent and integrated with other Land Use Plan decisions, would be used to help achieve ecosystem sustainability, including its interrelated ecological, economic and social components. The following are general strategies and actions for all facets of the wildland fire management program, including suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, prevention, and community protection: • The appropriate management response would be provided to all wildland fires, emphasizing firefighter and public safety and considering suppression costs, benefits and values to be

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-3

protected. The appropriate management response would be consistent with resource objectives, would be based on ecological and social costs, and benefits of the fire. The circumstances under which the fire occurs and the likely consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources and values to be protected, would dictate the appropriate management response to the fire. Fire Management Unit objectives (as described in the FMPs), would further guide the appropriate management response. • Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, would be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Areas where wildland fire use is appropriate and not appropriate are identified in Table 2.1 and Section 2.2.3. The FMPs would provide further operational guidance for wildland fire use. • To reduce risks and to restore ecosystems, the following fuels management tools would be allowed throughout Utah: wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and mechanical, chemical, seeding, and biological actions. As conditions allow, the BLM would employ the least intrusive method over more intrusive methods. For example, wildland fire use is the preferred method of treatment. Where wildland fire use is not feasible, prescribed burning would be the preferred method. Where prescribed burning is not feasible, non-fire fuel treatments would become the preferred method of treatment. • Work with partners in the WUI in wildland firefighting, hazardous fuels reduction, cooperative fire prevention education and technical assistance. Unauthorized wildland fire ignitions would be prevented through coordination with partners and affected groups and individuals. The full range of prevention and mitigation activities would be used: personal contacts, mass media, education programs and signage. • The following Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) actions (following wildfire suppression) and restoration for planned actions may be utilized to reduce potential for soil erosion and invasive species spread: seeding or planting native and/or non-native species; applying approved herbicides; implementing soil stabilization measures (e.g., stabilization structures, mulches); protecting cultural resources; repairing or replacing facilities; fencing, herding or removing livestock and/or horses; and resting allotments. Specific actions could include brush/tree chopping; contour tree felling; silt catchments; waddles, straw or fabric silt traps; mulching; drill seeding; aerial seeding; aerial seeding followed by mechanical seed covering (chaining, harrowing or other mechanical means); planting seedlings; fence construction or rebuilding; road/trail maintenance or closures; cattle guards; road culvert installation or cleaning; water bars; sign installation and maintenance; herbicidal or mechanical weed treatments; weather station installation and maintenance; repairing or rebuilding of minor facilities (cross fencing, wildlife structures, recreational facilities). All ESR actions would be conducted following BLM’s ESR Handbook. • Monitoring actions would be undertaken to determine results from fire management decisions and actions. Monitoring results would be used in determining the need for further LUP amendment or revisions.

2.2.2.2 DWFC and Management Actions by Vegetation Group The DWFC are ecosystems that are at low risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire. Outside of the WUI, the DWFC is based on the historic conditions (as supported by science and generally agreed upon by BLM resource specialists) with the assumption that those conditions are achievable, sustainable and desirable. Inside the WUI, the DWFC is based on reducing fire risk to communities.

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-4

FRCC is a description of vegetation conditions based on the change from natural fire regime and includes effects of fire suppression (fuel loading and encroachment) and invasive species. FRCC 1 is within its historical range for fire regime and vegetation attributes. FRCC 2 is moderately altered from its historical range for fire regime and vegetation attributes and FRCC 3 is substantially altered from its historical range and vegetation attributes. More information on these descriptions can be found in Appendix D. The DWFC is described by major vegetation group in Table 2.1, based on GAP Analysis (Edwards et al. 1998), information in Fire Effects Information System (2004), other publications as noted and input from an interdisciplinary team that included expertise in range ecology, botany, wildlife, fisheries, hydrology and fire ecology. This table also describes actions that are needed and authorized to meet the DWFC. For further discussion and explanation of fire management decisions and characterizations, refer to Appendix D. Chapter 3 provides more information on the fire ecology and vegetation characteristics for each major vegetation group. Table 2.1 specifically addresses actions that result in progress toward achieving DWFC. The actions are described in terms of wildland fire, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments, and post-fire response (including ESR).

Table 2.1 DWFC by Major Vegetation Group and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC

Major Vegetation Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC (% in Planning Area) Salt Desert Scrub The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is native, open salt desert scrub (29 %) vegetation with little to no invasive species cover. Fire would be mostly excluded from these vegetation types. Due to the historical lack of surface fuels, the historical fire return interval is extremely infrequent (FEIS 2004). • Due to the historical lack of fire and current potential for cheatgrass invasion, do not allow wildland fire to burn into salt desert scrub vegetation types. Wildland fire is not desired due to high potential for cheatgrass invasion following wildfire and loss of native salt desert scrub communities. • Treat salt desert scrub types using a combination of mechanical, chemical, seeding and biological treatments to reduce cheatgrass cover and restore native communities. Prescribed fire may be used in conjunction with seeding when part of a cheatgrass control objective (Pellant 2002). Due to the high incidence of cheatgrass in this vegetation type, consider seeding following any surface-disturbing activity. • Following wildland fire, aggressively seed to reduce potential for cheatgrass and other noxious weed invasion. Pinyon and Juniper Where pinyon and juniper occurred historically, the DWFC both outside and Woodland inside the WUI, is open stands of pinyon and juniper with native grass and shrub (26 %) understory (Miller and Wigand 1994, FEIS 2004). Where pinyon and juniper did not occur historically, the DWFC is the native shrub, grass and forest communities that the pinyon and juniper have invaded. The historical role of fire (estimated 15–50 year fire return interval) prevented encroachment of pinyon and juniper into other vegetation communities (Heyerdahl et al. 2004, Miller and Tausch 2001, Bradley et al. 1992, Romme et al. 2002). Most pinyon and juniper encroachment has occurred in the past 100 years (Miller and Wigand 1994). Follow treatments with seeding in stands that lack native understory vegetation (FEIS 2004). Avoid treatments in old-growth (i.e., pre-settlement stands) pinyon and juniper. Historical occurrence of pinyon and juniper is difficult to map, but pre-settlement trees are generally located in shallow, rocky soils and tend to have a unique growth form characterized by rounded, spreading canopies; large basal branches; large irregular trunks; and furrowed fibrous bark (Miller and Rose

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-5

Major Vegetation Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC (% in Planning Area) 1999). Historic fire return intervals in these protected sites are greater than 100 years (Romme et al. 2002). • When possible, allow wildland fire to play its natural role that mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity in stands that have some cover of native understory vegetation. Due to the high risk of losing key ecosystem components in stands with extremely depauperate native understory, avoid wildland fires in these areas. Prescribed fires should be applied to pinyon and juniper communities when native surface fuels will carry fire and when there is low risk of invasive species. • Prescribed fire should be used to approximate historical fire return intervals and promote recovery of the pre-settlement vegetation cover types. Remove most young (<100 years old) pinyon and juniper trees through fire or mechanical treatments (Brockway et al. 2002). In the WUI, construct fuel breaks between BLM and private land or other values at risk. • Following wildfire in areas lacking native understory, aggressively seed to reduce invasive species establishment and to restore native communities. Sagebrush The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is healthy sagebrush defined as (18 %) diverse age classes with an understory of native grasses and forbs (Paige and Ritter 1999). Research suggests that stand-replacement fires burned every 7–110 years depending on the particular sagebrush species and its associated habitat (Miller 2002, Brown 2000, FEIS 2004). Fire management actions in sagebrush must be carefully balanced between invasive species concerns, wildlife habitat and the need to restore fire. • When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity in lands that have a low potential for cheatgrass invasion. Areas with low potential for cheatgrass invasion include higher elevation sites and/or sites that have very low incidence of cheatgrass pre-fire. • Treat dense sagebrush (>30%) (Winward 1991) with fire, mechanical, seeding or chemical treatments to reduce sagebrush canopy cover and improve native grass and forb density and cover; an additional objective in treating sagebrush is to remove encroaching pinyon and juniper trees (Miller and Tausch 2001). In the WUI, construct fuel breaks between BLM and private land (or other values at risk) in dense stands of sagebrush. • Following wildfire in lands lacking native understory vegetation, aggressively seed to promote native understory grasses and forbs and reduce invasion of cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Consider including sagebrush in seeding mixes or planting sagebrush seedlings in high-value wildlife areas following large, high-severity wildfires when natural seed sources would be lacking. Grassland Where native grasslands occurred historically, the DWFC outside and inside the (12 %) WUI is native grass and forb communities. Native grasslands have been lost to pinyon and juniper encroachment, cheatgrass invasion and non-native plant seedings (e.g., crested wheatgrass, perennial ryegrass, etc.). Where non-native grasslands occur, the DWFC is the restoration of the native grassland or shrub community. The historical role of fire in Utah’s grasslands was similar to pinyon and juniper and sagebrush community types with fires every 15–50 years (Paysen et al. 2000). • When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-6

Major Vegetation Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC (% in Planning Area) historical fire-return interval and severity. • Treat native grasslands with fire, mechanical or chemical treatments to reduce encroaching trees (mainly juniper), shrubs and invasive plants. Fire treatments alone should be avoided where there is potential for cheatgrass invasion (areas below 7000 feet that have adjacent cheatgrass populations) (Pellant 2002). In the WUI, consider green stripping between BLM and private lands and other values at risk (Harrison et al. 2002). • Following wildfire in lands lacking native grasses, aggressively seed to reduce potential for cheatgrass and other invasive weeds. Blackbrush The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is composed of dense-to- (6 %) scattered shrubs and dense-to-open native grasses. Evidence suggests Utah’s blackbrush communities fail to re-establish following fire (FEIS 2004). • Wildland fire should be avoided in blackbrush communities due to invasive species concerns, historical lack of fire and poor regeneration of blackbrush following fire (Callison et al. 1985). • There is little research on non-fire treatments in blackbrush. Any treatments should be of relatively small size and closely monitored. In the WUI, consider fuels breaks between dense blackbrush stands on BLM land and private land. • Following wildfire, aggressively seed to reduce potential for invasion of cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Mountain Shrub The DWFC outside of the WUI is stands with patches of differing age classes. In (2 %) the WUI, the DWFC is greatly reduced vegetation density or a conversion to less-flammable vegetation, between BLM and private lands or other values at risk. • When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity. • Treat large expanses of even-aged, dense, homogenous stands to result in patches of diverse age classes [see Rondeau (2001) for patch size guidance]. To achieve greater habitat diversity and decreased potential for large-scale high-severity fire, reduce invasion of pinyon and juniper and reduce the average age of stands through fire, mechanical or biological (i.e., grazing goats) treatments. In the WUI, consider aggressive vegetation manipulation to create fire breaks in highly flammable shrub types (e.g., Gambel’s oak) when there are values at risk. • Since most of these species sprout following wildfire, consider seeding only to reduce potential for invasive weeds. Mixed Conifer The DWFC outside the WUI is landscapes with a mosaic of age classes (Arno (<1 %) 2000). In the WUI, the DWFC is reduced canopy density and reduced ladder fuels between BLM and private lands and other values at risk. • When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity in stands with low to moderate fuel loading. In dense stands with high fuel loading, consider mechanical treatments prior to re-introducing fire. • Treat areas to result in a landscape of diverse age classes while retaining patches of large old trees. In the WUI, remove ladder fuels and create shaded fuel breaks between BLM and private land when values are at risk. • Consider tree planting following wildland fire to restore or rehabilitate the forest resource to promote forest regeneration. Ponderosa Pine The DWFC, both outside and in the WUI, is open stands with a native grass and (<1 %) forb understory.

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-7

Major Vegetation Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC (% in Planning Area) • When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity. Restore fire (natural or prescribed fire) to stands with open to moderately-dense canopies and with native understory. • Consider mechanical treatments in dense stands until they reach a lower FRCC before restoring fire. Reduce juniper encroachment through fire (preferred when fuels conditions allow) or mechanical treatments. In the WUI, remove ladder fuels and create fuel breaks between BLM and private land and other values at risk. • Following wildfires, consider seeding to reduce invasive weeds and planting ponderosa pine seedlings for forest restoration and rehabilitation. Creosote Bursage The DWFC is for fire to be mostly excluded from these vegetation types. (<1 %) Historically, fire seldom to rarely occurs due to the lack of surface fuels in these communities (FEIS 2004). • Do not allow fire to burn into these vegetation types since fire rarely occurred and the potential for cheatgrass invasion is high. • Treat creosote and bursage types using mechanical, chemical or biological treatments to reduce annual grass cover. • Following wildfire, aggressively seed to reduce potential for annual grasses and other invasive weeds. Riparian Wetland The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, are riparian and wetland areas (<1 %) with the appropriate composition of native species (e.g., reduction of tamarisk and other invasive species). • When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, mimicking the historical fire-return interval and intensity. Allow low to moderate severity fire to burn into riparian and wetland areas when natural ignitions are managed as wildland fire use. • Restore native riparian and wetland species through fire and mechanical treatments. Reduce flammable invasive species along riparian corridors (e.g., tamarisk) through mechanical, chemical, biological and fire treatments. For prescribed fire, allow low intensity fire to back into riparian and wetland areas through ignition outside of these areas. Mechanical treatment as the initial treatment would be emphasized where there is a moderate to high potential for riparian and wetland to be burned to a high severity. • Consider active restoration options when native riparian and wetland communities are unlikely to recover with passive restoration (due to invasive species, stream bank erosion, etc). Aspen The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is healthy clones with diverse age (<1 %) classes represented and ample regeneration. • When possible, allow fire to play its natural role that mimics the historical fire-return interval and severity since aspen readily sprouts following fire. • Treat aspen stands with fire or mechanical treatments to reduce encroaching junipers and conifers and to stimulate sprouting. If treated aspen stands are small, consider excluding big game and livestock until the regeneration can withstand grazing. In the WUI, consider increasing aspen cover if possible to create a shaded fuel break between private land (and other high value areas) and the more flammable conifer trees on BLM land. • Following wildfire, most aspen stands would need little stabilization,

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-8

Major Vegetation Group DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC (% in Planning Area) except soil stabilization on steep slopes. However, burned areas may need to be fenced to exclude wildlife and livestock until the regeneration can withstand grazing. GAP data was developed for use at the statewide and regional level, and has limitations when used at smaller scales. A limitation of using GAP data to describe actual vegetation conditions is that it only maps the existing vegetation, not the reference condition or potential vegetation. Across Utah, major vegetation community type changes have occurred in grasslands, salt desert scrub, sagebrush and pinyon and juniper woodland (FEIS 2004, Kay 2003, Kay 2002). GAP data does not portray these vegetation community changes; it only portrays existing vegetation as a snapshot in time. In order to accurately map FRCC, there must be a detailed knowledge of historical vegetation composition and structure, and disturbance. Unfortunately, that detailed information is lacking across much of the state. It is assumed, due to the prevalence of invasive species, long-term losses of native vegetation, repeat photography, known missed fire return intervals and persistent drought, that most of Utah’s BLM lands are characterized as FRCC 2 and FRCC 3. Section 3.3 discusses FRCC in further detail. One major vegetation group not characterized by GAP vegetation community types is cheatgrass. Although cheatgrass areas in Utah are not mapped, it is accepted that cheatgrass covers large areas of BLM lands in Utah (Menakis et al. 2003). The cheatgrass vegetation type mostly occurs in lower elevations (<6,500 feet). The major vegetation types that have been displaced by cheatgrass are salt desert scrub, sagebrush and grasslands. Where cheatgrass has invaded, the DWFC is to control cheatgrass and take actions to restore the native vegetation community that has been invaded. Fires in cheatgrass-invaded areas or areas with high potential for invasion should be aggressively suppressed and aggressively rehabilitated following wildfire. Wildland fire use would not be appropriate in cheatgrass- invaded sites or in areas with high potential for invasion because of the lack of ability to properly rehabilitate. Costs associated with seeding are not funded by the BLM following wildland fire use. 2.2.3 Proposed Action: Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, would be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. However, due to resource conditions and proximity to values at risk, fire cannot be allowed to resume its natural role on all BLM lands across the state. The DWFC is that as lands are transitioned from a higher FRCC to a lower FRCC, the applicability of wildland fire use would increase. Therefore, fire managers would periodically assess FRCC following changes in vegetation due to management actions and natural changes. This alternative authorizes wildland fire use as a tool, when appropriate, to reach the DWFC. Wildland fire use would be an appropriate management response to naturally-ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives in predefined designated areas. Operational management of wildland fire use is described in the Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP). This alternative attempts to generally clarify the types of areas that are not suitable for wildland fire use, while leaving other areas open for possible wildland fire use. Though specific areas for wildland fire use would be identified in the FMPs, wildland fire use may be authorized for all areas, except when the following resources and values may be negatively impacted and there are no reasonable Resource Protection Measures to protect such resources and values: • WUI areas • Areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or invasive weed invasion • Important terrestrial and aquatic habitats • Non-fire adapted vegetation communities

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-9

• Sensitive cultural resources • Areas of soil with high or very high erosion hazard

• Class I areas and PM10 non-attainment areas • Administrative sites • Developed recreation sites • Communication sites • Oil, gas and mining facilities • Above-ground utility corridors • High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, railroads and/or highways The appropriate management response for areas containing these resources or values may be wildland fire use, but Resource Protection Measures would be necessary to protect these values if they are threatened. Additional protection actions may include employing strategies and tactics to avoid these values (e.g., using fire retardant to reduce fire spread in certain areas). In fire situations where these resources or values would not be impacted, wildland fire use may still not be employed due to other parameters (weather, personnel availability, etc.). In these situations, the appropriate management response—from aggressive initial action to monitoring—would be used. The DWFC would be to restore fire to ecosystems when feasible; therefore, fuel treatments should focus on protecting the resources and values listed above so future wildland fire use actions could be more easily implemented across the state. Current BLM regulations do not allow for funding of emergency stabilization or rehabilitation actions following wildland fire use. Utah BLM land managers often prefer to evaluate a fire after it occurs to determine if there is a need for any post-fire rehabilitation or stabilization. The inability to rehabilitate or stabilize burned areas following wildland fire use restricts some acres from being considered by BLM managers for wildland fire use. 2.2.4 Proposed Action: Maximum Burned Areas and Treated Areas for Analysis Table 2.2 identifies the maximum burned acres and treated acres that are identified as part of the Proposed Action for analysis purposes. These approximate figures are developed as the most likely, desired action scenario to be used in the analysis for this proposed amendment. It should be noted that BLM managers would use the figures as broad guidelines in developing their FMPs. These numbers would not be assumed to be quotas, targets or exact limitations. These figures should not limit site- specific implementation of fire management actions, including wildland fire use opportunities. If it is determined through implementation monitoring that these numbers are grossly under- or over- represented, this may trigger the need to reassess the effects to resources. In the event funding regulations change to allow funding of emergency rehabilitation and stabilization actions following wildland fire use, it is likely that wildland fire use acres would increase across the state. The BLM cannot accurately predict wildland fire acres (or resultant post-fire stabilization and rehabilitation acres). It is possible that wildland fire acres would exceed the acres identified for analysis. If this is the case, it is highly probable that the emergency stabilization and rehabilitation acres would also be exceeded. In the event wildland fire acres greatly exceed the acres identified in this plan, the BLM is authorized to implement appropriate emergency stabilization and rehabilitation to areas that would exceed acreage identified. Acres burned in wildland fire use would also be highly variable, but would not be expected to greatly exceed acres identified in this alternative due to the regulations prohibiting emergency stabilization and rehabilitation following wildland fire use. However, the BLM can more accurately predict prescribed fire

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-10

and non-fire fuel treatments acres. Prescribed fire and non-fire treatment acre estimates reflect funding and personnel that are similar to funding and staffing levels from 2000 to 2004. Table 2.2 was derived from discussions with local BLM Field Office personnel on how much treatment could be accomplished based on the condition of the existing vegetation, expected budget allocations, expected personnel capabilities, risk of using certain treatments, policy and guidance direction and social acceptability of treatments. Wildland fire figures were based on recent fire history (<10 years), which is much higher than fire occurrences and associated acres that burned more than 20 years ago. The limitation of applying this approach to determine acres is that it does not take into full consideration the acreage that should be treated to adequately restore and/or maintain ecosystems. Due to severely altered vegetation conditions, potential for aggressive non-native species invasion, fragmented land ownership, and air quality concerns, it is not possible to treat as many acres as were burned historically. Table 2.2 15-Year Cumulative Maximum Burned and Treated Acres (for Analysis Purposes) Associated with the Proposed Action

Land Use Plan Emergency Wildland Wildland Prescribed Non-Fire (BLM Acres) Stabilization Fire Fire Use Fire Treatment By Field Office and Rehabilitation Salt Lake Field Office: Box Elder RMP 100,000 0 6,000 14,000 100,000 (1,072,469 acres) Iso-Tract RMP 1,000 0 500 1,000 1,000 (11,917 acres) Park City MFP 100 0 100 100 100 (107 acres) Pony Express RMP 300,000 0 15,000 55,000 300,000 (1,990,419 acres) Randolph MFP 15,000 0 7,000 14,000 15,000 (166,058 acres) Richfield Field Office: Forest MFP 10,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 10,000 (75,320 acres) Henry Mountain MFP 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 (1,426,064 acres) Mountain Valley MFP 90,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 90,000 (431,458 acres) Parker Mountain 30,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 30,000 (155,511 acres) Fillmore Field Office: House Range RMP 100,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 (2,180,378 acres) Warm Springs RMP 100,000 10,000 20,000 10,000 100,000 (2,123,780 acres) Moab Field Office: Grand RMP 100,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 100,000 (1,848,967 acres) Monticello Field Office: San Juan RMP 100,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 100,000 (1,782,113 acres) Kanab Field Office: Escalante MFP 4,000 100 4,000 4,000 4,000

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-11

Land Use Plan Emergency Wildland Wildland Prescribed Non-Fire (BLM Acres) Stabilization Fire Fire Use Fire Treatment By Field Office and Rehabilitation (27,532 acres) Paria MFP 6,000 100 6,000 6,000 6,000 (36,234 acres) Vermilion MFP 4,000 0 15,000 20,000 4,000 (224,235 acres) Zion MFP 25,000 100 25,000 30,000 25,000 (119,792 acres) Cedar City Field Office: Cedar Beaver Garfield 130,000 0 80,000 100,000 130,000 Antimony RMP (1,070,648 acres) Pinyon MFP 85,000 6,000 50,000 35,000 85,000 (1,211,977 acres) St. George Field Office: St. George RMP 50,000 500 30,000 10,000 50,000 (625,385 acres) Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: GSENM MP 160,000 0 160,000 160,000 160,000 (1,862,594 acres)

TOTALS: 1,460,100 172,300 624,100 664,600 1,460,100

The assumptions used in developing the acreage for analysis in Table 2.2 include: • All prescribed fire and non-fire treatment acres would be for a primary purpose of hazardous fuels reduction or community protection from fires. While these acres would likely also accomplish other resource objectives, this plan aims to directly analyze effects only from fire management decisions. • Similar treatments may occur for other programs (e.g., wildlife and range improvements) that would provide secondary benefits for hazardous fuels reduction. These acres are not analyzed in this EA. • Based on fuel treatments practices over the past five years and projected future trends, at least 90 percent of all non-fire treatment acres would be mechanical treatments or seedings. Chemical and biological treatments would comprise less than 10 percent of the acres for non- fire treatments. 2.2.5 Proposed Action: Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities Protection of human life is the primary priority. Setting priorities among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources would be based on human health and safety, the values to be protected, and the costs of protection. Once people have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest values to be protected. Priorities for all aspects of fire management decisions and actions would be based on the following: • Protecting WUI areas (including At-Risk Communities, and At-Risk Watersheds, see glossary) • Maintain existing healthy ecosystems • High priority sub-basin (HUC 4) or watershed (HUC 5) • Special status species

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-12

• Cultural resources and cultural landscapes The BLM Utah State Office developed the Utah Statewide Fire Assessment Project (1998b). The Assessment analyzed actual fire occurrence, population density, and vegetation to determine the risk to a particular location; see Appendix D. This assessment would be used to help prioritize fire management actions within and outside of the WUI. For a description of WUI, At-Risk Communities, and At-Risk Watersheds, see the glossary. 2.2.6 Proposed Action: Resource Protection Measures for Fire Management Practices Resource Protection Measures for fire management practices (wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation) to protect natural or cultural resource values are described in Table 2.3. The fire management practice that they pertain to is indicated in parenthesis after the Resource Protection Measure is stated. Each protection measure has an identifying code noted in the left-hand column. Some of these measures are general and some are specific. This is because some are directly repeated from BLM guidance and policy and therefore have more specificity. Some, on the other hand, are general guidelines that represent good management practices. Where general guidelines are presented, it is understood that there would be more specificity identified at the project design and implementation levels. Table 2.3 Resource Protection Measures (RPM)

Resource Protection Measure (and applicable fire management practices)

RPM Code SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Natural, Biological, and Cultural Resources: Air A-1 Evaluate weather conditions, including wind speed and atmospheric stability, to predict impacts from smoke from prescribed fires and wildland fire use. Coordinate with Utah Department of Environmental Quality for prescribed fires and wildland fire use. (RX, WFU) A-2 When using chemical fuels reduction methods, follow all label requirements for herbicide application. (NF) Soil and Water SW-1 Avoid heavy equipment use on highly erosive soils (soils with low soil loss tolerance), wet or boggy soils and slopes greater than 30%, unless otherwise analyzed and allowed under appropriate NEPA evaluation with implementation of additional erosion control and other soil protection mitigation measures. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) SW-2 There may be situations where high intensity fire will occur on sensitive and erosive soil types during wildland fire, wildland fire use or prescribed fire. If significant areas of soil show evidence of high severity fire, evaluate area for soil erosion potential and downstream values at risk and implement appropriate or necessary soil stabilization actions such as mulching or seeding to avoid excessive wind and water erosion. (SUP, WFU, RX) SW-3 Complete necessary rehabilitation on firelines or other areas of direct soil disturbance, including but not limited to waterbarring firelines, covering and mulching firelines with slash, tilling and/or subsoiling compacted areas, scarification of vehicle tracks, OHV closures, seeding and/or mulching for erosion protection. (SUP, WFU, RX) SW-4 When using mechanical fuels reduction treatments, limit tractor and heavy equipment use to periods of low soil moisture to reduce the risk of soil compaction. If this is not practical, evaluate sites, post treatment and if necessary, implement appropriate remediation, such as subsoiling, as part of the operation. (NF) SW-5 Treatments such as chaining, plowing and roller chopping shall be conducted as much as practical on the contour to reduce soil erosion (BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-13

Resource Protection Measure (and applicable fire management practices)

RPM Code SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Treatment EIS 1991). (NF, ESR) SW-6 When using chemical fuel reduction treatments follow all label directions, additional mitigations identified in project NEPA evaluation and the Approved Pesticide Use Proposal. At a minimum, provide a 100-foot-wide riparian buffer strip for aerial application, 25 feet for vehicle application and 10 feet for hand application. Any deviations must be in accordance with the label. Herbicides would be applied to individual plants within 10 feet of water where application is critical (BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (NF) SW-7 Avoid heavy equipment in riparian or wetland areas. During fire suppression or wildland fire use, consult a resource advisor before using heavy equipment in riparian or wetland areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) SW-8 Limit ignition within native riparian or wetland areas. Allow low-intensity fire to burn into riparian areas. (RX) SW-9 Suppress wildfires consistently with compliance strategies for restoring or maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] waterbodies. Do not use retardant within 300 feet of water bodies. (SUP, WFU) SW-10 Plan and implement projects consistent with compliance strategies for restoring or maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] waterbodies. Planned activities should take into account the potential impacts on water quality, including increased water yields that can threaten fisheries and aquatic habitat; improvements at channel crossings; channel stability; and downstream values. Of special concern are small headwaters of moderate to steep watersheds; erosive or saline soils; multiple channel crossings; at-risk fisheries; and downstream residents. (RX, NF, ESR) Vegetation V-1 When restoring or rehabilitating disturbed rangelands, non-intrusive, nonnative plant species are appropriate for use when native species: (1) are not available; (2) are not economically feasible; (3) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as nonnative species; and/or (4) cannot compete with already established native species (Noxious Weeds Executive Order 13112 2/3/1999; BLM Manual 9015; BLM ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (RX, NF, ESR) V-2 In areas known to have weed infestations, aggressive action should be taken in rehabilitating firelines, seeding and follow-up monitoring and treatment to reduce the spread of noxious weeds. Monitor burned areas and treat as necessary. All seed used would be tested for purity and for noxious weeds. Seed with noxious weeds would be rejected (ROD 13 Western States Vegetation Treatment EIS 1991). (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Special Status Species SSS-1 Initiate emergency Section 7 consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) upon the determination that wildfire suppression may pose a potential threat to any listed threatened or endangered species or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. (SUP) SSS-2 Prior to planned fire management actions, survey for listed threatened and endangered and non-listed sensitive species. Initiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS as necessary if proposed project may affect any listed species. Review appropriate management, conservation and recovery plans and include recovery plan direction into project proposals. For non-listed special status plant and animal species, follow the direction contained in the BLM 6840 Manual. Ensure that any proposed project conserves non-listed sensitive species and their habitats and ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by BLM does not contribute to the need for any species to become listed. (RX, NF, ESR) SSS-3 See site-specific conservation measures that will be identified in the Biological Assessment

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-14

Resource Protection Measure (and applicable fire management practices)

RPM Code SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (BA) (BLM 2005). (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Fish and Wildlife FW-1 Avoid treatments during nesting, fawning, spawning, or other critical periods for wildlife or fish. (RX, NF, ESR) FW-2 Avoid if possible or limit the size of, wildland fires in important wildlife habitats such as, mule deer winter range, riparian and occupied sage grouse habitat. Use resource advisors to help prioritize resources and develop Wildland Fire Situation Analyses (WFSAs) and Wildland Fire Implementation Plans (WFIPs) when important habitats may be impacted. (SUP, WFU) FW-3 Minimize wildfire size and frequency in sagebrush communities where sage grouse habitat objectives will not be met if a fire occurs. Prioritize wildfire suppression in sagebrush habitat with an understory of invasive, annual species. Retain unburned islands and patches of sagebrush unless there are compelling safety, private property and resource protection or control objectives at risk. Minimize burn-out operations (to minimize burned acres) in occupied sage-grouse habitats when there are no threats to human life and/or important resources. (SUP) FW-4 Establish fuel treatment projects at strategic locations to minimize size of wildfires and to limit further loss of sagebrush. Fuel treatments may include greenstripping to help reduce the spread of wildfires into sagebrush communities. (RX, NF) FW-5 Use wildland fire to meet wildlife objectives. Evaluate impacts to sage grouse habitat in areas where wildland fire use for resource benefit may be implemented. (WFU, RX) FW-6 Create small openings in continuous or dense sagebrush (>30% canopy cover) to create a mosaic of multiple-age classes and associated understory diversity across the landscape to benefit sagebrush-dependent species. (WFU, RX, NF) FW-7 On sites that are currently occupied by forests or woodlands, but historically supported sagebrush communities, implement treatments (fire, cutting, chaining, seeding etc.) to re- establish sagebrush communities. (RX, NF) FW-8 Evaluate and monitor burned areas and continue management restrictions until the recovering and/or seeded plant community reflect the desired condition. (SUP, WFU, RX, ESR) FW-9 Utilize the Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program to apply appropriate post-fire treatments within crucial wildlife habitats, including sage grouse habitats. Minimize seeding with non-native species that may create a continuous perennial grass cover and restrict establishment of native vegetation. Seed mixtures should be designed to re-establish important seasonal habitat components for sage grouse. Leks should not be re-seeded with plants that change the vegetation height previously found on the lek. Forbs should be stressed in early and late brood-rearing habitats. In situations of limited funds for ESR actions, prioritize rehabilitation of sage grouse habitats. (ESR) Wild Horses and Burros WHB-1 Avoid fencing that would restrict access to water. (RX, NF, ESR) Cultural Resources CR-1 Cultural resource advisors should be contacted when fires occur in areas containing sensitive cultural resources. (SUP) CR-2 Wildland fire use is discouraged in areas containing sensitive cultural resources. A Programmatic Agreement is being prepared to cover the finding of adverse effects to cultural resources associated with wildland fire use. (WFU) CR-3 Potential impacts of proposed treatment should be evaluated for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Utah Statewide Protocol. This should be conducted prior to the proposed treatment. (RX, NF, ESR)

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-15

Resource Protection Measure (and applicable fire management practices)

RPM Code SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Paleontology P-1 Planned projects should be consistent with BLM Manual and Handbook H-8270-1, Chapter III (A) and III (B) to avoid areas where significant fossils are known or predicted to occur or to provide for other mitigation of possible adverse effects.(RX, NF, ESR) P-2 In the event that paleontological resources are discovered in the course of surface fire management activities, including fires suppression, efforts should be made to protect these resources. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Resource Uses: Forestry F-1 Planned projects should be consistent with HFRA Section 102(e) (2) to maintain or contribute to the restoration of old-growth stands to a pre-fire suppression condition and to retain large trees contributing to old-growth structure. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF) F-2 During planning, evaluate opportunities to utilize forest and woodland products prior to implementing prescribed fire activities. Include opportunities to use forest and woodland product sales to accomplish non-fire fuel treatments. In forest and woodland stands, consider developing silvicultural prescriptions concurrently with fuel treatments prescriptions. (RX, NF) Livestock Grazing LG-1 Coordinate with permittees regarding the requirements for non-use or rest of treated areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) LG-2 Rangelands that have been burned, by wildfire, prescribed fire or wildland fire use, would be ungrazed for a minimum of one complete growing season following the burn. (SUP, WFU, RX) LG-3 Rangelands that have been re-seeded or otherwise treated to alter vegetative composition, chemically or mechanically, would be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons. (RX, NF, ESR) Recreation and Visitor Services Rec-1 Wildland fire suppression efforts would preferentially protect Special Recreation Management Areas and recreation site infrastructure in line with fire management goals and objectives. (SUP) Rec-2 Vehicle tracks created off established routes would be obliterated after fire management actions in order to reduce unauthorized OHV travel. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Lands and Realty LR-1 Fire management practices would be designed to avoid or otherwise ensure the protection of authorized rights-of-way and other facilities located on the public lands, including coordination with holders of major rights-of-way systems within rights-of-way corridors and communication sites. (WFU, RX, NF, ESR) LR-2 Fire management actions must not destroy, deface, change or remove to another place any monument or witness tree of the Public Land Survey System. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Hazardous Waste HW-1 Recognize hazardous wastes and move fire personnel to a safe distance from dumped chemicals, unexploded ordnance, drug labs, wire burn sites or any other hazardous wastes. Immediately notify BLM Field Office hazmat coordinator or state hazmat coordinator upon discovery of any hazardous materials, following the BLM hazardous materials contingency plan. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) Mineral Resources M-1 A safety buffer should be maintained between fire management activities and at-risk facilities. (SUP, WFU, RX)

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-16

Resource Protection Measure (and applicable fire management practices)

RPM Code SUP: Wildfire suppression WFU: Wildland fire use for resource benefit RX: Prescribed Fire NF: Non-fire fuel treatments ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Special Designations: Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) Wild-1 The use of earth-moving equipment must be authorized by the field office manager. (SUP, WFU, RX, ESR) Wild-2 Fire management actions would rely on the most effective methods of suppression that are least damaging to wilderness values, other resources and the environment, while requiring the least expenditure of public funds.(SUP, WFU) Wild-3 A resource advisor should be consulted when fire occurs in Wilderness and WSA. (SUP, WFU)

2.3 ALTERNATIVE B: NO ACTION The No Action Alternative consists of the existing fire management direction contained within each of the 21 LUPs (as amended). The 21 LUPs and amendments range in age from 27 years to 5 years (see Table 1.2). These plans mandate a wide range of fire management direction. The older the plan, the more likely it is to have full fire suppression goals. Regardless of age, the implied or stated rationale for full fire suppression in each plan is to protect human life, property and resource values. In every plan, the constraint has been to control costs associated with the pursuit of fire management goals. Table 1.2 in contains a description of the plans with specific fire management direction. Of the 21 LUPs that make up Alternative B, 14 of the plans (administered by the Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Cedar City and St. George Field Offices and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument), contain specific goals, objectives and management actions pertaining to fire management. Five of the LUPs administered by the Salt Lake Field Office were amended in 1998 by the Salt Lake District BLM Proposed FMP Amendment UT-020-98-08, to reflect goals, objectives and management actions within the FMP developed for that region. A summary of existing direction within these 14 LUPs is included as Appendix B. The remaining seven plans either do not state goals, objectives and directions specifically related to fire management or describe fire within other resource management needs. The discussion of fire as a management action for other resource management needs is focused on prioritization of fire as a tool to manage vegetation for rangeland management (Paria MFP, Vermilion MFP); consolidated lands treatment (Paria MFP); the preservation of wildlife values and habitat (Paria MFP, Escalante MFP); and soil loss and watershed health (Paria MFP, Vermilion MFP). Fire management actions associated with use of fire to meet a variety of resource goals and objectives were noted and summarized in Appendix B. A number of the LUPs recognize that some resource values can best be protected by allowing wildfires to burn. As a result, they call for implementation-level fire management direction that would identify the systems that need fire; discuss fuels management and other vegetation improvement policies; and list prioritized constraints. However, limited suppression policies have not been formally implemented through a LUP revision or other NEPA process. The most current LUPs have provisions for prescribed burning, but the other plans fail to mention prescribed burns or mention it using vague language that contained no definable objectives or implementation strategies. If the No Action Alternative were selected, then the 21 LUPs would not be amended and the existing fire direction would continue as described in Appendix B. The plans vary greatly and a wide-range of fire management goals and decisions would continue to exist. None of the plans address wildland fire

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-17

use in restoring ecosystems. DWFC would not be defined, creating inconsistencies across Utah. Hazardous fuels reduction would be a limited part of BLM direction for Utah. 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS Two additional fire management alternatives—the Historical Fire Alternative and the Non-Fire Treatment Alternative—were considered, but eliminated from formal analysis because they did not meet policy guidelines or they were not ecologically or fiscally practical. The two dismissed alternatives are described below. 2.4.1 Historical Fire Alternative An additional fire management alternative was considered, but eliminated from formal analysis because it would not be ecologically or fiscally feasible. This alternative could be considered the Historical Fire Alternative as it sets treatment targets that mimic acres burned historically, while considering the restoration of natural fire regime. These acres were determined from simple vegetation and fire return interval analysis described in Appendix D. The primary differences between this Alternative and Alternative A, is related to differences in treatment acres and differences in treatment types to achieve DWFC. This alternative would include larger treatment acres and treatments would be limited to fire treatments. Table 2.4 summarizes the treatment acres that were considered for this alternative. These acre figures are generally much larger (in most cases, at least double) than what is described in fire treatment associated with Alternative A. Because the BLM manages scattered parcels of land in many areas, allowing fires to burn at this acreage would increase risk to private and state lands. The basis for which this alternative was developed—restoration of natural fire regime—fails in that natural conditions no longer occur as a result of past management practices coupled with ecosystem alterations resulting from settlement. While it is known that there have been significant vegetation alterations since historical times, the extent or severity of most of these alterations remains uncertain. As a result of ecosystem change, passive restoration techniques, such as restoring naturally occurring fires to the land, would not have the same benefit to ecosystems as in the past. For example, invasive species concerns affect large portions of Utah. Without active restoration techniques, such as seeding, fires burning in these areas dramatically increase the risk of establishment of these invasive species. Establishment of these invasive species often results in the permanent loss of historical ecosystem components. Additionally, this alternative is unlikely to be funded to the extent necessary. Despite increases in fire management funding over the past five years, current and expected budgets for implementing fire management actions do not provide the necessary resources for accomplishing the identified treatment acres. Table 2.4 Historical Acres Burned

Historical Target Acres Burned Land Use Plan (15-yr cumulative) Salt Lake Field Office: Box Elder RMP 205,860 Iso-Tract Management Framework Plan* N/A* Park City MFP 30 Pony Express RMP 453,405 Randolph MFP 69,345 Richfield Field Office: Forest MFP 28,035 Henry Mountain MFP 341,325 Mountain Valley MFP 164,565 Parker Mountain MFP 54,420

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-18

Historical Target Acres Burned Land Use Plan (15-yr cumulative) Fillmore Field Office: House Range RMP 536,880 Warm Springs RMP 529,140 Moab Field Office: Grand RMP 499,320 Monticello Field Office: San Juan RMP 550,260 Kanab Field Office: Escalante MFP 11,235 Paria MFP 9,900 Vermilion MFP 78,585 Zion MFP 47,085 Cedar City Field Office: Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP 406,065 Pinyon MFP 475,380 St. George Field Office: St. George RMP 144,825 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) Field Office: GSENM MP 589,005 TOTALS 5,194,665 * No figures were determined for Iso-Tract due to its small and disjointed planning area. 2.4.2 Non-Fire Treatment Alternative The Federal Wildland Fire Policy (1995, 2001) directs that fire be restored as a natural part of the ecosystem. Another alternative considered would have prioritized non-fire fuel treatments above other types of treatments. However, this alternative did not meet the Purpose and Need of the amendment and was therefore dropped from further analysis because it would not restore fire as an ecological process.

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-19

September 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives 2-20

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter includes a description of the environment and resources with potential to be affected by the Alternatives described in Chapter 2. It provides the environmental resource baseline information for comparing potential impacts from the Proposed and Alternative Actions, which are analyzed in Chapter 4. The resource elements used to describe the affected environment, as presented in this section, were identified as appropriate for this specific EA following interdisciplinary team review of the scope, issues and assessment procedures necessary to ensure accurate and comprehensive scientific analysis (BLM Utah NEPA Guidebook 2004). Resources that were identified and carried forward for analysis in this planning effort and those dismissed from further analysis, are also addressed in Appendix A. The following resources were determined to not be affected by the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives: wild horses and burros, paleontology, cave and karst resources, comprehensive trails and travel management, lands and realty, coal and oil shale, fluid minerals, locatable/mineral material/non- energy leasable minerals. No further analysis of these resources will be included in this EA. The CEQ guides federal regulations to reduce paperwork by incorporating by reference when appropriate. Therefore, the affected environment sections of the LUPs to be amended, along with any supplements or documents tiered to them, are incorporated by reference into this document. Those LUPs are listed by name and completion date in Table 1.2 in Chapter 1. 3.2 GENERAL SETTING Four of the major physiographic provinces of the western United States extend into the Utah planning area. These provinces include the Basin and Range, Rocky Mountain, Colorado Plateau and a small portion of the Snake River-Columbia Plateau province (Greer et al. 1981). Elevations in the planning area range from 2,350 to 13,528 feet above mean sea level. Most of the planning area is located between 2,500 to 7,500 feet above sea level. Climatic regions throughout Utah can be classified under four climate types—desert, steppe, humid continental-hot summer and undifferentiated highlands. Each has distinct weather patterns, temperatures and precipitation patterns (Pope and Brough 1996). Elevation, latitude, distance from principal moisture sources (Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico), location with respect to storm paths over the intermountain region and proximity to western mountain ranges help create the varied climate types (Garwood 1996). Precipitation varies from an average of less than five inches per year (Great Salt Lake Desert) to more than 60 inches per year (northern Wasatch Mountains). The average annual precipitation in the major agricultural areas of the state ranges between 10 to 16 inches (Pope and Brough 1996). The planning area is comprised of approximately 19 million acres of public lands in Utah (Table 1.1). The planning area represents approximately 35 percent of all lands in Utah and 82 percent of BLM- administered land in Utah. 3.3 FIRE ECOLOGY The way fire relates to vegetation is important because of the many ways it influences other resources. More than 80 percent of the vegetation resources on BLM-administered lands in Utah are dominated by salt desert scrub, sagebrush, grasslands, pinyon and juniper woodland, blackbrush and some of the most important fire-related ecological issues center on these communities. Two of the largest issues are loss of shrubland and grassland communities to juniper encroachment and expansion of invasive plant species such as cheatgrass. Historically, fire has played an essential role in the landscape by regenerating and maintaining a diverse mosaic of healthy ecosystems in riparian areas, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. However,

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-1

over the past century, fire ecology and the dynamics of successional processes have been altered. This has resulted in the simplification of vegetation mosaics, both on a community and landscape level. The historic fire regimes in Utah varied in frequency and severity depending on vegetation type, climate and topography. Frequent fire return intervals created fire-adapted vegetation communities such as grasslands, sagebrush and ponderosa pine. However, for other vegetation communities, frequent wildfire was not part of their ecology because the return intervals were hundreds of years (Paysen et al. 2000). In these communities, the spatial distance between shrubs was too great to carry fire until plant growth filled enough inter-shrub spaces to carry it. Salt desert scrub, blackbrush and creosote and bursage are examples of native plant communities with longer fire return intervals. Wildfire occurrence drastically decreased in Utah as settlers began to suppress fires and use the land in new ways. The exclusion of fire as a dominant ecological factor, in combination with other land management practices, has caused changes in the composition and structure of vegetation communities. For example, a change in the historic fire regime (e.g., longer fire return intervals) is likely responsible for the dramatic expansion of juniper into former sagebrush and grasslands types (Miller and Wigand 1994). Non-native invasive species have become well established in the Intermountain West. Expansion of non- native species, such as cheatgrass, has greatly altered the fire ecology of certain low-elevation vegetation communities and, in some areas, threatens to convert large areas of native vegetation to near monocultures of cheatgrass-dominated annual grasslands. Cheatgrass grows and cures early in the season and provides a fine fuel that remains flammable for longer periods compared to native vegetation. There were a total of 5,195 wildfires on BLM-administered lands within the Utah planning area between 1983 and 2003, approximately 80 percent of which were caused by lightning. Approximately 76 percent of these fires were less than five acres in size and approximately 67 percent were less than one acre in size. The largest fire (185,000 acres) during this time frame was in 1983. Even considering that figure, approximately 70 percent of the 10 largest fires have occurred between 1993 and 2003. Considerable resources are required to protect humans, as well as natural and cultural resources, from the harmful effects of fire. Increased fuel loading due to fire suppression, greatly affects wildfire severity and intensity. Various fuel treatments, including prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, seeding and biological treatments can be used to improve vegetation conditions by controlling woody plant invasion and the buildup of fuels. After implementation of these fuels reduction treatments, proper rehabilitation is often essential to deter the establishment of weeds and to reduce soil erosion. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels and disturbance regimes. Assessing FRCC can help guide management objectives and set priorities for treatments. FRCC was assigned to vegetation on public lands within the state through review of cover types identified by Utah GAP Analysis (Edwards et al. 1996) and elevation ranges. Definitions and descriptions of Fire Regimes and Fire Regime Condition Classes can be found in Appendix D. The resulting acreages are presented in Table 3.1. Many BLM Field Offices have completed more thorough FRCC assessments on a smaller scale using local resource knowledge and data. Field Office FRCC assessments would become part of future FMPs and implementation measures associated with fire planning.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-2

Table 3.1 Approximate FRCC Acres for BLM Land in Planning Area*

FRCC Description Acres Within the natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation 1 characteristics; fuels composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and 40,000 other associated disturbances. Moderate departure from the natural (historical) range of variability of 2 vegetation characteristics; fuels composition; fire frequency, severity and 3,100,000 pattern; and other associated disturbances. High departure from the natural (historical) range of variability of 3 vegetation characteristics; fuels composition; fire frequency, severity and 14,000,000 pattern; and other associated disturbances. * Approximately 1,000,000 acres are considered historically non-vegetated and have no FRCC assigned.

3.4 CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS 3.4.1 Air An activity that impacts air quality has the potential to also affect the air quality of the airshed where the activity is conducted. The potential exists for those impacts to extend to other airsheds as well. “Airshed” is defined as a geographic area, usually with distinct topographic features such as a valley, associated with a given air supply. Sixteen airsheds have been identified within Utah. In many cases, airsheds are shared with adjacent states. The EPA air quality permitting system suggests that the analysis of air impacts should consider all areas within 100 kilometers (62.1 miles) of proposed projects within a planning area that may affect air quality (EPA 1992). To be consistent with this directive, the area of consideration for air quality impacts includes airsheds over lands within the planning area as well as lands within a 100-kilometer radius of the state of Utah. 3.4.1.1 Air Quality Standards Air quality within the planning area is governed by federal laws, which the state of Utah has been given authority from EPA to administer. The framework for the Utah Air Quality Program is based on the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, as amended. Air quality within Utah is regulated by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) within the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). Administrative rules governing air quality are found in the Utah Administrative Code R307, including emissions standards for general burning (R307-202); smoke management (R307-204); fugitive emissions and fugitive dust (R307-205); and requirements for specific locations such as Salt Lake, Utah, Weber and Davis Counties (R307-300 Series). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are defined in the CAA as levels of pollutants high enough to have detrimental effects on human health and welfare. The EPA established NAAQs for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and categories of particulate matter; fine particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). When criteria pollutant levels exceed ambient air quality standards, the area may be designated as a non-attainment area (NAA). It is possible for a geographic area to be an attainment area for one criteria pollutant and a non-attainment area for another. If an area falls into a non-attainment status, the State is required to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to describe how the area will be brought into attainment status. A SIP has been developed by the UDAQ for NAAs within Utah (UDAQ 2004a) and promulgated in UAC R307-110 (by reference).

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-3

Another provision of the CAA is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration. There are different permissible increments for criteria pollutant emissions for different areas (termed “Classes”). Class I areas in the planning area include: • National wilderness areas that exceed 5,000 acres • National parks that exceed 6,000 acres Class I areas are the most protected, having the least allowable degradation of air quality. In addition, 1999 amendments set forth a national goal for visibility. The rule, referred to as the Regional Haze Rule, calls for states to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in all mandatory Class I area national parks and wilderness areas. Utah's Regional Haze SIP has been adopted as Section Twenty of the State's existing SIP and is promulgated in UAC 307-110-28 (UDAQ 2004b). In cooperation with other federal land managers, states and tribes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (April 1998). One of the goals of the Policy is to allow fire to function as a disturbance process on federally managed wildlands while protecting public health and welfare. Smoke emissions resulting from prescribed burning projects or wildland fire use within the planning area are managed in compliance with guidelines found in the Utah Smoke Management Plan (SMP) and the interagency group program. Active group participants include various federal and state agency land managers, as well as the UDAQ. The purpose of this program and the SMP is to ensure that mitigation measures are taken to reduce the impacts on public health, safety and visibility from prescribed fire and wildland fire used for resource benefits. Utah submitted the SMP to the EPA in 1999 and received certification for the plan under the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (Utah Interagency Smoke Management 2004). Compliance with the SMP is the primary mechanism for land managers to implement prescribed burns and wildland fire use while ensuring compliance with the CAA. Burn plans written under this program include actions to minimize fire emissions, exposure reduction procedures, a smoke dispersion evaluation and an air quality monitoring plan. Proposed burns are reviewed on a daily basis by the program coordinator and burns are approved or denied based on current climatic and air quality conditions. 3.4.1.2 Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas Six NAAs (and their associated NAA criteria) have been designated within Utah: • Salt Lake County PM10 • Utah County PM10 • Salt Lake County SO2 • Ogden PM10 • East Tooele County SO2 • Provo/Orem CO In addition, the Portneuf Valley and Fort Hall PM10 NAAs located in southeastern Idaho, and the Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada CO, ozone, and PM10 NAAs are within the 100 kilometer area of consideration. Several places within the planning area that were previously designated as NAAs have been re- designated as maintenance (or attainment) areas. These areas include the Davis and Salt Lake County O3 maintenance areas and the Ogden City and Salt Lake City CO maintenance areas.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-4

As noted in the previous section, a SIP has been developed to address the designated NAAs within the state. Where a NAA has been re-designated a maintenance area, the corresponding SIP section is revised as a maintenance plan to ensure that air quality will remain in compliance for at least 20 years. 3.4.1.3 Sensitive Areas Areas that have been identified as sensitive to air quality include locations such as NAAQs non- attainment areas, Class I areas, hospitals, airports, major transportation corridors, and population centers. There are five mandatory Class I areas currently designated within Utah (EPA 2002). These include Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park and Capitol Reef National Park. There are also portions of two mandatory Class I areas identified within the hundred kilometer area of consideration. These include Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. All other parts of Utah are considered Class II areas. There are several major transportation corridors that run through Utah and the area of consideration. They include U.S. Interstate 15, U.S. Interstate 70, U.S. Interstate 80, U.S. Interstate 84 and U.S. highways. Numerous airports are located throughout Utah and the surrounding area of consideration. The largest airports are Salt Lake City International Airport and Hill Air Force Base. There are also numerous hospitals and medical centers within the planning area, generally located in larger population centers. Local community events and national holidays should also be considered during planning of prescribed fire activities due to public sensitivity, as well as air quality impacts due to regularly occurring community events (such as fireworks). 3.4.2 Soil and Water 3.4.2.1 Soils Soils on BLM-administered lands have developed from bedrock, rocks, and minerals deposited by rivers and glacial activity, windblown silt and sand. They are derived primarily from the sedimentary, metamorphic and volcanic rocks of the mountain ranges and highlands. The weathered substrate from these source materials has chemical and physical characteristics that favor certain vegetation types and combined with climatic influences, it can provide a specific habitat niche for rare plant species. Soil source materials or substrates found in the planning area fall into the following types: alluvium, calcareous, clay, conglomerate, dolomitic, duff, granitic, gravelly loam, gypsiferous, igneous, limestone, loam, quartzite, sandstone, sandy and shale. The magnitude of erosion/sedimentation; types and amounts of clay minerals and organic matter strongly influence the ability of soils to capture nutrients released through burning. Soils located on the eastern Great Basin were also formed by old lakebed and shoreline deposits from Lake Bonneville. The lakebed deposits consisted of clay, silt, and some sand and gravel. A great portion of the “West Desert” mountains include the shoreline of prehistoric Lake Bonneville and include playa deposits of saline evaporates and mud flat or dune deposits. The presence of biological crusts in arid and semi-arid lands influences the soil environment by reducing soil erosion (from both wind and water), fixing atmospheric nitrogen, retaining soil moisture and providing living organic surface mulch. This crust consists of a variety of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi and other bacteria (Belnap et. al. 2001). A crust’s development is strongly influenced by soil texture, soil chemistry and successional colonization by crustal organisms. The type and abundance of biological crusts can be used to determine the ecological history and condition of a site. In some ecosystems, such as those characterized by highly erosive marine sediments and little vegetative cover, physical crusts such as vesicular chemical crusts and desert pavement can also provide protection from wind erosion.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-5

EROSION AND RUN-OFF Factors determining erosion potential include slope, soil type and vegetative cover; areas with steep slopes, low infiltration rates and minimal vegetative cover have the highest erosion hazard. Certain geological formations, such as the Mancos-shale, tend to form soils that are highly erosive. The hazard for soil erosion by water and wind is rated in the County level soil surveys conducted by the National Resource Conservation Services (http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/State.aspx?State=UT). Many soils throughout Utah have features that make reclamation and revegetation difficult. These limiting features involve salinity, sodium content, clayey and sandy textures, drought conditions, alkalinity, low organic matter content, shallow depth to bedrock, stones and cobbles, and high wind erosion potential. SOIL QUALITY AND HEALTH The capacity of a soil to sustain plant and animal productivity is related to its inherent physical, biological and chemical properties as well as its current health or condition. There are three key attributes of soil health, each with measurable indicators to help determine the status or health of a site. Site stability relates to the ability of the soil to resist erosion (and loss of nutrients) by wind and water. Hydrologic function is the capacity of the site to capture, store and safely release water from rainfall and snowmelt. Biotic integrity is the capacity of a site to support both functional and structural plant, animal and soil biological communities within the range of variability for that site (BLM Technical Reference 1734-6 2000). Information regarding soil quality is generally obtained from Rangeland Health Assessments, Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation and Restoration Assessments, watershed assessments/analyses, and similar field assessments or historical records of disturbance in proposed project areas. This type of data is not compiled or available at a statewide level. These assessments are generally conducted during project planning and used to develop appropriate mitigations, rehabilitation, and other soil protection measures. 3.4.2.2 Water SURFACE WATER Surface water systems vary throughout Utah due to climate, geology, topography and human activities. Utah’s surface water resources include 14,250 miles of rivers and streams and nearly 3000 lakes and reservoirs (UDEQ 2002). The major watersheds in the state are the Colorado and Green Rivers, which drain the eastern extent of the state; the Great Salt Lake drainage in the northern portion of the state; and several smaller drainages that drain the central portions of Utah into internal closed basins (Sevier River and Cedar/Beaver River) (UDEQ 2004). The BLM manages a substantial amount of land throughout all of these watersheds. Many areas within the watersheds—including riparian, wetland and floodplain zones—are sensitive to vegetation and soil disturbances associated with fire and fire management efforts. Approximately 49 percent (8.2 million acres) of the total lands in the Colorado/Green River watershed is administered by BLM. Subdrainage systems include the Virgin, San Juan, Price and Duschene Rivers. Most of the water supply to this watershed comes from snowmelt during the spring and early summer months and precipitation from high-intensity convective storms throughout the spring, summer and fall. There are also many ephemeral drainages throughout the watershed that flow intermittently during the year. The primary water use in the watershed is agricultural with increasing amounts being used to supply the growing residential water demands in the state. Approximately 31 percent (5.4 million acres) of the total lands in the Great Salt Lake Basin watershed is administered by BLM. The primary rivers through this watershed include the Bear, Provo, Weber and Jordan. Most of the water supply in these streams comes from snowmelt in the Wasatch Mountains in

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-6

the spring and early summer. Many ephemeral streams occur in this dry region and tend to flow intermittently following large-scale precipitation events. The water in the watershed is used for municipal, industrial, agricultural and recreational purposes. Approximately 42 percent (3 million acres) of the total lands in the Sevier River watershed and 54 percent (1.9 million acres) of the total lands in the Cedar/Beaver Rivers watershed are administered by BLM. Most of the surface water runoff comes from snowmelt during the spring and early summer months. Tributary streams peak at different times depending on the watershed aspect, elevation and configuration. The Sevier River’s water resources are heavily used for irrigation. The Beaver River and its tributaries provide most of the water in the Cedar/Beaver River watershed. Most of the surface water runoff comes from snowmelt during the months of April, May and June. Many normally dry drainages experience high-volume, short-duration flood flows produced by high intensity convective storms throughout the spring, summer and fall. The primary use of water is for irrigation. GROUNDWATER Most of the groundwater that is suitable for irrigation, public supply or industrial use comes from the north-south central corridor through the state (Burden et al. 2003). These primary recharge areas generally occur along mountain fronts where basin-fill materials erode from mountain bedrock (Baskin et al. 2002). Groundwater accumulates in these areas and flows downstream. Further away from the mountain fronts, groundwater discharge areas occur where groundwater collects (e.g., to form playas) or flows to surface water bodies. Groundwater recharge areas are vulnerable to surface sources of pollution because groundwater movement is typically pulled downward by gravity and primary recharge areas do not have protective, fine-grained layers that serve to filter out the pollutants. In addition, groundwater is naturally sensitive to total dissolved solids in certain bedrock types. Additional factors that contribute to total dissolved solids in groundwater include burned areas and areas with irrigation return flow. Burned areas are more susceptible to erosion, delivering minerals to recharge areas. Irrigation return flow is concentrated through evaporative losses, leading to higher salinity concentrations. WATER QUALITY Water within Utah is used for domestic, recreational (including primary contact—e.g. swimming and secondary contact—e.g., boating), aesthetic and agricultural reasons. It also is habitat for aquatic and water-oriented wildlife and fish. In Utah, approximately 73 percent of streams (by mileage) and 69 percent of lakes (by acreage) fully support beneficial uses; 15 percent of streams and 31 percent of lakes partially support beneficial uses; and 12 percent of streams and less than one percent of lakes do not support at least one beneficial use (UDEQ 2002). Several streams in Utah have been identified as “water quality impaired,” as defined in the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). The major causes of water quality impairment in streams are habitat alterations caused by and in addition to, heightened levels of total dissolved solids, nutrients and sediment. The sources of these impairments come predominantly from agriculture (e.g., grazing, irrigation); natural stockpiles (e.g., bedrock); on-the-ground hydrological modification (e.g., resource extraction and road construction); and point-source discharges. The major causes of water quality impairment in lakes and reservoirs are siltation; high levels of nutrients, suspended solids and organic matter; low levels of dissolved oxygen; and encroachment of noxious aquatic plants. Sources of these impairments include agricultural practices, industrial and municipal point discharges and hydrological modification (UDEQ 2002). Groundwater quality is classified by the Utah Water Quality Board based primarily on the total amount of dissolved solids in the water: the lower the total dissolved solids, the higher the water quality. Groundwater quality classifications are used to protect higher quality water through more stringent land use planning. Accordingly, when a stream is listed as impaired, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-7

dissolved solids in the water must be identified and documented for surrounding watersheds. TMDLs include point and non-point sources (UDEQ 2004b). 3.4.3 Vegetation Table 3.2 shows 11 native vegetation cover types on BLM-administered land in Utah as summarized from GAP analysis. An additional vegetation type is dominated by cheatgrass: a non-native invasive species. As elevation increases, vegetation types transition from range communities dominated by grasslands and shrublands to pinyon and juniper woodland, mountain brush and aspen at mid-elevations and conifer forests at upper elevations. Riparian types bisect the otherwise arid landscape, typically occurring as narrow stringer communities along the various watercourses throughout Utah. The cheatgrass-dominated community generally occurs at lower elevation areas (<6,500 feet). The geographic areas where the vegetation cover types occur are represented on Figure 3.1. Wildfire in many of Utah’s vegetation communities was a regular occurrence that helped define species composition, structure and productivity (Bradley et al. 1992, Paysen et al. 2000). As such, many plants that make up these communities are adapted to withstand wildfire. Grasslands, sagebrush, mountain shrub, aspen and mixed conifer forests are examples of fire-adapted communities in Utah. In contrast, frequent wildfire is not part of the normal ecology of other vegetation communities with long fire return intervals such as salt desert scrub and blackbrush which typically are not dominated by fire adapted species (Paysen et al. 2000). Fire in these communities is generally viewed as detrimental because plant succession may require decades to centuries for the vegetation to recover; some species may never recuperate. The widespread presence of invasive non-native species has greatly altered the resource character and values across the landscape and may pose an even greater threat in the future. Historic post-fire recovery processes may no longer dominate the recovery and regeneration process due to introduced species. Cheatgrass and some of the knapweeds are known to alter (shorten) fire return intervals and may dramatically expand their range and coverage after fires. Degraded communities may facilitate expansion of invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass), have lower biological resource values and pose increased fire hazards.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-8

Table 3.2 Consolidated Vegetation Types

% Historic Planning % Total Vegetation Utah GAP Analysis Vegetation Cover Expanse in FRCC and Acreage Area Planning Type and Fire Regime** Planning by Category** Acres Area Area* FRCC 1- 0 Salt Desert Scrub (V) Salt Desert 5,357,816 29 30-35 FRCC 2- 0 Scrub Greasewood (V) FRCC3-5,357,816 Pinyon and Pinyon and Juniper (II) FRCC 1- 0 Juniper Pinyon (II) 4,730,737 26 <5 FRCC 2- 946,147 Woodland Juniper (II) FRCC3-3,784,590 FRCC 1- 0 Sagebrush (II, III) 3,261,414 18 20-30 FRCC 2- 489,212 Sagebrush Sagebrush-Perennial Grass (II, III) FRCC 3- 2,772,202 Grassland (I) FRCC 1- 447 Alpine (V) 2,235,522 12 10-20 FRCC 2- 189,349 Grassland Dry Meadow (I) FRCC 3- 2,045,726 Desert Grassland (I) FRCC 1- 0 Blackbrush Blackbrush (V) 1,045,622 6 5-10 FRCC 2- 1,045,622 FRCC 3- 0 Mountain Shrub (II) FRCC 1- 0 Mountain Mahogany (IV) 370,680 2 1-5 FRCC 2- 311,371 Mountain Shrub Oak (I) FRCC 3- 59,309 Maple (II) Spruce Fir (IV) Mountain Fir (IV) FRCC 1- 23,656 Mixed Conifer Spruce Fir-Mountain Shrub (III) 98,568 1 <1 FRCC 2- 74,912 Mountain Fir-Mountain Shrub (III) FRCC 3- 0 Aspen-Conifer (IV) FRCC 1- 0 Ponderosa Pine (I) 81,402 <1 <1 FRCC 2- 0 Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa Pine-Mtn Shrub (I) FRCC 3- 81,402 Mountain Riparian (IV) FRCC 1- 705 Riparian and Lowland Riparian (IV) 70,492 <1 <1 FRCC 2- 11,279 Wet Meadow (I) Wetland FRCC 3- 58,508 Wetland (not assigned) FRCC 1- 0 Creosote and Creosote and Bursage (V) 58,078 <1 <1 FRCC 2- 58,078 Bursage FRCC 3- 0 FRCC 1- 0 Aspen Aspen (IV) 22,802 <1 <1 FRCC 2- 22,802 FRCC 3- 0 *Estimated by local botanist, subject to review and revision. **Estimated by coarse-scale analysis. See Section 2.2.2 and Appendix D for more explanation.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-9

3.4.3.1 Vegetation Types Below are descriptions of vegetation types. See Appendix D for further Fire Regime and FRCC analysis. Included is a discussion of cheatgrass. Salt Desert Scrub Salt desert scrub is perhaps the most arid vegetation type in the Intermountain West occurring at the low elevations valley bottoms (Knight 1994, Wood and Brotherson 1986). This cover type occurs in areas characterized by accumulations of salt in poorly developed soils and is the most abundant vegetation type covering about 29 percent of BLM land in the planning area. Historically, salt desert scrub likely covered more acres, but in the past 40 years, large expanses have been overtaken by invasive annual grasslands and annual forbs (cheatgrass and halogeton). Salt desert scrub is characterized by salt tolerant succulent shrubs including greasewood, ephedra, shadscale, four-wing saltbush and threadleaf rubber rabbitbrush. Common grasses include inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton, bottlebrush, squirreltail and Indian ricegrass. Biological crusts are usually present and cover most of the interspaces between shrubs in intact, native species-dominated salt-desert scrub types. The invasive species cheatgrass, halogeton, tall peppergrass, Russian thistle and Russian knapweed can be found either scattered throughout or dominated within salt desert scrub, which generally has low productivity, naturally sparse understory vegetation and light fuels. Fire Ecology Fire frequency has been estimated at 35 to more than 300 years for the salt desert scrub vegetation type (FEIS 2004) and is classified as Fire Regime V. Due to the risk of losing key ecosystem components and greatly increased fire regimes as invasive annual grasses dominate, salt desert scrub is typically classified as FRCC 3. A lack of continuous cover (fuels) made fire rare to non-existent in salt desert scrub communities. Historically, these types did not burn often enough or in large enough patches to support dominance of fire-adapted plants. Most salt desert scrub species do not readily regenerate following fire. At present, cheatgrass has invaded large portions of Utah’s salt desert scrub types and now provides sufficient fuel loading to support large, fast moving fires in this type. Where cheatgrass has invaded, native salt desert scrub communities have been permanently lost or are at high risk of loss. Further expansion of invasive species (cheatgrass, tall peppergrass and Russian knapweed) following fire is a major concern for salt desert scrub communities. Pinyon and Juniper Woodland The relatively vast area (26 percent of total BLM-administered lands in the planning area) covered by this vegetation type is in part due historic land use practices including fire suppression and climatic change. It is estimated that pinyon and juniper woodland have increased ten-fold over the past 130 years throughout the Intermountain West (Miller and Tausch 2001). Many areas where juniper encroachment has occurred have also been invaded by cheatgrass in the understory, which raises concerns of further cheatgrass expansion following fire. Old-growth pinyon and juniper woodland is estimated to be less than ten percent of the current area classified as pinyon and juniper woodland (Miller and Tausch 2001). These old-growth areas are often restricted to fire-safe habitats (e.g., steep, dissected and rocky terrain and in thin substrates along ridges). Old-growth pinyon and juniper can be characterized by rounded, spreading canopies; large basal branches; large, irregular trunks; and furrowed, fibrous bark (Miller and Rose 1999). Fire frequency has been estimated at 200 to more than 300 years for old-growth pinyon and juniper (Romme et al. 2002, Goodrich and Barber 1999) and would be classified as Fire Regime V. Pinyon and juniper woodlands are characterized by trees that are less than 33 feet tall. They can comprise a closed or an open woodland. This is the most extensive forest type in Utah exceeding, in acreage, all other forests combined (Lanner 1984). On lower edges of the woodland zone, Utah juniper is frequently the only tree species. Colorado pinyon occurs in most of the state except in western Utah, where it is replaced with single-leafed pinyon (Pinus monophylla). Utah juniper is the more xeric of the

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-10

Figure 3.1 Statewide Vegetation Utah GAP Analysis

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-11

two, often serving as nurse trees for pinyon in well-developed forests. The undergrowth is variable and dependent upon canopy closure, soil texture, elevation and aspect (Welsh et al. 1993). Junipers are considered climax species for a number of pinyon and juniper, sagebrush steppe and shrub steppe habitats. Because it is resistant to wood-rotting fungi, Utah juniper has been and still is, used to make “cedar” posts. Pinyon and juniper may also be used as firewood and, to some extent, Christmas trees. Fire Ecology Most of the area where pinyon and juniper woodland currently dominates was historically characterized by fires burning every 15 to 50 years (Kitchen 2004, Miller and Tausch 2001); this would characterize the Fire Regime as II. These areas in Utah are typically described by FRCC 2 (>7,000 feet) or 3 (<7,000 feet). Areas of FRCC 3 are characterized by dense stands of pinyon and juniper, scarce understory and high potential for cheatgrass invasion following fire. FRCC 2 has areas of encroached pinyon and juniper woodland, but less dense than FRCC 3 and are at less risk of cheatgrass invasion following fire. Fire was the major historical cause of mortality for young juniper trees. However, adult juniper trees in mature stands are difficult to burn since the understory is usually sparse. Pure juniper stands need 35 mph winds or greater to carry wind through the canopy (Vegetation Types of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 1991). It is generally agreed that fire was the most important natural disturbance that impacted the distribution of juniper and pinyon and juniper woodland before the introduction of livestock in the 19th century (Miller and Rose 1999). Burkhardt and Tisdale (1976; USDA 2002b) concluded that fire frequencies of 30 to 40 years would help keep juniper from expanding into mountain big sagebrush communities. Sagebrush Sagebrush cover types comprise 18 percent of vegetation BLM land in the planning area. During pre-settlement times, it is estimated that sagebrush dominated as much as 30 percent of the land now administered by the Utah BLM. In the past one hundred years, the extent of sagebrush has been greatly reduced due to conversion to irrigated agriculture (private lands), livestock grazing, cheatgrass conversion, juniper encroachment and the deliberate eradication of sagebrush for range improvement. Recent drought conditions have also contributed to dramatic reductions of sagebrush cover across portions of the state. When cheatgrass is dominant in the understory, drought may convert these stands to an annual grassland type. Since seral diversity applies to sagebrush, a considerable portion of the acreage listed under perennial grasslands (native) and areas with recent sagebrush seedings may be considered as representing the early seral component of sagebrush communities. In addition, at the scale of mapping for this EA, many areas identified as annual and perennial grasslands, or pinyon-juniper may contain inclusions of sagebrush steppe communities. Healthy sagebrush is a patchwork mosaic of seral communities that could range from recovering perennial grass-shrublands following natural fire, to old growth, decadent sagebrush steppe with high canopy cover and reduced herbaceous understory (Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee 2002). The three main subspecies of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) are as follows: Low to mid elevations (generally found at <6,500 feet elevation; approximately 85 percent of Utah sagebrush cover is found at low to mid elevations): • Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis). This subspecies grows in pinyon and juniper and below on plains and foothills at elevations of 5,000 to 7,000 feet. Wyoming big sagebrush often grows on drier sites adjacent to valley bottoms that support basin big sagebrush. Because it is such an extensive, variable ecosystem in western United States, Wyoming big sagebrush is considered a keystone species with a diverse number of species that either directly or indirectly depends on it. This includes: fungi, lichens, insects, reptiles, birds,

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-12

mammals and saprophytic vascular plants. • Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata). This subspecies grows with Wyoming big sagebrush in valley bottoms, dry plains and hills at elevations of 4,000 to 7,300 feet in elevation. Basin big sagebrush grows taller (up to six feet) and blooms later than Wyoming big sagebrush. Basin big sagebrush constitutes most of Utah’s sagebrush and grows in deep, well-drained sandy to loamy soils. With the advent of irrigation much of its habitat has been lost to agriculture or is located on private lands. In areas that receive no supplemental irrigation (e.g., rangelands), much of the sagebrush habitat type has been converted to a seeded graminoid type. Many of these grass species are non-native, such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) which out- compete native bunchgrasses such as blue-bunch (Agropyron spicatum). Other non-native graminoid species such as smooth brome (Bromus inerme) exhibit alleopathic properties (Sindelar 2004). On the upper end of the 10 to 16 inches of precipitation belt with cooler temperatures, Basin big sagebrush have more intact native communities (characterized by bunchgrasses {Agropyron spp} and diverse perennial forbs) and appear to be more resilient to annual grasses. On the lower end of the 10 to 16 inches of precipitation belt, characterized by warmer soils, much of the Basin big sagebrush communities have degraded with extensive conversion to cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) dominated understories. Mid to high elevation (generally found at >6,500 feet elevation; approximately 15 percent of Utah sagebrush cover is found at mid to high elevations): • Mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana). This subspecies grows in pinyon and juniper woodland and above, on foothills and mountain sides at elevations of 5,100 to 10,200 feet in the 14- to 20-inch precipitation zones, with cooler soils and more resilient, intact native communities than low elevation sagebrush. They are more susceptible to juniper encroachment mainly as a result of fire suppression. Depending on the soil type and depth, a variety of perennial grasses and forbs may dominate the understory. Moisture and temperature keep all three subspecies from moving within their range. Studies show that the maximum canopy cover for sagebrush is 30 percent (Winward 1997). In the absence of fire, sage canopy cover increases. Besides canopy cover, age class is important for wildlife. Studies show a mosaic of sagebrush age classes is preferable over a stand of sagebrush with the same age-class for wildlife. Because sagebrush is a relatively short-lived species, in the absence of fire there is no recruitment of younger individuals, consequently the stand has the tendency to become old and decadent. Fire Ecology Fire frequency varies for the different sagebrush species and subspecies, but is considered to be between 10 and 110 years depending on precipitation, elevation, sagebrush species and associated vegetation. Although sagebrush does not re-sprout with fire, it is a prolific seeder and studies show that sagebrush seed have higher germination rates in burned soil (FEIS 2004). Pre-settlement, stand-replacing fire frequencies for low-elevation sagebrush are estimated to vary from 7 to 110 years (Whisenant 1990; Peters and Bunting 1994; Miller et al. 2001, FEIS 2004). For mountain big sagebrush, pre-settlement stand replacing fire frequencies have been estimated to vary between 10 and 25 years (Houston 1973; Harniss and Murray 1973). Sagebrush is characterized by Fire Regimes II and III; it is considered to be generally in a FRCC 2 if it is above 6,500 feet and FRCC 3 below 6,500 feet because of high risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire due to cheatgrass invasion. The cold-desert climate, with cold, wet-to-dry winters and springs and dry, hot summers predispose sagebrush communities to an evolutionary history with recurring fire. The interval between fires must have been sufficiently long for big sagebrush, which does not re-sprout and re-colonizes from seeds, to regain dominance; otherwise, the extensive areas characterized as sagebrush steppe would have become dominated by root-sprouters such as the rabbitbrushes or horsebrush (Wright et al. 1979).

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-13

Most sagebrush species do not sprout after fire and most plants are killed by low- to high-severity fires. This is true of all three subspecies of big sagebrush common throughout Utah. Generally, the herbaceous understory composition does not determine the intensity and severity of wildland fires— sagebrush itself is the primary fire carrier. The high canopy cover associated with late, mature sagebrush stands likely facilitated historic stand-replacing fires. However, the pre-fire understory is an important determinant of post-fire response. A sagebrush stand with a robust understory of native grasses and forbs would generally be replaced after fire with native perennial grassland. Degraded sagebrush stands with poorly evolved native understories are most vulnerable to colonization by invasive species after fire (USDA 2002a, USDA 2002b, USDA 2002e). As sagebrush seeds generally are not transported far from the parent (e.g., <30 meters), unburned areas within large burn areas are often the most important source of seed material for natural recruitment and re-establishment of sagebrush (USDA 2002e). Also, studies show that burned soil and sagebrush seed have higher germination rates. Although sagebrush does not re-sprout with fire, it is a prolific seeder and if a seed source is present, re-establishment is quite rapid and dominance will occur within 20 years (Winward 1997). Grasslands According to GAP analysis, grasslands cover 12 percent of BLM land in the planning area. Grasslands types include: native perennial grasslands, seedings of native species and exotic perennial grasses (primarily crested wheatgrass) and some cheatgrass. Because it plays a major role in Utah’s grassland ecology, cheatgrass is discussed in this section. Crested wheatgrass dominated grasslands are the deliberate result of historic range improvement projects and post-fire seedings. Other perennial grasslands have expanded due to the eradication of shrubs, especially sagebrush species or due to wildland fires burning on rangelands where cheatgrass did not invade or does not dominate. Native perennial grasslands are an intermediate successional stage that would eventually return to a diverse sagebrush steppe habitat if allowed to recover for extended periods (20 to 70 years) without impacts from wildland fires. Native perennial grass species include: blue-bunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, Sandberg bluegrass, Nevada bluegrass, thickspike wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, galleta grass, blue grama, needle-and-thread grass, basin wildrye, sheep fescue and others. Due to increased fire intervals and subsequent loss of topsoil, perennial grasslands dominated by crested wheatgrass and/or other non-native species are stable communities that do not trend toward recovery to sagebrush steppe habitat as quickly as native perennial grasslands. Historically, native perennial grasslands would have formed part of the seral mosaic of the sagebrush steppe habitat, although it is unclear how widespread they once may have been represented across the landscape. Perennial grasslands dominated by cheatgrass do not typically revert to the native community with passive restoration. Fire Ecology Since native grasslands are often seral to sagebrush, fire regimes are similar—Fire Regime II. Perennial grasses respond vigorously to fires of various severities by re-sprouting from basal growing points following fire. The primary determinant of fire response in native perennial grasslands is fire residence time. Fast, high-intensity fires have a short residence time and seldom cause substantial mortality to native perennial bunchgrasses. Slow backing fires have a longer residence time and greater severity; mortality to native perennial bunchgrasses may be high under these conditions. With most natural ignitions, the predominant fire spread would be as a fast moving head fire. Cheatgrass Introduced from Eurasia in the late 1800s (FEIS 2004), cheatgrass is an opportunistic winter annual that germinates between autumn and spring when temperatures and soil moisture are suitable. Warm season grasses such as galleta grass, blue gamma grass and sand dropseed become dormant through winter and are slower to develop in the spring. Native grasses are not dormant in the winter; most of them will become green again in the fall and retain greenness throughout the winter. Growth of native grasses, however, is suppressed until temperatures are warm enough in the spring for the plants to grow. Cheatgrass may be present in relatively undisturbed plant communities, but usually

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-14

becomes dominant on disturbed sites (Fielding and Brusven 2000). Although it does occur, cheatgrass has been less successful in dominating sites that are above 7,000 feet. This process of shrub loss and conversion to annual grasslands is a key management problem that affects nearly every use of public rangelands. The lack of shrub cover makes for poor-quality wildlife habitat, so annual grasslands have diminished plant and animal diversity. Cheatgrass is also inferior livestock forage. Using the most current provisional data (REGAP 2004), invasive annual grasses including cheatgrass are the predominant cover type on 362,764 acres of BLM-administered land. Invasive annual grasses occur primarily in the northwestern and central portions of Utah. They have replaced primarily sagebrush communities and grasslands. Efforts have been made to re-convert some cheatgrass cover to perennial grasses. A primary strategy during the last 40 years has been to plant crested wheatgrass because it is relatively easy to establish and seems to be able to compete with cheatgrass (Fielding and Brusven 2000). Historically post-fire seedings were established as monocultures of crested wheatgrass. In the more recent past (10-20 years) seeding mixes have included a mix of non-native seed and current trends favor the use of native seed mixes that include grasses, forbs and shrubs. The criteria for determining when cheatgrass becomes an invasive concern or a fire concern are not readily assigned. Limbach (2004) has offered unofficial guidance of five percent cover as an invasive concern and 15 to 20 percent cover as a fire and fuels concern (both percentages relative to associated understory species). Degraded sites are most susceptible to annual grass invasion after fire. An abundance of cheatgrass in the understory enhances the likelihood of fire spread and conversion of sagebrush steppe or salt desert scrub to annual grassland (USDA 2002a). Fire Ecology Wherever cheatgrass dominates, the prevailing FRCC is 3 due to the loss of key ecosystem components such as native species. The fire regime of cheatgrass dominated sites is the historical fire regime of that site before it was invaded by cheatgrass. For example, where cheatgrass has invaded a salt desert scrub community, the fire regime would be Fire Regime V. The establishment of cheatgrass in a wildland community fosters much more frequent fire return intervals by extending the time during which the community is susceptible to wildland fire ignitions. In the summer, cheatgrass dries out four to six weeks earlier than perennial grasses and forms a fine- textured, highly flammable fuel. The increased frequency of fire on annual grasslands increases the costs of fire suppression (Fielding and Brusven 2000). Once cheatgrass dominates a site, the fire regime is altered to more frequent stand- replacing fires; e.g., the cheatgrass fire regime. Shortened natural and historical fire rotations impact perennial vegetation by killing the tops of the plants and allowing less time and fewer growing seasons between recurrent fires. Cheatgrass seed production can be impacted by prescribed fire when it is applied during the brief period between the purple stage and when the seeds are dropped. Blackbrush Blackbrush communities are restricted to portions of the Colorado Plateau and occupy approximately six percent of Utah BLM lands in the planning area. These types are characterized by widely spaced blackbrush shrubs, with sparse vegetation in the interspace in intact native communities. These communities are often associated with shallow soils or those with hardpans near the surface. Cheatgrass expansion into this vegetation type poses a serious threat by providing a continuous understory of fine fuels and reducing fire return intervals in an otherwise non-fire-adapted community. Wildlife such as deer, elk, desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn, squirrels, rabbits, game and migratory birds, use blackbrush for cover, browse, and seeds. Livestock use is more limited due to its low nutritional value and palatability (Paysen et al. 2000). Fire Ecology Fires in blackbrush were historically infrequent. This ecosystem is at moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components due to fire. It is characterized by Fire Regime V and FRCC 2. Once cheatgrass dominates a blackbrush site, the site would then be FRCC 3. Recent experience on Utah

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-15

BLM land has shown that blackbrush does not respond favorably to fire (Callison et al. 1985). In addition, much of the blackbrush in Utah has suffered substantial dieback due to on-going drought conditions. Burning has promoted succession to grassland by destroying the biological crust that stabilizes the soil. The biological crust provides important soil microflora apparently required for blackbrush survival or re-establishment (Paysen et al. 2000). Frequent large fires can be problematic from a management standpoint because recovery can take more than four decades or, in some cases, there is no recovery (Wright and Bailey 1982, Paysen et al. 2000). Blackbrush is often found in monocultures with few other plants present. Therefore, seedbanks are often deprived of other plant species. Mountain Shrub Mountain shrub occupies about two percent of Utah BLM lands and occurs as a transition vegetation type between sagebrush and conifer types. It is found at moderately high elevations (7,000 to 8,500 feet). Mountain shrub is usually found on north and east slopes that tend to be cooler and moister than south and west aspects. Mountain shrub is a highly diverse community made up in part of Gambel's oak, chokecherry, serviceberry, currant, mountain snowberry, elderberry, bitterbrush and mountain sagebrush. The mountain shrub community, with its high productivity and diverse herbaceous understory, provides important biodiversity, wildlife habitat and protective ground cover. Mountain shrub communities rapidly recycle nutrients into fruits, seeds and juicy leaves providing animals with an abundance of food. With its characteristically high productivity and diverse herbaceous understory, it provides important biodiversity, wildlife habitat and protective ground cover to the ecosystem. Fire Ecology Stand-replacing fire frequency ranges from 25 to 100 years in mountain shrub (Gruell and Loope 1973), though return intervals may vary widely with changes in elevation, aspect, site moisture and the associated forest or woodland type. Mountain shrubs are classified as Fire Regimes I, II and IV depending on the dominant species. FRCCs also vary depending on the dominant species, although most mountain shrub communities are in FRCC 2 due to some missed fire return intervals, moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components and moderately altered vegetation attributes. However, some mountain shrub communities at lower elevations (<6,500 feet) are classified as FRCC 3 due to the high risk of cheatgrass invasion following fire. Most species of mountain shrubs re-sprout following low- to moderate-severity fire. Sprouting mountain shrub communities generally recover following wildland fire and are considered to be fire-tolerant. Mountain sagebrush and bitterbrush do not re-sprout and, depending on the severity of the fire, may be completely removed from a site. Evidence shows that bitterbrush may benefit from low-severity fire (Vegetation Types of the Wasatch/Cache NF 1991). Mixed Conifer Major forest community types of mixed conifer include Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce and sub-alpine fir. These communities occupy less than one percent of the BLM- managed lands in Utah and generally occur at elevations above 7,000 feet. These forest types do, however, have a high value for recreation, aesthetics, special status species habitat and wood product production. Fire Ecology Fire frequencies in mixed conifer range from 100 to 300 years. These forests are characterized by a combination of understory and complete stand-replacement fire regimes (Arno 2000). Mixed conifer is classified as Fire Regime III or IV depending on the elevation and related dominant species. For example, conifer-shrub communities, occurring at lower elevations that have pure conifer stands, would be characterized by Fire Regime III. Due to the longer historic fire return intervals and well-functioning vegetation attributes, mixed conifer is classified as FRCC 1 when associated with Fire Regime IV and FRCC 2 when associated with Fire Regime III. This mixed severity fire regime often results in a mosaic pattern of stand structure and fuels. Past stand burn mosaics tend to increase the probability that subsequent fires will also burn in a mixed pattern (Arno 2000). Dead woody fuels often accumulate on the ground in a haphazard manner; the greatest

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-16

fuel loadings tend to occur on the most productive sites, which are predominantly stand-replacement fire regimes. Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa pine occupies less than one percent of the Utah BLM lands; these lands are mostly located in the southeast quadrant of Utah. Ponderosa pine types are characterized by an open, savannah-like appearance where widely spaced large trees are present with open understories that are periodically cleared by low-severity groundfires. This type has no particular community type, but rather the understory constitutes whatever community is growing nearby. Fire Ecology Fire frequency for ponderosa pine communities ranges from 10 to 40 years with low- to mixed-severity (FEIS 2004) fires. Ponderosa pine forests in Utah are classified as Fire Regime I and FRCC 3. These forests have typically missed between five and ten fire cycles in the years of fire suppression and could be at risk for cheatgrass invasion or crown fire if not properly managed. Otherwise, the associated understory species exclude cheatgrass. Ponderosa pines have thick bark, which protects them from serious damage from surface fires; it is considered the most fire-adapted conifer in the West (Bradley et al. 1992). Riparian and Wetland While riparian areas occupy only a small portion of the overall landscape (<1 percent of the planning area), they provide important fish and wildlife resource values, especially in the arid landscapes that characterize the bulk of BLM-administered land in Utah. Riparian vegetation is typically composed of water dependent communities along both sides of rivers and streams and adjacent to wetlands. Native tree communities may be dominated by Fremont or narrowleaf cottonwoods with understories of shrubs (such as sandbar, whiplash and Booth’s willows) and herbaceous species. Invasive species such as tamarisk, tall whitetop and Russian olive have become well established in the riparian communities and are slowly replacing the native vegetation across much of Utah. Tamarisk is especially problematic as it is much more flammable than the native vegetation that it replaces. Fire Ecology Historically, fire in these riparian communities would have been infrequent and varied from small size, with highly mosaic burn patterns as a result of the higher moisture content generally present in riparian areas and species, to stand-replacing burns likely to have occurred only in extreme drought periods. These riparian communities are in a Fire Regime IV with most areas presently in FRCCs 2 and 3. Lower elevation riparian areas would be in FRCC 3 due to higher incidence and potential of invasive species. Fremont cottonwood communities are characterized by a late seral stage (e.g., all mature to late-mature trees) with little representation of younger age-classes and are not typically fire-adapted. Narrowleaf cottonwood is a somewhat fire-adapted species that may re-sprout from roots, provided the stands are not decadent and occur in areas where the water table remains reasonably high throughout the growing season. The life history and ecology of cottonwoods are intimately tied with flooding, erosion and deposition on the flood plains because the seeds only germinate and establish on bare, moist alluvium. Willow species typically sprout vigorously following a fast-moving fire. Slow moving fires are generally more damaging, presumably due to greater heat transfer to root crowns. Creosote and Bursage Creosote and white bursage comprise less than one percent of the vegetation acreage in Utah and are restricted to the southwest corner of Utah. Historically, creosote was restricted to well-drained knolls and foothills (Paysen et al. 2000). However, between the mid-1800s and early 1900s, creosote bush had encroached into areas dominated by grasslands (Valentine and Gerard 1968). While historic overgrazing and recent drought have contributed to the expansion of creosote (Buffington and Herbel 1965), fire suppression may also have contributed to the expansion. Creosote is unpalatable for livestock and wildlife (Paysen et al. 2000); however, bursage is palatable to herbivores, especially in the spring when new leaders produce tender green growth. Collectively, these species can provide some wildlife cover and forage.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-17

Fire Ecology Creosote and bursage is classified as Fire Regime V and FRCC 2. Fires were typically infrequent due to the lack of understory vegetation necessary to carry a fire. These stands are at moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire due to the long re-establishment timeframes and the potential for annual grass invasion. Aspen Aspen-dominated types occupy less than one percent of the Utah BLM lands. They can be climax or seral to conifer communities (e.g., Douglas-fir) and are found between 6,500 to 10,500 feet. Aspen occurs as pure stands or in association with various conifers such as Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine, white fir, sub-alpine fir and Douglas-fir. Although conifer invasion is a natural pattern in many aspen stands due to long-term fire suppression throughout Utah, it has resulted in an increased representation and dominance by conifer in aspen stands, thus reducing the extent of aspen-dominated stands (Mueggler 1989). Overall wildlife habitat quality has declined, while acreage of decadent stands and the attendant fuel loadings have increased. Fire Ecology Fire frequencies range between 25 to 100 years with mixed severity (Gruell and Loope 1974). Aspen is characterized by Fire Regime IV and FRCC 2. Fire regimes and vegetation structure have been moderately altered from the historical conditions. Pure stands of aspen are particularly susceptible to mortality of above-ground stems from fire of low severity, even though aspen is well adapted to regeneration by sprouting after fire (Jones and DeByle 1985, Mutch 1970). Aspen stands do not easily burn and often act as natural fuelbreaks during wildland fires. Fires in young aspen stands tend to be low-intensity surface fires unless there is a great deal of understory fuel. In older stands, during the warmest and/or driest months of the year, abundant fuels can lead to higher-intensity fires. Decadent aspen stands and other areas with thin, acidic soils may be less vigorous at regenerating via suckering and may tend to support conifers even after fire (USDA 2002i). 3.4.3.2 Noxious Weeds Invasive and noxious weeds are an increasing problem on BLM lands. Invasive and noxious weeds rapidly displace desirable plants that provide habitat for wildlife and food for people and livestock. Some weeds are poisonous to wildlife, livestock and people. Many noxious weeds and invasive species were originally brought inadvertently by European settlers to the United States in grain seed, livestock feed and ship ballasts (Harvey and Ruyle 2002). Weeds slowly spread across the country as different parts were settled. Further accidental introductions have occurred, for example, through contaminated crop seed or livestock forage. They include species such as cheatgrass and halogeton (see “Cheatgrass” above). Some invasive weeds were introduced for specific purposes such as livestock forage, horticultural reasons or soil stabilization and they escaped into natural vegetation communities. Examples include buffelgrass and salt cedar. These invasive and noxious weeds are likely to have spread mainly through cross-country travel (e.g., using off-highway vehicles), hiking and camping activities and through the movement of wildlife and/or livestock. Invasive and noxious weeds may readily establish in highly disturbed areas (e.g., where the cumulative impacts of fire, grazing and recreation activities are compounded). The spread of invasive weeds poses a hazard to vegetation communities on BLM rangelands because weeds are aggressive, broadly adaptive and lack natural predators; they can displace native plants as they compete for space, sunlight, water and nutrients. As such, weeds can cause drastic changes in the composition, structure and productivity of vegetation communities. Also, weeds can alter the mix of native vegetation and reduce ungulate forage quality or be poisonous to livestock. Noxious weeds are listed by state and federal law and are generally considered as negatively impacting agriculture, navigation, fish, wildlife or public health (Howery and Ruyle 2002). Table 3.3 lists weed species that have been officially designated as noxious weeds and published as such for Utah, as per the authority vested in the Commissioner of Agriculture under Section 4-17-3 of the Utah Noxious Weed Act. There are other invasive weeds such as cheatgrass, buffelgrass, red brome and salt cedar that are not listed as noxious, but still can be problematic on Utah rangelands. These plants are considered invasive weeds because they displace and reduce the normal composition and productivity of native

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-18

rangeland vegetation. In addition, they may raise the risk of wildland fire because of increased flammability and biomass accumulation in rangeland vegetation communities. Table 3.3 Utah Regulated and Restricted Noxious Weeds

Species Common Name Agropyron repens Quackgrass Cardaria draba Globed-podded hoary cress (= whitetop) Carduus mutans Musk thistle Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Centaurea repens Russian knapweed Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle Centaurea squarrosa Squarrose knapweed Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge Isatis tinctoria L Dyers woad Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed Lythrum salicaria L Purple loosestrife Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense L (=Sorghum almum) Perennial sorghum Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusahead

Fire Ecology The high growth rate and flammability of weeds tend to increase the risk of wildfire to the vegetation community and structures in the WUI (Arno and Wakimoto 1987). Invasive weeds such as cheatgrass, red brome and buffelgrass can alter fire regimes and cause fire re-occurrence to increase when they outcompete more fire-resistant native vegetation. They also provide flammable fuels between the interspaces among shrubs that allow the fire to carry in an unnatural manner (McAuliffe 1995, Brown 2000). 3.4.4 Special Status Species 3.4.4.1 Species Composition This section addresses special status plant and animal species, which can be broken out into two parts: • ESA-related species—including those listed as endangered, threatened and proposed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), some of which have designated or proposed critical habitat, as well as candidate and petitioned species (Appendix F: ESA- Related Species Found Within the Planning Area). Threatened, endangered and proposed species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Candidate and petitioned species do not receive protection under the ESA; however, because they are given recognition in this document and the associated BA as candidates for federal listing under the ESA and species petitioned for federal listing under the ESA, respectively, they are discussed under the heading related to the ESA.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-19

• BLM-sensitive species—including BLM and UDWR Wildlife Species of Concern, BLM Sensitive Plant Species and species managed through Conservation Agreements in which BLM participates (Appendix G: BLM Sensitive Species Found within the Planning Area). It should be noted that non-plant species on the Utah Sensitive Species List have been adopted as BLM- sensitive species. Several special status species found within the Utah planning area are discussed in the LUPs listed in Chapter 1 and are incorporated here by reference. However, additional species may have been listed or species’ status has changed, since the time the LUPs were written. The most recent and complete list of special status species is considered in this section. Each of these species is listed by common name in Appendix F, followed by scientific name, federal status, associated vegetation community and Field Office(s) with management authority. ESA-Related Species Eighteen endangered, thirteen threatened, five candidate (two of which have been petitioned for listing) and six petitioned species are known to occur on or adjacent to the planning area. These 42 federally listed species can be grouped as follows: seventeen flowering plants, seven birds, six mammals, eight fish, three invertebrates and one reptile. Ten of the 42 federally protected species (one flowering plant, one bird, seven fish and one reptile) have designated critical habitat on BLM-administered lands in Utah. One invertebrate and one bird species have areas proposed for critical habitat designation. These designations and proposals are presented in Table 3.4 below. Of the 42 federally listed species with potentially suitable habitat within the planning area, two were previously considered to have been extirpated from the state: the black-footed ferret (endangered) and California condor (endangered). An experimental, non-essential population [ESA, Section 10(j)] of black- footed ferrets has been established outside of the planning area for this EA, and an experimental, non- essential population of California condors has been re-established in a designated use area covering eight counties in Utah. “Experimental, non-essential populations” of federally listed species are considered by BLM management authorities to be equivalent to a federal listing status of “proposed.” Within the planning area, no wild populations of the black-footed ferret exist, and it is thought to be extirpated. Table 3.4 Federally Listed Species and their Proposed or Designated Critical Habitat

Species Critical Habitat General Location Welsh’s milkweed Designated Southwestern Kane County Southwestern willow flycatcher Proposed Southern Washington County Mexican spotted owl Designated Southern and eastern Utah in 9 counties June sucker Designated Central Utah County Humpback chub Designated Eastern Utah in seven counties Bonytail Designated Eastern Utah Virgin River chub Designated Southern Washington County Woundfin Designated Southern Washington County Colorado pikeminnow Designated Eastern Utah in seven counties Razorback sucker Designated Eastern Utah Kanab ambersnail Proposed Southwestern Kane County Desert tortoise Designated Southern Washington County BLM-Sensitive Species Fifty-six Wildlife Species of Concern, 83 Sensitive Plant Species and 8 Conservation Agreement species are known to occur on or adjacent to the planning area. These 147 BLM-sensitive species can be grouped as follows: 83 flowering plants, 13 birds, 11 mammals, 10 fish, 16 invertebrates, 3 amphibians and 12 reptiles. Most of the BLM-sensitive species are listed in Appendix

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-20

G; two of the Sensitive Plant Species and flowering plants (Goose Creek milk-vetch and Mussentuchit gilia) that are also federally listed, are listed only in Appendix F. 3.4.4.2 Species Habitat Habitats associated with each special status species, and their distribution, are widely variable. Some species are found throughout the planning area while others are endemic to a single location. As noted above, Utah GAP Analysis was used to identify cover types pertaining to this project. Utah GAP Analysis provides an indicator of vegetation coverage and habitat types at the large scale, but is not particularly accurate on the ground for site-specific projects. Consequently, it is possible that the expanse (acreage or boundary) of a cover type could be inaccurate, and that cover types, and species associated with these cover types, may not actually be present at the project-specific level. Cover types identified include salt desert scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, sagebrush, grassland, blackbrush, mountain shrub, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, riparian and wetland, aspen and creosote and bursage. The blackbrush and creosote and bursage cover types have similar dominant species and, therefore, provide similar habitat for the species discussed in this section. Consequently, for the purposes of this and the Fish and Wildlife section, below, the blackbrush and creosote and bursage cover types have been condensed into one general wildlife habitat type hereafter referred to as blackbrush. Vegetation cover types and their prevalence on BLM-administered lands throughout the planning area are identified in Table 3.2 of the Vegetation section, above. Though not described as a vegetation cover, water is valuable wildlife habitat and has the potential to be impacted by the proposed project. The following is a list of special status species (split into federally listed species and BLM-sensitive species, respectively) generally associated with each vegetation community. It should be noted that special status plant species are not necessarily associated with vegetation community types, but are more closely associated with substrate type. Therefore, plant species listed in the vegetation community associations below do not infer an actual association, but rather indicate the vegetation community surrounding each plant species. Appendix G also presents associated substrates for each plant species. SALT DESERT SCRUB ESA-Related Barneby reed-mustard, shrubby reed-mustard, Wright fishhook cactus, Jones cycladenia, Siler pincushion cactus, Winkler cactus, clay reed-mustard, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, last chance townsendia, horseshoe milk-vetch, Graham’s beardtongue, White River beardtongue, Goose Creek milk-vetch, Mussentuchit gilia, California condor. BLM-Sensitive Chatterley's onion, gumbo milk-vetch, Cronquist milk-vetch, Pohl's milk-vetch, pink egg milk-vetch, Peabody's milk-vetch, Cisco milk-vetch, escarpment milk-vetch, current milk-vetch, dunes four-wing saltbush, mound cryptanth, Creutzfeldt-flower, Pipe Springs cryptanth, small spring parsley, Cronquist buckwheat, Big Flattop buckwheat, Ibex buckwheat, bluff buckwheat, Utah spurge, Cataract gilia, Canyonlands lomatium, entrada rushpink, Shultz blazing star, Trotter oreoxis, Tuhy's breadroot, Neese narrowleaf penstemon, Franklin's penstemon, pinyon penstemon, alcove rock daisy, Parry's petalonyx, bluff phacelia, Utah phacelia, Jones indigo-bush, Jones' globemallow, Smoky Mountain globemallow, Jane's globemallow, psoralea globemallow, White River swertia, Kanab thelypody, Sevier townsendia, tropic goldeneye, spotted bat, fringed myotis, kit fox, zebra-tailed lizard, western banded gecko, common chuckwalla, sidewinder, speckled rattlesnake, Mojave rattlesnake, western threadsnake. PINYON AND JUNIPER WOODLAND ESA-Related Shivwitz milk-vetch, Barneby ridge-cress, Kodachrome bladderpod, San Raphael cactus, shrubby reed-mustard, Wright fishhook cactus, Welsh’s milkweed, Jones cycladenia, Maguire daisy, Winkler cactus, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, last chance townsendia, Rabbit Valley gilia, Graham’s

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-21

beardtongue, White River beardtongue, Goose Creek milk-vetch, Mussentuchit gilia, California condor, Mexican spotted owl, Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle. BLM-Sensitive Pink egg milk-vetch, Peabody's milk-vetch, escarpment milk-vetch, basalt milk-vetch, dunes four-wing saltbush, Baird's camissonia, slender camissonia, Gould's camissonia, Ownbey thistle, Pipe Springs cryptanth, small spring parsley, pinnate spring parsley, Kass rockcress, Nevada willowherb, Cronquist buckwheat, Ibex buckwheat, scarlet buckwheat, Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's Ivesia, cliff jamesia, Claron pepperplant, Ostler pepperplant, Canyonlands lomatium, Cutler's lupine, Dolores rushpink, entrada rushpink, Murdock's evening primrose, Trotter oreoxis, Barneby's breadroot, Tuhy's breadroot, Kane breadroot, Neese narrowleaf penstemon, Idaho penstemon, pinyon penstemon, Cronquist's phacelia, Atwood's pretty, Chinle chia, Smoky Mountain globemallow, psoralea globemallow, Bicknell thelesperma, Kanab thelypody, Sevier townsendia, Frisco clover, Lewis’s woodpecker, fringed myotis, Eureka mountainsnail, western banded gecko. SAGEBRUSH ESA-Related Wright fishhook cactus, Welsh’s milk-vetch, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, horseshoe milk- vetch, White River beardtongue, Goose Creek milk-vetch, California condor, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, Gunnison sage grouse, greater sage grouse, black-footed ferret, Utah prairie dog, white- tailed prairie dog, Gunnison prairie dog, pygmy rabbit, Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle. BLM-Sensitive Pohl's milk-vetch, pink egg milk-vetch, slender camissonia, Gould's camissonia, Ownbey thistle, Pipe Springs cryptanth, small spring parsley, Frisco buckwheat, four-petal jamesia, Claron pepperplant, Dolores rushpink, Neese narrowleaf penstemon, Franklin's penstemon, Idaho penstemon, pinyon penstemon, Cronquist's phacelia, Atwood's pretty, Sevier townsendia, ferruginous hawk, dark kangaroo mouse, Eureka mountainsnail, Lyrate mountainsnail, smooth greensnake. GRASSLAND ESA-Related Kodachrome bladderpod, Wright fishhook cactus, clay reed-mustard, Graham’s beardtongue, White River beardtongue, Mussentuchit gilia, black-footed ferret, Utah prairie dog, white- tailed prairie dog, Gunnison prairie dog. BLM-Sensitive Grouse Creek arabis, slender camissonia, Big Flattop buckwheat, Paria iris, Franklin's penstemon, Jones indigo-bush, Jones' globemallow, Smoky Mountain globemallow, grasshopper sparrow, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, sharp-tailed grouse, silky pocket mouse, Mexican vole, Eureka mountainsnail. BLACKBRUSH ESA-Related Dwarf bear-poppy, Shivwitz milk-vetch, Holmgren milk-vetch, Siler pincushion cactus, Mojave desert tortoise. BLM-Sensitive Gumbo milk-vetch, Cronquist milk-vetch, dunes four-wing saltbush, Baird's camissonia, hole-in-the-rock prairieclover, Utah spurge, Dolores rushpink, Parry's petalonyx, Chinle chia, Smoky Mountain globemallow, desert iguana, gila monster, desert night lizard. MOUNTAIN SHRUB ESA-Related Shrubby reed-mustard, Maguire daisy, Rabbit Valley gilia, Mussentuchit gilia. BLM-Sensitive Chatterley's onion, pinnate spring parsley, Kass rockcress, Nevada willowherb, scarlet buckwheat, Deep Creek stickseed, Pine Valley goldenbush, cliff jamesia, four-petal jamesia, Clark's lomatium, sandloving penstemon, pinyon penstemon, Atwood's pretty, House Range primrose, Bicknell thelesperma, black swift, Lewis’s woodpecker, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Allen’s big-eared bat, big free-tailed bat, Eureka mountainsnail, Lyrate mountainsnail, Yavapai mountainsnail, western banded gecko.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-22

MIXED CONIFER ESA-Related Bald eagle, Canada lynx. BLM-Sensitive Kass rockcress, Deep Creek stickseed, Pine Valley goldenbush, Cedar Breaks goldenbush, Cottam cinquefoil, Bicknell thelesperma, rock violet, northern goshawk, black swift, Lewis’s woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Allen’s big-eared bat, western red bat, fringed myotis, big free-tailed bat, Eureka mountainsnail, Yavapai mountainsnail, boreal toad. PONDEROSA PINE ESA-Related Welsh’s milk-vetch, Maguire daisy, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle. BLM-Sensitive Chatterley's onion, escarpment milk-vetch, basalt milk-vetch, pinnate spring parsley, Kachina daisy, Pine Valley goldenbush, Cedar Breaks goldenbush, Ostler's Ivesia, cliff jamesia, Claron pepperplant, Clark's lomatium, sandloving penstemon, Cronquist's phacelia, Lewis’s woodpecker, spotted bat, Allen’s big-eared bat. RIPARIAN AND WETLAND ESA-Related Maguire daisy, Ute ladies’-tresses, southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Kanab ambersnail, fat-whorled pondsnail. BLM-Sensitive Alcove bog-orchid, Greenwood's goldenbush, northern goshawk, black swift, bobolink, Lewis’s woodpecker, American white pelican, Preble’s shrew, western red bat, cloaked physa, Utah physa, longitudinal gland pyrg, desert springsnail, Hamlin Valley pyrg, bifid duct pyrg, Bear Lake springsnail, Black Canyon pyrg, sub-globose snake pyrg, southern Bonneville pyrg, northwest Bonneville pyrg, California floater, western pearlshell, boreal toad, Arizona toad, Columbia spotted frog, cornsnake, smooth greensnake. ASPEN ESA-Related None. BLM-Sensitive Lori's columbine, Ownbey thistle, virgin thistle, Kachina daisy, Pine Valley goldenbush, rock violet, black swift, three-toed woodpecker, Eureka mountainsnail, Yavapai mountainsnail. WATER ESA-Related June sucker, humpback chub, bonytail chub, Virgin River chub, woundfin, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout. BLM-Sensitive Bonneville cutthroat trout, Colorado River cutthroat trout, Virgin spinedace, least chub, leatherside chub, roundtail chub, desert sucker, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, cloaked physa, Utah physa, longitudinal gland pyrg, desert springsnail, Hamlin Valley pyrg, bifid duct pyrg, Bear Lake springsnail, Black Canyon pyrg, sub-globose snake pyrg, southern Bonneville pyrg, northwest Bonneville pyrg, California floater, western pearlshell. 3.4.5 Fisheries And Wildlife For the purpose of this document, general fisheries and wildlife refers to species and groups of similar species that do not have federal status (as defined in the BLM 6840 Manual, including ESA-related species), but may have other federal and/or state protection (e.g., under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Utah State Code) and are of concern to management authorities, Native American tribes, the general public, or groups (e.g., birders, hunters, etc.) with particular interest in a species or group of species.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-23

General fisheries and wildlife groups considered in this document include fisheries, non-game (raptors, migratory birds, small mammals, carnivores and predators and amphibians and reptiles), and big game (mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, moose, desert bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn and bison). ESA-related and BLM-sensitive species are discussed separately. Scientific names and habitat associations for each of the species mentioned in this section are presented in Table 3.5, below. Because it is not comprised of burnable vegetation, the water cover type was not described as a vegetation community in the Vegetation section, above. However, water is valuable wildlife habitat and has the potential to be impacted by the proposed project. Accordingly, in this section (and the Special Status Species section), water is included as a habitat type. Table 3.5 Habitat Associations for General Fish and Wildlife Species

Species Common Name Habitat Fisheries Rainbow trout Oncorhyncus mykiss W Brown trout Salmo trutta W Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis W Birds Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis MS, PP, RW Abert’s towhee Pipilo abertii RW American avocet Recurvirostra americana RW Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SDS Lucy’s warbler Vermivora lucidae SDS, RW Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus S American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos RW, W Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus RW Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginae PJ, MS Gray vireo Vireo vicinior PJ, MS Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii RW Black rosy finch Leucosticte atrata G Long-billed curlew Numenius phaeopus G Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus S, G Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri SDS, S Black swift Cypseloides niger RW Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus RW Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus RW Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis SDS, S, PJ, S, GG, B Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus RW Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens PJ, MS Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus MC Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli SDS, S Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii SDS, RW Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis SDS, PJ, S, G, MS, MC, A Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles MC, A Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos SDS, PJ, G, MS, MC, RW, A, W American kestrel Falco sparverius MC, PP, RW, A

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-24

Species Common Name Habitat Osprey Pandion haliaetus RW, W Northern harrier Circus cyaneus G, RW Turkey vulture Cathartes aura SDS, PJ, S, G, B, MS, MC, PP, RW, A, W Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus MC, PP, RW, A Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor MC, PP, RW, A Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus MC, PP, RW, A Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli MC, PP, RW, A Mammals Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus S, MS Rocky Mountain elk Cervus elaphus G, MS, MC, A Moose Alces alces G, MS, MC, RW, A Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni S, G, MS Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis S, G, MS Pronghorn Antilocapra americana SDS, S, G Bison Bos bison G, MS, MC, PP, A Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans MC, PP, RW, A Ringtail Bassariscus astutus MC, PP, RW, A Black bear Ursus americanus MS, MC, PP, RW, A Mountain lion Felis concolor PJ, MS, MC, PP Coyote Canis latrans SDS, PJ, S, G, B, MS, MC, A Habitat Codes: SDS = salt desert scrub, PJ = pinyon and juniper woodland, S = sagebrush, G = grassland, B = blackbrush, MS = mountain shrub, MC = mixed conifer, PP = ponderosa pine, RW = riparian/wetland, A = aspen and W = water

3.4.5.1 Fisheries Seventy-three fish species and numerous species of mollusks and other macro invertebrates are found on BLM-administered lands in Utah. Fish species found on BLM-administered lands that are not ESA- related or BLM-sensitive include the following: rainbow, brown, brook, and lake trout; suckers; shiners; dace; chubs; sculpins; and a variety of lesser known or less abundant species. Native fish demonstrate a wide variety of life histories, including resident populations that inhabit small headwater streams with shorter migratory ranges, populations that use larger streams and main rivers and populations that are found in lake habitats and spawn in rivers or streams. BLM-administered lands in Utah provide the following approximate values of aquatic habitat resources: elevation, latitude, topography, substrate, water quality and chemistry, vegetative structure, flow regimes and patterns and disturbance regimes. BLM-administered lands in Utah provide the following aquatic habitat resources: 81,817 miles of water courses; 674,987 acres of ephemeral and permanent water bodies; 17,859 acres of wetlands; and 2,474 springs. The quality of these aquatic habitats varies widely across the state. Generally, aquatic habitats have declined since the settlement of the region began in the 1850s. Disturbances contributing to decline of habitat include logging, grazing, mining, recreation, water diversion for irrigation and domestic supply purposes, other surface disturbing activities and introduction of non-native species. Natural disturbances affecting wildlife and habitat include fire, insects, disease, wind, floods, landslides, avalanches and other surface disturbing activities. These disturbances can result in loss of riparian vegetation and subsequent changes in vegetation species composition. Disturbances have also resulted from the loss of

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-25

large woody debris recruitment; conversion of riverine habitat to reservoir habitat; changes to gene pools through local extirpations; and disease. 3.4.5.2 Non-Game Species For the purposes of this document, non-game species are identified as raptors, migratory birds, small mammals, carnivores and amphibians and reptiles. Raptors Raptors (birds of prey) found in Utah include several species of hawks (e.g., ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, and northern goshawk), eagles (e.g., golden eagle), falcons (including the American kestrel), owls, ospreys, northern harriers and turkey vultures. These species inhabit various ecosystems, from salt desert scrub to alpine, and consume a wide range of prey. During the breeding season, they are particularly sensitive to disturbance from humans or other sources. Behavior during and following disturbance could result in nest abandonment or reduced productivity. Raptors are provided with protection designed to prevent disturbance under the following federal acts: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Eagle Protection Act of 1962 (as amended) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) for federally listed species. In addition, the Utah Field Office of the USFWS has issued guidelines for the establishment of disturbance-free buffer zones around raptor nests and the identification of mitigation techniques available for use when management or development activities conflict with the buffer zones. In Utah, the largest buffer zone suggested for any raptor nest is one mile (Romin and Muck 2002). Migratory Birds Migratory birds travel from one region to another, usually periodically, for breeding or feeding purposes. Generally, they nest in temperate North America and overwinter in the New World tropics, including portions of Mexico and Latin America. Migratory birds represent a diversity of species, including shorebirds, waterfowl, passerines (perching birds) and raptors and may nest in any or all of the vegetation types within the planning area. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has prepared the Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy, a document evaluating the status of 231 bird species, many of which are migratory, that breed in Utah. Twenty-four (24) bird species have been prioritized for management and protection and occur mostly within four habitat types that have been designated as priority habitats and correlate with Utah GAP Analysis cover types. These habitats include salt desert scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, sagebrush and riparian and wetland (Parrish et al. 2002). The 24 priority bird species include the Lewis’ woodpecker, Abert’s towhee, American avocet, mountain plover, Lucy’s warbler, sage grouse, American white pelican, bobolink, Virginia’s warbler, gray vireo, Bell’s vireo, black rosy finch, long-billed curlew, sharp-tailed grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, black swift, black-necked stilt, broad-tailed hummingbird, ferruginous hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, black-throated gray warbler, three-toed woodpecker, sage sparrow, and Gambel’s quail. Because of the wetland resources associated with Great Salt Lake, Utah is part of a prominent north- south trending flyway for migratory species. Those species that do not breed in Utah may instead use it as a stopover location to rest and refuel during migratory travel to destinations farther north or south. Over 60 percent of neotropical migrants use riparian and wetland habitat for breeding purposes or as stopover sites during migration (Krueper 1992). Approximately 0.4 percent of BLM-administered lands in Utah are riparian and wetland habitat. Some migratory birds are cavity nesters and may be found in forested habitat of varying elevation throughout the state. Cavity nesting birds found throughout Utah include several species of woodpecker. Woodpeckers are considered primary cavity nesters because they typically excavate their own nest cavities. Secondary cavity nesters are often incapable of excavating their own nest cavities and, therefore, rely upon existing cavities previously established by woodpeckers. Secondary cavity nesters include species such as the American kestrel, flammulated owl, tree swallow and black-capped and mountain chickadees. While cavities may be excavated in live trees, standing dead trees (e.g., snags) are

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-26

typically preferred by primary cavity nesters and may be easier for secondary cavity nesters to access. Trees in the mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, aspen and riparian and wetland habitat types each contain important nesting resources for cavity-nesting species. Small Mammals Small mammals include species groups such as prairie dogs, bats, squirrels, mice and rabbits. Because these groups fill a variety of niches, small mammals are found in most habitat types within the planning area. Although the term “cavity nester” typically refers to bird species, it may also include small mammals that use tree cavities for denning purposes. Small cavity-nesting mammals include species such as the silver-haired bat and ringtail. Carnivores and Predators These species fill a niche at the top of the food chain and are generally large, long-lived species that are solitary. Although they are considered here to be non-game species, a variety of carnivores are managed by the UDWR. More plentiful carnivores are often hunted for food or sport or as a management technique to allow prey species to thrive. Utah predators include species such as the black bear, mountain lion and coyote. Although the black bear and mountain lion tend to remain more secluded in the mountain shrub and mixed conifer communities of mountains and foothills, coyotes may venture into urban and agricultural areas as a means of finding vulnerable prey. In general, where there is prey, there are predators. And because predators consume birds and small mammals and often travel over large distances, they may be found anywhere within the planning area. Amphibians and Reptiles Because the majority of Utah’s wildlife habitats are arid or semi-arid and such a small percentage of habitats are associated with water, reptiles are more prominent than amphibians. Reptiles are found throughout the state in nearly every habitat type. Amphibians are found in and adjacent to wetlands, rivers and streams, mountain lakes, runoff pools in rock formations and both ephemeral and permanent livestock watering ponds. 3.4.5.3 Big Game Species Big game includes large, hunted animals such as mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk and pronghorn. Given the economic importance of big game, this group is typically managed more closely than other wildlife groups. Accordingly, the UDWR has identified critical seasonal use ranges within the planning area for the following big game species: mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, moose, desert bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn and bison. Table 3.6 below shows big game species and the acres and percent of use areas per species, within the planning area. These acreages refer only to those big game habitats that are considered most important by the UDWR. Table 3.6 Big Game Seasonal Use Areas Within the Planning Area

Seasonal Use Range & Rank Planning Area Acres % Use Areas per Species Mule Deer Summer Critical 140,885 0.8 Winter Critical 2,031,808 11.0 Rocky Mountain Elk Summer Critical 99,549 0.5 Winter Critical 5,855,237 31.8 Year-Long Critical 13,849 0.1 Moose Winter Critical 3,969 0.0 Year-Long Critical 1,154 0.0 Desert Big Horn Sheep Year Long Critical 1,478,893 8.0

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-27

Seasonal Use Range & Rank Planning Area Acres % Use Areas per Species Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep Year Long Critical 251,018 1.4 Pronghorn Winter Critical 108,346 0.6 Year Long Critical 321,089 1.7 Bison Year Long Critical 277,249 1.5 Mule Deer Mule deer occupy most ecosystems in Utah, but are characteristically found in shrublands with rough, broken terrain and abundant browse and cover. Mule deer winter diets consist primarily of browse in the form of sagebrush, bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, and other shrubs, as wells as a small amount of grasses and trees (e.g., pinyon or juniper). During the other three seasons, there is much more equitable distribution of nutritional resources. Mule deer summer use habitat primarily consists of mixed conifer, aspen, riparian and wetland and grassland, while winter habitat primarily consists of low- elevation sagebrush or sagebrush and mountain shrub habitats on south-facing slopes. Rocky Mountain Elk The Rocky Mountain elk is a generalist, feeding on forbs and grasses during the spring and summer and grasses and shrubs throughout the fall and winter. These feeding relationships are variable and depend largely on location. Various habitat types include winter ranges, calving areas and summer ranges. Calving areas are used from mid-May through June. They are typically located at higher elevations than wintering grounds; consist of grassland, mountain shrub, mixed conifer and aspen; and occur near cover, forage and water resources (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Moose The moose in Utah is typically associated with riparian and wetland and mountain shrub habitats. It feeds on leafy plants, as well as trees and shrubs including aspen, birch and willow. Before 1918, moose did not readily occur in Utah. Since that time, moose populations have increased and they are found throughout the northern portions of Utah, in places closely associated with mixed conifer, aspen, mountain shrub, riparian and wetland and grassland habitats (Zeveloff and Collette 1988). Desert and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep inhabit remote, mountain and desert locations across Utah, on cliffs and rocky slopes in rugged canyons. They are most closely associated with sagebrush, grassland and mountain shrub habitats (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982). Bighorn sheep are active during the daytime and feed on grasses, trees and shrubs, depending upon availability, succulence and nutrient content. Two subspecies of bighorn have important seasonal use areas within the planning area: desert and Rocky Mountain. The desert bighorn sheep is found in the central and southern part of the state, as well as some of the West Desert mountain ranges. The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep can be found in several mountain ranges in central and northern Utah (UDWR 2004). Pronghorn The pronghorn is typically associated with salt desert scrub, sagebrush and grassland habitats in Utah and throughout its entire range (American Museum of Natural History 2004; Biological and Conservation Database 2002; Burt and Grossenheider 1980). They are most active during the daytime and consume sagebrush, thistles, cacti, grasses and forbs (American Museum of Natural History 2004; Biological and Conservation Database 2002; Burt and Grossenheider 1980). There are 24 Pronghorn Management Units within the state. Pronghorn population levels are subject to climatic conditions, such as drought, and most units have suffered a substantial population decline during the current six-year drought. Pronghorn populations are expected to rebound as the drought subsides. Bison In Utah, the bison is found in grassland, mountain shrub, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and aspen habitat. It grazes primarily on common grasses, but also consumes other available vegetation. Historically, it ranged over a much larger area than it does today. Due to hunting and habitat alteration, its historic number and range size have decreased dramatically. It is still found in several areas of Utah,

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-28

including the Henry Mountains and Antelope Island. They are hunted on a limited and controlled basis (UDWR 2004). 3.4.6 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are locations where prehistoric (predating written history) or historic (older than 50 years but within written history) human habitation or other use has occurred. These resources include archaeological, historic and architectural sites important to scientific research or preservation and interpretation. These resources may also include traditional cultural properties and religious sites important to Native American and other cultural groups. A number of legislative acts and Executive Orders provide the procedures and guidelines used by federal agencies to determine potential project- related effects on cultural resources. Other requirements and provisions for protection and management are described by the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended; American Religious Freedom Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act; Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites); National Programmatic Agreement, 10-01-97; and the Utah State Protocol Agreement, 3-7-01. Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), require federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. These regulations define a historic property as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places...,” (36 CFR 800.14). This definition also encompasses artifacts, records and remains related to such properties. Ten Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) within the planning area have been established due to their cultural importance and relevance (Table 3.7). Table 3.7 ACECs, Acreages and Preservation Intent and Values

ACEC Acres Field Office Preservation Intent and Values Central Pacific Railroad 5,019 Salt Lake Cultural and historical Alkali Ridge 35,890 Monticello Archaeological Cedar Mesa 323,760 Monticello Archaeological, scenic, primitive recreation Hovenweep 1,500 Monticello Archaeological, riparian Shay Canyon 1,770 Monticello Archaeological, riparian Canaan Mountain 31,355 St. George Scenic, cultural Little Creek Mountain 19,305 St. George Archaeological Lower Virgin River 1,822 St. George Endangered fish, archaeological Santa-Clara-Gunlock 1,998 St. George Riparian, archaeological Santa-Clara-Land Hill 1,645 St. George Riparian, archaeological In addition to these cultural resource management designations, there are 46 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties and four National Historic Trails that are located entirely or partially on BLM-administered lands (Table 3.8) It should be noted that some of these properties occur in more than one region and therefore are listed more than once. Table 3.8 National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Trails Associated with BLM Utah Salt Lake Region Central Pacific Railroad Grade Lower Bear River Archaeological District Lincoln Highway GAPA Launch Site and Blockhouse Wendover Air Force Base Iosepa Settlement Cemetery California Trail Pony Express Trail

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-29

Moab Region Alkali Ridge Pinhook Battleground Denver and Rio Grande Lime Kiln Hole-in-the-Rock Trail Julien, Denis, Inscription Lathrop Canyon Mine I Old Spanish Trail Richfield Region Pharo Village – 42Md180 Mountain Home Wash - 42Md53 Paleo-Indian (Folsum) Camp Site - 42Md300 Desert Archaic Site - 42Md284 Gooseberry Archaeological District - 42Sv633 Elijah Cutler Behunin Cabin - UT 24 Horseshoe Canyon Pictograph Panel Cathedral Valley Corral Structure Cowboy Caves - 42Wn420 Civilian Conservation Corps Powder Magazine Bull Creek Archaeological District Hanks' Dugouts Fremont Field Camp - 42Pi159 Morrell, Lesley, Line Cabin and Corral Gunnison Massacre Site Oyler Mine Robber’s Roost Pioneer Register Black Rock Station Petroglyphs Sites East and West Tintic Historic Mining Districts Cottonwood Wash - 42Md183 Desert Experimental Station Deseret - 42Md55 Topaz War Relocation Center Site Pony Express Trail Cedar City Region Friendship Cove Pictograph Long Flat Site Hole-in-the-Rock Trail Parowan Gap Petroglyphs Oak Creek Dam Cottonwood Canyon Cliff Dwelling - 42Ka1504 Pole Hollow Archeological Site Hole-In-The-Rock Trail Starr Ranch Fort Pearce Caretaker's Cabin Parunuweap Canyon Archaeological District Gold Spring The BLM’s 21 LUPs for the Salt Lake, Richfield, Moab and Cedar City support centers describe cultural site types and general distribution throughout the individual planning areas. This information has been summarized from known cultural resources sites and does not account for areas that have not been surveyed for cultural resources. Appendix E describes the prehistoric, historic and traditional cultural and religious site types known to occur upon public lands within the state. 3.4.6.1 Prehistoric Resources Thousands of archaeological sites representing more than 12,000 years of human occupation have been recorded on public land within the state. Many cultural manifestations, including Paleo-Indian; Early, Middle and Late Archaic; Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi and Fremont); historic Ute and Paiute; Navajo; and historic European, indicate that many culture groups have occupied this area more or less continuously. The locations of sites vary due to the unique landforms and environments across the state. In studies to date, Paleo-Indian sites are limited in number. Likewise, Early and Middle Archaic sites may be limited in number and evenly distributed, while Late Archaic sites are more common and again are more or less evenly distributed. Prehistoric sites in the Basin and Range Province in the north and northwest portion of the state tend to concentrate near seeps and springs in desert mountain ranges and along perennial mountain streams and rivers. They include properties as diverse as rock shelters (such as Lakeside Cave), hunting camps, lithic scatters, obsidian and other lithic sources and rock art. In the Rocky Mountain Province and near the

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-30

Uintah Basin of the Colorado Plateau Province of northeastern Utah, the primary known prehistoric sites include rock art, open camps and villages, platform sites, rock shelters and caves, architectural sites, artifact scatters, resource procurement sites, ceremonial sites, isolated features, trails and landscapes. The majority of these prehistoric sites tend to also be concentrated near seeps and springs in mountain ranges. The upper plateaus and benches of the region, as well as lower canyon corridors contain high densities of cultural resource sites. These areas often include sites deemed to be at high risk from fire effects. Numerous prehistoric archaeological sites representing at least 11,000 years of human occupation have been recorded on public lands within the Colorado Plateau Province region of southern Utah. Prehistoric sites tend to concentrate near seeps, springs, within canyons, along perennial streams including locations where water occurred prehistorically. Sites have also been located within upland areas, including knolls and buttes and include properties as diverse as alcoves and rock shelters, open camps, tool production and procurement areas, gathering and subsistence locations, pithouse habitations, coursed masonry architecture, water control devices and rock art, among others. Anasazi sites are concentrated within the southern region of Utah, while Fremont Culture sites are more concentrated in the northern portions of the region. Historic Native American sites are sometimes difficult to distinguish and can be found almost anywhere. Within the northern portion of this region, properties include a Paleo-Indian camp site, archaic seasonal sites and the later Formative Fremont (Pharo Village) and Anasazi sites. Prehistoric Numic as well as historic Paiute sites can been found in this area. These sites consist of seasonal camps, habitation sites, antelope traps, rock art and one known prehistoric burial. Central Utah is noted for its early Fremont sites and numerous rock art panels and sites as well as its transition into Anasazi territory. 3.4.6.2 Historic Resources Historic resources in northwest Utah pertain primarily to exploration, migration, and transportation routes, as well as mining, ranching, and military activities. These activities began as early as 1776 with the Dominguez and Escalante expedition, which dates to the period of Spanish/Mexican exploration. Fur trappers entered the area in the 1820s and sporadically used the area for hunting, rendezvous and caching furs. The first permanent Euro-American settlers arrived in the area in 1847. Historic sites in this region include ghost towns, burials and cemeteries, historic ranches, mining sites, and numerous historic trails and wagon trails. Segments of two Congressionally Designated National Historic trails, the California Trail and the Pony Express/Stagecoach Overland Trail are located in the region. BLM manages a number of locations as interpretative sites along the Pony Express and Overland Stage Line, such as Canyon Station and Simpson Springs. The Hastings Cutoff, the Bidwell-Bartleson Trail, the Salt Lake Cutoff, the Midland Trail, the Lincoln and Victory Highways also traverse the region. Numerous mining “ghost towns” and other abandoned settlements occur throughout the area, such as Ophir, Mecur, and Tintic. Many resources, such as the National Register-listed Transcontinental Railroad Corridor and its associated features consisting of trestles, culverts, sidings and construction camps are considered historically significant and are mostly accessible to the public. The Central Pacific Grade is considered an ACEC. Another area of concern is the Pilot Range, which contains an historic mining tram, mining activity areas, and a number of historic trails. The desert ranges and mudflats have been used by the military since World War II for bombing and strafing ranges, as well as emergency landing fields, gunnery training ranges, missile test areas, and other military training and test sites. Roads, structures and work camps constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) are also present. Historic resources in West Central and Central Utah include ghost towns, burials, cemeteries, historic ranches, mining districts, logging sites, and numerous historic trails and wagon trails. There are many resources pertaining to mining in the East and West Tintic Historic Mining Districts.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-31

Many resources, such as the National Register-listed Desert Experimental Station and sites associated with Butch Cassidy are considered historically interesting and significant. During the 1930’s, the Civilian Conservation Corps did hundreds of projects in the region. These projects included road construction, trail improvements and campground development. A WWII Internment Camp was constructed near Delta to house Japanese-Americans. During its existence, Topaz was the fifth largest community in Utah. Some types of historic sites (small dump sites, roads, etc.) are quite common and are generally concentrated near communities. Historic resources in Southeast region include ghost towns, burials, cemeteries, historic ranches, mines, logging sites and numerous historic trails and wagon roads. Resources pertaining to Euro-American settlement date from 1847 in the Moab FMP Region. Mining sites such as the ACECs; Copper Globe, Muddy Creek and Temple Mountain Historic District are considered historically significant. Roads and structures constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) are also present. Historic European sites tend to be concentrated near towns and settlements, but can be found almost everywhere. Historic resources in Southwestern Utah primarily relate to Spanish, Mexican, and Euro-American activities since 1776 and include ghost towns, burials, cemeteries, historic ranches, and numerous historic trails and wagon trails, such as the Spanish Trail and the California Immigrant Trail. Some historic trails, such as the 1776 Dominguez and Escalante Trail and the Old Spanish Trail date to the period of Spanish/Mexican exploration. Resources pertaining to mining, and Euro-American settlement date from 1847, and numerous “ghost towns” (i.e., abandoned settlements) occur throughout the region. Roads and structures constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) are also present. 3.4.6.3 Places of Traditional Cultural Importance Within the context of the NHPA, a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is a property that may be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP due to its association with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community. The eligibility is also dependent upon these practices or beliefs having been passed down through the generations and being important to the preservation of the group’s cultural identity and integrity. Because these properties are not usually recognizable to an outsider through archaeological or historical investigations, the existence and locations of TCPs may often only be identified through consultation with members of the groups who ascribe value to those places. Many Native American belief systems require that the identity and location of TCPs not be divulged. Accordingly, the BLM has committed to keep information regarding these resources confidential to the fullest extent allowed by law. However, though not identified in this public document, TCPs identified through the consultation process will be considered as part of the NEPA process. 3.4.6.4 Native American Consultation The BLM is in the process of consulting with Tribal groups who have expressed an interest in all or part of the public lands within the state of Utah. This consultation is being carried out to provide an opportunity for tribes to identify any places of traditional religious or cultural importance relevant to the project. Several site types, both archaeological and non-archaeological, may be identified by Native American groups as traditional cultural properties (TCPs). Places that may be of traditional importance to Native American peoples include, but are not limited to, locations associated with traditional beliefs concerning origin(s), cultural history or the nature of the world and locations where religious practitioners go or have gone to perform ceremonial activities based on traditional cultural rules of practice, ancestral habitation sites, trails, burial sites and places from which plants, animals, minerals and waters were collected. 3.4.7 Visual Resources Visual resources on BLM-administered lands in Utah are classified according to BLM guidelines governing Visual Resource Management (VRM) (BLM 2004y). These classes (I, II, III and IV) have been established in the existing LUPs (BLM 2004y). Total acreages for each VRM class within the planning area include

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-32

approximately 438,185 Class I acres (three percent of total), 2,713,595 Class II acres (16 percent of total), 3,235,775 Class III acres (19 percent of total) and 10,523,668 Class IV acres (62 percent of total). (Acreage estimates do not include data for Iso-tract MFP, Park City MFP, Randolph MFP and House Range RMP areas due to insufficient VRM acreage data.) Determination of these four classes is based on aesthetic quality of an area, viewing distances and public sensitivity to changes in the existing landscape. VRM quality is managed according to the objectives set forth in the following VRM class descriptions: • Class I: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes and some management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. • Class II: The objective of this class is to retain the character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. • Class III: The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. • Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. Every attempt should be made, however, to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance and repeating the basic elements. Because they are the most scenic and sensitive, Class I areas generally include special designation management areas such as Wilderness or ACECs. Class II areas generally include canyon and mountain vistas of particular importance, as well as less strictly managed special designation management areas. Class III areas generally act as a buffer to protect more sensitive areas or important vistas. They are typically found along major travel corridors or adjacent to Class I and II areas. Areas that do not fit into Classes I–III are considered Class IV areas. 3.4.8 Naturalness, Solitude And Primitive Recreation 3.4.8.1 Non-Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) with Wilderness Characteristics Since the WSAs were established (Special Designations section), Utah wilderness has become a national issue. For more than 20 years, the public has debated which lands have wilderness characteristics and should be considered for Wilderness designation. In 1996, the Secretary of the Interior directed the BLM to take another look at some of the lands in question. In response to the Secretary’s direction, the BLM inventoried these lands and found approximately another 2.6 million acres of public land statewide outside of existing WSAs to have wilderness characteristics (BLM 1999). As a result of a 2003 agreement to settle a lawsuit, the BLM’s authority to designate new WSAs has expired; yet, the BLM does have the authority to conduct inventories for values associated with wilderness characteristics and consider management of these values in its land use planning process. There are 122 areas that have been identified as having wilderness characteristics within the land use plan areas in the Salt Lake, Fillmore, Richfield, Cedar City, Kanab, Moab and Monticello Field Offices and within the GSENM (BLM 1999). These non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are currently managed according to the existing land use plans, which do not address wilderness characteristics.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-33

These areas total about 2 million acres of public land that are generally contiguous or near existing WSAs. Table 3.9 lists non-WSAs with wilderness characteristics and acreage by Field Office. Table 3.9 Non-WSAs with Wilderness Characteristics and Acreage by Field Office.

Planning Office Acreage Salt Lake 164,740 Richfield 511,216 Fillmore 56,990 Moab 210,070 Monticello 484,830 Kanab 60,580 Cedar City 68,000 St. George 80,850 GSENM 399,980

TOTAL 2,037,256 The inventory evaluated wilderness characteristics as discussed in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which Congress incorporated in FLPMA, Sec. 603 (43 USC 1782). These wilderness characteristics areas are further defined as areas of undeveloped public land retaining its primeval character and influence, and as having outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined-type recreation. The 1999 BLM Utah Wilderness Inventory and 1999 BLM Utah Wilderness Inventory Revision Documents for Moab, Monticello and Richfield provide detailed descriptions of the 122 non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics (Table 3.9). 3.4.8.2 Non-WSA Lands Likely to Have Wilderness Characteristics The public has submitted information to the Utah BLM suggesting that areas not specifically identified during the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory managed by the Salt Lake, Fillmore, Richfield, Moab, Monticello, Cedar City, Kanab, and St. George Field Offices and GSENM have wilderness characteristics and therefore, should be managed to preserve those values. The BLM evaluated and assessed the information and determined that 24 areas, totaling 250,617 acres, are likely to have wilderness characteristics. Table 3.10 below describes by field office the acreage found likely to have wilderness characteristics. Table 3.10 Non-WSA Lands Likely to Have Wilderness Characteristics

Planning Office Acreage by Field Office Salt Lake 0 Richfield 192,940 Fillmore 0 Moab 50,157 Monticello 7,520 Kanab 0 Cedar City 0 St. George 0 GSENM 0 TOTAL 250,617

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-34

3.4.9 Forestry Most existing wood product use is for firewood, Christmas tree and pine nut gathering, with a minor component being for lumber and associated products. An estimated six million acres of forest and woodland occur within all of the BLM-administered land in the state. No stand delineations have been performed within the state with the exception of a minor amount in the Vernal Field Office area, which is outside of the planning area. The last known timber sale on record was in the 1960s (Radigan 2004). Forest and woodland objectives in current RMP revisions include commercial utilization of forest and woodland products. Additional BLM program development for forest and woodlands is ongoing (BLM Forest and Woodland Management Action Plan 2003c). Table 3.11 shows the occurrence of forest types (the forest types correspond to the compressed GAP classes used in the vegetation section of this chapter), acreages for the planning area and primary uses of the forests. Table 3.11 Forest Types, Acres, and Primary Uses

Forest Type Planning Area Acres Primary Uses Mixed Conifer 98,568 (<1 percent) Firewood, Christmas trees, pulp, lumber, log home construction, fence posts Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 4,730,736 Firewood, specialty lumber, pine nuts, biomass (26 percent) Aspen 22,801 (<1 percent) Packing material (dunnage), pallets, erosion blanket, swamp cooler filters, matches, specialty lumber, fuelwood and fence posts, pulp Ponderosa Pine 81,402 (<1 percent) Lumber, fuelwood, log home construction and fence posts As shown in the table, the predominant forest type in the planning area is the pinyon and juniper woodland category. This is the most extensive forest type in Utah, exceeding in acreage all other forests combined (Lanner 1984). Efforts have been made to encourage the non-commercial thinning of pinyon and juniper woodland for firewood use. The mixed conifer is comprised of fir, pine and spruce species. Old growth forests are generally defined as being older than 150 years old. The primary forest type identified within the planning area as likely to have old growth areas is the pinyon and juniper woodland. Harvesting or other activities affecting old growth forests are generally restricted. As presented in Chapter 2, a DWFC for fire treatments is to create a landscape of diverse age-classes among forest types while retaining patches of old growth forest where possible. 3.4.10 Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing is permitted on approximately 93 percent (21,345,629 acres) of BLM-administered lands in Utah. For administrative purposes, Utah is divided into 1,400 allotments. Grazing allotments are geographically unique and range in size from 200,000 public acres to small isolated parcels of public land of less than 40 acres. Sizing affects how the allotments are managed. Allotments with large blocks of contiguous BLM land are minimally impacted by surrounding private land. The isolated tracts are often a small component of a larger private land holding. Administrative access to these small tracts of public land sometimes exists only because of the grazing permit or lease. Allotments may include private, state, other federal lands or a combination thereof, in addition to BLM- administered lands. Allotments may be permitted to one (individual allotment) or more (common allotment) operators. Currently, 1,546 permits are issued to livestock operators (more than one permit may be issued to a particular individual or company) to authorize grazing on the 1,400 allotments. Grazing permits convey no right, title or interest in the public lands and their resources.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-35

Grazing use by livestock is measured in terms of animal unit months (AUMs). One AUM is equal to the amount of forage used to support one cow and calf for one month (approximately 800 pounds of forage). Active preference, the amount of AUMs currently authorized for use on BLM-administered lands in Utah, is 875,579 AUMs for cattle, 342,465 AUMs for sheep and 2,866 AUMs for domestic horses, totaling 1,220,910 AUMs annually. Seasons of use vary on each allotment throughout the state from a few-week season to a yearlong season. Each allotment may have a number of pastures that are grazed in a rotation system. A deferred rotation grazing system rotates livestock use (e.g., livestock start and end in different pastures each year) through several pastures. A rest rotation grazing system includes a full year or more of rest for one or more pastures within the allotment. Each grazing system may include periodic rest depending upon the specific management concerns and needs for that allotment. The season of use for each allotment is described in the operator’s grazing permit. Season-long use entails grazing one pasture from spring or early summer to late summer or fall. Some movement of livestock use may occur within the pasture (e.g., from canyon to canyon). Deferred rotation is a technique that uses the entire allotment by rotating pasture use (e.g., livestock start in a different pasture each year). Rest-rotation of pastures is a technique that involves grazing during certain periods and resting during other periods, with some pastures rested for the entire grazing season. Grazing systems are designed based on the requirements of key forage species in the allotment, the resources of concern on the allotment and the needs of the livestock producer and their livestock. These periods of use are referred to as treatments and may be rotated so that no pasture receives the same use every year. Allotments are periodically assessed for meeting multiple use objectives and all allotments are currently being assessed for meeting Utah’s Rangeland Health Standards. This effort is to be completed by the year 2009. Periodic allotment assessments may indicate that changes in the season of use are necessary to meet rangeland health standards. Seasons of use are allotment-specific and may be managed as season-long or using a grazing system (e.g., rest rotation, deferred). If these assessments indicate that changes in livestock management are needed to meet the appropriate standards or other multiple use objectives after consultation with the permittee, changes to the terms and conditions of the permit would be made through agreement or by decision. 3.4.11 Recreation and Visitor Services BLM-administered lands in Utah offer a variety of recreation opportunities including, but not limited to, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, rock climbing, mountain bicycling, caving, river running, sailing and off-highway driving. The Utah BLM manages 45 recreation sites throughout the state (BLM 2004a). These include 9 interpretive facilities and ranger stations, 3 recreation areas and 26 sites with developed campgrounds or other sanitary services such as restrooms, or drinking water infrastructures. Most of BLM-administered lands are available for dispersed (undeveloped) recreation, which is recreation not related to a managerial site and cannot be measured as occurring in any one particular place. Recreational use is counted as visitor use and is measured in “visitor days.” A visitor day represents one person doing an activity for all or part of one day. For example, if one person spent one night camping on public lands, it is counted as two visitor days. Table 3.12 displays visitor use in Utah (including Price and Vernal Field offices) based on the number of special recreation permits issued and an estimation of visitor days resulting from dispersed (non-permitted) recreation. Table 3.12 Recreation Use on BLM-Administered Lands in Utah (2000)

Activity Visitor Days Camping 2,420,015 Driving for Pleasure Activities 312,554 Educational Opportunity Activities 1,867,544

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-36

Fishing and Hunting Activities 255,866 Miscellaneous Land Activities 75,133 Miscellaneous Water Activities 625,573 Picnicking Activities 109,477 Specialized Sporting Activities 25,645 Trail Related Activities 2,015,006 Winter Activities 5,120 Other 99,682

TOTAL 7,811,615 Source: BLM 2000 Table 3.13 lists developed recreation sites in Utah, excluding those covered by the Vernal and Price field offices. These developed recreation areas may include such permanent features as: • Picnic tables • Drinking water facilities • Vault toilets and shower facilities • Shade structures • Parking lots with traffic flow controls such as striping, islands, boulders and rope fences • Water drainage systems • Signage, including maps, brochures, speed limits, recreation safety, unexploded ordnance warnings, wildlife and noxious weed information • Bulletin boards and visitor registration and fee stations • Traffic counters 3.4.12 Special Designations Special designations consist of two types: administrative and congressional. For the purposes of this section, administrative designations are divided into four categories: Wilderness areas; Wilderness Study Areas; Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; and other administrative designations including Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Outstanding Natural Areas (ONAs), Natural Environmental Areas, National Monuments, National Natural Landmarks, National Scenic Byways and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Congressional designations are divided into two categories: National Conservation Areas (NCAs) and National Historic Trails. Each designation is discussed in the land use plans that are identified in the beginning of this document and is incorporated by reference. Table 3.14 lists administrative and congressional designations found within the planning area. Table 3.13 Developed Recreation Sites in Planning Area

Site name Field Office Recreation Features Bonneville Salt Flats/ Salt Lake OHV trails, mountain biking and a scenic byway Silver Island Mountains Central Pacific Transcontinental Salt Lake Mountain biking, scenic byway, interpretive site/trail RR Grade Clover Spring Salt Lake Camping, hiking, equestrian facility, fishing Pony Express Trail/Simpson’s Springs Salt Lake Camping, hiking, picnicking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, scenic byways, interpretive site/trail

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-37

Site name Field Office Recreation Features Knolls Special Recreation Management Salt Lake OHV trails, play area Area (SRMA) Birch Creek Campground Salt Lake Year-round camping Deep Creek Mountains Fillmore Picnicking, Hiking, Scenic Byway Little Sahara Recreation Area Fillmore Year-round camping West Desert Rockhounding Area Fillmore Hiking, rockhounding Yuba Reservoir Fillmore Camping, picnicking, fishing, boating, OHV trails Tabernacle Hill/Pavant Butte Fillmore Hiking, wildlife viewing Parowan Gap Cedar City Scenic views, listed on National Register of Historic Places Rock Corral Campground Cedar City Camping Joshua Tree National Landmark St. George Wildlife viewing, scenic byway Baker Dam St. George Camping, fishing Red Cliffs/Sand Mountain St. George Camping, hiking, OHV trails, wildlife viewing Smithsonian Butte/Cannan Mountain St. George Hiking, wildlife viewing, scenic byway Hog Springs Richfield Picnicking, hiking, wildlife viewing Henry Mountains Richfield Camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, scenic byway Lonesome Beaver Campground, Richfield Camping Henry Mountains McMillan Springs Campground, Richfield Camping Henry Mountains Starr Springs Campground, Henry Richfield Camping Mountains Koosharem Reservoir/Piute ATV Trail Richfield OHV trail, play area, fishing Otter Creek Reservoir Richfield Fishing, OHV play area, wildlife viewing Piute Reservoir/Piute ATV Trail Richfield Fishing, OHV play area, wildlife viewing Wolverton Mill Richfield Picnicking, scenic byway, ranger station Paria River Kanab Camping, picnicking, ranger station, hiking, wildlife viewing, scenic byway White House Trailhead Kanab Year-round hiking Ponderosa Campground Kanab Camping Coral Pink Sand Dunes Kanab Picnicking, camping, OHV use Canyons of the Escalante GSENM Camping, Hiking, Biking, Equestrian, OHV use Paria Canyon/River GSENM Camping, Hiking, Biking, Equestrian, OHV use Westwater Canyon Moab Camping, ranger station, boat ramp, fishing, wildlife viewing Sand Flats/Moab Slickrock Bike Trail Moab OHV trail, mountain biking, wildlife viewing Canyon Rims Recreation Area Moab Camping, hiking, mountain biking Colorado Riverway Moab Camping, hiking, fishing, picnicking, OHV trails, boat ramp, wildlife viewing, interpretive trail/site, scenic byway Mill Canyon/Copper Ridge Dinosaur Moab Mountain biking, interpretive trail/site Tracks Labyrinth Canyon Moab Boating, fishing San Juan River Island Campground Monticello Camping, picnicking, year-round boating, fishing, wildlife viewing, scenic byway Mule Canyon/Butler Wash Monticello Hiking, scenic byway, wildlife viewing

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-38

Site name Field Office Recreation Features Grand Gulch Plateau Monticello Camping, hiking, ranger station, wildlife viewing, interpretive trail/site, scenic byway Hamburger Rock Campground Monticello Year-round camping Hatch Point Campground Monticello Camping Wind Whistle Campground Monticello Camping Comb Wash Campground Monticello Year-round camping Canyon Rims Recreation Area Monticello Camping, picnicking, hiking, OHV trails, wildlife viewing, scenic byway, interpretive trail/site Deer Creek Campground GSENM Camping Calf Creek Campground GSENM Camping Source: BLM 2000

Table 3.14 Administrative and Congressional Designations within the Planning Area

Administrative Designations Wilderness Areas Acres/Miles Location Land Use Plan Black Ridge Canyons 5,120 Moab Field Office boundary, Grand RMP managed by Grand Junction Field Office, Colorado Beaver Dam Mountains 2,600 St. George Field Office (also St. George RMP Arizona Strip Field Office, Arizona) Paria Canyon-Vermilion 20,000 Kanab Field Office (also Paria MFP Cliffs Arizona Strip Field Office, Arizona) TOTAL 27,720 Areas of Critical Relevant & Important Acres Field Office, LUP Environmental Concern Values Fossil Mountain 1,920 Geological Fillmore, Warm Springs RMP Gandy Mountain Caves 1,120 Geological Fillmore, House Range RMP Gandy Salt Marsh 2,270 Biological, Riparian, T&E Fillmore, House Range RMP Pavant Butte 2,500 Geological, Fish and Wildlife Fillmore, House Range RMP Rockwell ONA 9,630 Geological Fillmore, Warm Springs RMP Tabernacle Hill 3,567 Geological Fillmore, Warm Springs RMP Wah Wah Mountains 5,970 Botanical, Geological Fillmore, Warm Springs RMP Water/South Fork Indian 225 Watershed, Botanical, Kanab, Vermilion MFP Canyon Riparian Negro Bill Canyon ONA 1,375 Scenic, Sensitive Plants, Moab, Grand RMP Riparian Alkali Ridge 35,890 Archaeological Monticello San Juan RMP Bridger Jack Mesa 5,290 Botanical Monticello San Juan RMP Butler Wash 13,870 Scenic Monticello San Juan RMP

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-39

Cedar Mesa 323,760 Cultural Resources, Scenic, Monticello San Juan RMP Riparian Dark Canyon 62,040 Scenic, Fish and Wildlife Monticello San Juan RMP Hovenweep 1,500 Cultural Resources, Riparian Monticello San Juan RMP Indian Creek 8,640 Scenic Monticello San Juan RMP Lavender Mesa 640 Botanical Monticello San Juan RMP Scenic Highway Corridor 78,390 Scenic Monticello San Juan RMP Shay Canyon 1,770 Cultural Resources, Riparian Monticello San Juan RMP Beaver Wash Canyon 3,436 Fish and Wildlife, Botanical, Richfield, Henry Mountain Riparian MFP Gilbert Badlands 3,680 Geological Richfield, Henry Mountain MFP North Caineville Mesa 2,200 Botanical, Scenic Richfield, Henry Mountain MFP South Caineville Mesa 4,200 Botanical Richfield, Henry Mountain MFP Blue Springs Wildlife 5,715 Fish and Wildlife, Riparian Salt Lake, Box Elder RMP Habitat Area Bonneville Salt Flats 30,203 Geological Salt Lake, Pony Express RMP Central Pacific Railroad 5,019 Cultural Resources Salt Lake, Box Elder RMP Donner/Bettridge Creek 1,120 Fish and Wildlife, Riparian, Salt Lake, Box Elder RMP Watershed Horseshoe Springs 760 Fish and Wildlife, Riparian Salt Lake, Pony Express RMP Lake Town Canyon 8,389 Watershed, Riparian Salt Lake, Randolph MFP Salt Wells Wildlife Habitat 5,389 Fish and Wildlife, Riparian Salt Lake, Box Elder RMP Area Beaver Dam Slope 48,519 Desert Tortoise, Desert St. George, St. George RMP Ecosystem Canaan Mountain 31,355 Scenic, Cultural St. George, St. George RMP Little Creek Mountain 19,305 Archaeological St. George, St. George RMP Lower Virgin River 1,822 Endangered Fish, St. George, St. George RMP Archaeological Red Bluff 6,168 Scenic, Endangered Plants, St. George, St. George RMP Erosive Soils Red Mountain Face 4,854 Scenic St. George, St. George RMP Santa-Clara-Gunlock 1,998 Riparian, Archaeological St. George, St. George RMP Santa-Clara-Land Hill 1,645 Riparian, Archaeological St. George, St. George RMP Upper Beaver Dam Wash 33,063 Riparian, Watershed, Listed St. George, St. George RMP

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-40

Species Habitat Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce 4,281 Endangered Plants, Riparian St. George, St. George RMP TOTAL 783,488 Research Natural Areas, Outstanding Natural Acres Location Land Use Plan Areas and Natural Environmental Areas Rockwell ONA/ACEC 9,630 Fillmore Field Office House Range RMP Devils Garden ONA 640 GSENM GSENM MP Escalante Canyons ONA 1,160 GSENM GSENM MP North Escalante Canyon 5,800 GSENM GSENM MP ONA Phipps-Death Hollow 34,300 GSENM GSENM MP ONA The Gulch ONA 3,430 GSENM GSENM MP Wolverine Petrified Wood 1,520 GSENM GSENM MP Natural Environmental Area No Mans Mesa RNA 1,335 GSENM GSENM MP Diana's Throne RNA 1,100 Kanab Field Office Vermilion MFP Kimball Butte RNA 160 Kanab Field Office Vermilion MFP Paria-Hackberry ONA 70,000 Kanab Field Office Paria MFP 50 Mile Mountain ONA 100,000 Kanab Field Office Paria MFP Negro Bill Canyon ONA/ 1,375 Moab Field Office Grand RMP ACEC TOTAL 230,450 National Monuments Acres Land Use Plan Grand Staircase-Escalante 1,865,420 GSENM MP National Natural Acres Location Land Use Plan Landmarks Little Rockies National 32,640 Richfield Field Office Henry Mountain MFP Natural Landmark Joshua Tree National 1,040 St. George Field Office St. George RMP Natural Landmark TOTAL 33,680 National Scenic Byways Miles Location Land Use Plan Transcontinental Railroad 90 Salt Lake Field Office Box Elder RMP National Back Country Byway Silver Island Mountain 54 Salt Lake Field Office Box Elder RMP Loop National Back Country Byway

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-41

Pony Express Trail 133 Salt Lake Field Office Pony Express RMP National Back Country Byway Trail of the Ancients State 156 (approx) Monticello Field Office San Juan RMP Scenic Byway Joshua Tree Road Scenic 13 St. George Field Office St. George RMP Byway Bull Creek Pass Back 68 Richfield Field Office Henry Mountain MFP Country Byway TOTAL 514 (approx) Rivers Eligible and/or Suitable for National and Miles Location Land Use Plan Scenic River System Harris Wash: Suitable 1.1 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Lower Boulder Creek: 13.5 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Suitable Escalante River Segments 34.1 GSENM GSENM Management Plan 1, 2, 3: Suitable Slickrock Canyon: Suitable 2.8 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Lower Deer Creek 10.8 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Segments 1, 2: Suitable The Gulch Segments 1, 2, 24.6 GSENM GSENM Management Plan 3: Suitable Steep Creek: Suitable 6.4 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Lower Sand Creek and 13.2 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Willow Patch Creek: Suitable Mamie Creek and West 9.2 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Tributary: Suitable Death Hollow Creek: 9.9 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Suitable Calf Creek Segments 1, 2, 8.0 GSENM GSENM Management Plan 3: Suitable Twenty-Five Mile Wash: 6.8 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Suitable Upper Paria River 38.6 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Segments 1, 2: Suitable Lower Paria River 8.1 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Segments 1, 2: Suitable Deer Creek Canyon: 5.2 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Suitable Snake Creek: Suitable 4.7 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Hogeye Creek: Suitable 6.3 GSENM GSENM Management Plan

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-42

Kitchen Canyon: Suitable 1.3 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Starlight Canyon: Suitable 4.9 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Lower Sheep Creek: 1.5 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Suitable Hackberry Creek: Suitable 20.1 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Lower Cottonwood 2.9 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Creek: Suitable Buckskin Gulch: Suitable 18.0 GSENM GSENM Management Plan Colorado River from 13.5 Monticello Field Office San Juan RMP where public land begins south of the San Juan County line down river to the north boundary of Canyonlands National Park: Eligible San Juan River from the 45.0 Monticello Field Office San Juan RMP bridge on U.S. Highway 191 below Bluff to the Glen Canyon NRA boundary: Eligible White Canyon from the 43.0 Monticello Field Office San Juan RMP USFS boundary to the boundary of Glen Canyon NRA: Eligible Deep Creek/Crystal 11.4 St. George Field Office St. George RMP Creek: Suitable North Fork Virgin River: 0.7 St. George Field Office St. George RMP Suitable Kolob Creek/Oak Creek: 3.6 St. George Field Office St. George RMP Suitable La Verkin Creek/Smith 14.1 St. George Field Office St. George RMP Creek: Suitable Virgin River, Segment B 6.5 St. George Field Office St. George RMP (within the Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness): Suitable TOTAL 389.8

Congressional Designations National Conservation Acres Location Areas Colorado Canyons 5,120 acres Moab Field Office boundary, Colorado Canyons managed by Grand Junction Field Office, Colorado National Historic Trails Miles Location Planning Region California 75 Salt Lake Field Office Salt Lake

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-43

Pony Express 106 Salt Lake and Fillmore Field Salt Lake and Fillmore Offices Old Spanish Trail 325 (approx) Richfield, Price, Moab, Grand Staircase-Escalante Monticello, Kanab, Cedar National Monument Plan, City and St. George Field CBGA RMP, Dixie RMP, Offices and GSENM Grand RMP, Mountain Valley MFP, Paria MFP, Pinyon MFP, San Juan RMP, Vermilion MFP, Zion MFP Hole-in-the-Rock Trail 133 (approx) Grand Staircase-Escalante Cedar City National Monument TOTAL 639 (approx) Sources: BLM 1999, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f, 2004g, 2004i, 2004k, 2004l, 2004m, 2004n, 2004o, 2004p, 2004q, 2004r, 2004s, 2004t, 2004u; 2004 v, Mermejo 2004c; FHWA 2004.

3.4.12.1 Congressional Designations • National Conservation Areas (NCAS): Colorado Canyons NCA is the only NCA located within the planning area (Table 3.14). • National Historic Trails: Four National Historic Trails occur within the planning area: the California National Historic Trail; Pony Express National Historic Trail; Old Spanish Trail; and Hole-in-the-Rock Trail (NPS 2004) (Table 3.14). An approximate total of 639 miles of these trails are located within the planning area. 3.4.12.2 Administrative Designations (Wilderness and WSAs) Wilderness A total of 26,720 acres of designated Wilderness are administered by the BLM in Utah. Approximately 22,600 of these acres were designated Wilderness as part of the 1984 Wilderness Act for Arizona. This Act established Wilderness on approximately 20,000 acres in Paria Canyon within the Kanab Field Office (18 percent of the 109,400 acre, two state WSA designation) and approximately 2,600 acres in the Beaver Dam Mountains in the St. George Field Office (15 percent of the 17,600 acres, two-state WSA designation). The Colorado Wilderness Act of 1999 established the approximately 5,100 acres of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness on the Uncompahgre Plateau in the Moab Field Office (7 percent of the 75,439-acre, two-state WSA designation). Wilderness Study Areas The U.S. Congress established a National Wilderness Preservation System for federal lands when it passed the Wilderness Act of 1964. In 1976, Section 603 of FLPMA directed the BLM to review its remaining roadless areas and make recommendations as to whether or not each area should become a congressionally designated Wilderness area. The basic criteria for Wilderness include size, naturalness and opportunities for solitude and/or primitive and unconfined recreation. Each of the designated WSAs are also be characterized by special qualities such as ecological, geological, educational, historical, scientific or scenic values. There are approximately 2.6 million acres that have been designated for WSAs in each of the 21 land use planning areas. Table 3.15 describes the attributes and size of the areas by field office. These areas have wilderness characteristics and are being considered by Congress for possible Wilderness designation. The BLM is required to maintain the wilderness character of each WSA until a final decision is made by Congress regarding inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System or until it is released from WSA status and made available for other uses. The general standard for this management is that the suitability of these lands for preservation as Wilderness must not be impaired. Should Wilderness designation occur in the future, Wilderness management would be accomplished by Wilderness management plans framed and written to fit each individual designation area.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-44

Table 3.15 Wilderness Study Areas on BLM-Administered Lands in Utah

Acres Recommended for Acres Recommended for WSA/ISA Name WSA Number Wilderness (approx) Non-Wilderness (approx) Salt Lake Field Office North Stansbury Mountains UT-020-089 10,480 0 Cedar Mountains UT-020-04 0 50,500 Deep Creek Mountains UT-050-020/ 57,384 11,526 UT-020-060 Richfield Field Office Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills UT-050-238 65,804 15,922 Bull Mountain UT-050-242 11,800 1,820 Dirty Devil UT-050-236A 61,000 0 Horseshoe Canyon (South) UT-050-237 36,000 2,800 French Spring-Happy Canyon UT-050-236B 11,110 13,890 Fiddler Butte UT-050-241 32,700 40,409 Mt. Pennell UT-050-248 25,800 48,500 Mt. Hillers UT-050-249 16,360 3,640 Little Rockies UT-050-247 38,700 0 Fremont Gorge UT-050-221 (202) 0 2,540 Fillmore Field Office Fish Springs UT-050-127 33,840 18,660 Rockwell UT-050-186 0 9,150 Swasey Mountain UT-050-061 34,376 15,124 Howell Peak UT-050-077 14,800 10,000 Conger Mountain UT-050-035 0 20,400 Notch Peak UT-050-078 28,000 23,130 King Top UT-050-070 0 84,770 Wah Wah Mountains UT-050-073/ 36,382 5,758 UT-040-205 Moab Field Office Behind The Rocks UT-060-140A 12,635 0 Mill Creek Canyon UT-060-139A 9,780 0 Negro Bill Canyon UT-060-138 7,620 0 Floy Canyon UT-060-068B 23,140 49,465 Coal Canyon UT-060-100C2 20,774 40,656 Spruce Canyon UT-060-100C1 14,736 5,614 Flume Canyon UT-060-100B 16,495 34,305 Westwater Canyon UT-060-118 26,000 5,160 Lost Spring Canyon UT-060-131B (202) 3,880 0 WrigleyMesa/Jones Canyon/ UT-060-116/117 5,200 0 Black Ridge Canyon West C0-070-113A Links Flats NA UT-ISA-008 0 912 Monticello Field Office Mancos Mesa UT-060-181 51,440 0

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-45

Acres Recommended for Acres Recommended for WSA/ISA Name WSA Number Wilderness (approx) Non-Wilderness (approx) Grand Gulch ISA Complex: UT-ISA-001 105,520 0 Pine Canyon UT-060-188 Bullet Canyon UT-060-196 Sheiks Flat UT-060-224 Stickhorn Canyon UT-060-197/198 Road Canyon UT-060-201 52,420 0 Fish Creek Canyon UT-060-204 40,160 6,280 Mule Canyon UT-060-205B 5,990 0 Cheesebox Canyon UT-060-191 0 15,410 Dark Canyon ISA Complex: UT-ISA-002 68,030 0 UT-060-175 Butler Wash UT-060-169 24,190 0 Bridger Jack Mesa UT-060-167 5,290 0 Indian Creek UT-060-164 6,870 0 South Needles UT-060-169A 160 0 Squaw/Papoose Canyon UT-060-227/ 0 6,676 C0-030-265A Cross Canyon UT-060-229/ 0 1,008 C0-030-2265 Kanab Field Office North Fork Virgin River UT-040-145 (202) 1,750 0 Orderville Canyon UT-040-230 17,888 12,912 Parunuweap Canyon UT-040-143 33,800 13,370 Moquith Mountain UT-040-217 0 14,830 Cedar City Field Office Spring Creek Canyon UT-040-148 (202) 1,607 2,826 White Rock Range UT-040-216/ 3,820 0 NV-04-202 St. George Field Office Cougar Canyon UT-040-123/ 4,228 6,340 NV-050-166 Red Mountain/Red Mountain UT-040-132/132A 12,842 5,448 202 Cottonwood Canyon UT-040-046 9,853 1,477 LaVerkin Creek Canyon UT-040-153 (202) 567 0 Deep Creek UT-040-146 (202) 3,320 0 Canaan Mountain UT-040-150 (202) 1,040 0 The Watchman UT-040-149 (202) 600 0 Taylor Creek Canyon UT-040-154 (202) 35 0 Goose Creek Canyon UT-040-176 (202) 89 0 Beartrap Canyon UT-040-177 (202) 40 0 Red Butte UT-040-147 (202) 804 0 Joshua Tree NA UT-ISA-010 0 1,040 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument The Blues UT-040-268 0 19,030

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-46

Acres Recommended for Acres Recommended for WSA/ISA Name WSA Number Wilderness (approx) Non-Wilderness (approx) Mud Spring Canyon UT-040-077 0 38,075 Paria-Hackberry/Paria- UT-040-247/247A 95,042 41,180 Hackberry 202 The Cockscomb UT-040-275 5,100 4,980 Wahweap UT-040-248 0 134,400 Burning Hills UT-040-079 0 61,550 Death Ridge UT-040-078 0 62,870 Phipps-Death Hollow UT-ISA-006 39,256 3,475 Steep Creek UT-040-061 20,806 1,090 North Escalante Canyons/The UT-040-076 91,558 28,194 Gulch Carcass Canyon UT-040-082 0 46,711 Scorpion UT-ISA-005 14,978 20,906 Escalante Canyons Tract 5 UT-040-080 760 0 Fiftymile Mountain UT-ISA-009 91,361 54,782 Devils Garden NA UT-ISA-003 0 640 Escalante Canyons Tract 1 NA UT-040-076 0 360 TOTAL (2,586,521) 1,466,010 1,120,511 1 ISA = Instant Study Area NA = unit was originally a Natural Area Source: BLM 1990, Mermejo 2004a, 2004b Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ACECs are unique to the BLM. Pursuant to the FLPMA, the BLM is mandated to designate and protect ACECs where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. The restrictions associated with an ACEC designation are determined at the time the designation is made and are designed to protect the values or serve the purposes for which the designation was made. Table 3.14 lists ACECs totaling 783,488 acres located on BLM-administered lands in Utah (BLM 2004i). The number of ACECs and/or ACEC acreages may change as RMPs are revised by BLM field offices in Utah. 3.4.12.3 Other Administrative Designations • Research Natural Areas (RNAs) Multiple RNAs are found within the planning area, as shown in Table 3.14. • Outstanding Natural Areas (ONAs) Multiple ONAs are found within the planning area, as shown in Table 3.14. Two of the ONAs, Rockwell and Negro Bill Canyon, are also ACECs. • Natural Environmental Areas One National Environmental Area, Wolverine Petrified Wood, is located within the planning area (Table 3.14). • National Monuments Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is the only national monument located within the planning area (Table 3.14). • National Natural Landmarks National Natural Landmarks are of national importance because they represent one of the best known examples of a region’s natural biotic or geological features. Three National Natural Landmarks are found within the planning area: Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, Little Rockies and Joshua Tree (Table 3.14). The Cleveland- Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry National Natural Landmark, managed by the Price Field Office, houses

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-47

Jurassic-age dinosaur bones. The Little Rockies National Natural Landmark is managed by the Richfield Field Office and encompasses 32,640 acres. Joshua Tree National Natural Landmark is managed by the St. George Field Office and includes the northernmost stand of Joshua trees and the Joshua Tree Road Scenic Backway. • National Scenic Byways The National Scenic Byways Program is part of the Federal Highway Administration’s Department of Transportation and was established to help recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. Roads in the program are recognized as All-American Roads or Back Country Byways based on one or more archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and/or scenic qualities. Back Country Byways, which include National Scenic Byways and Backways, are the BLM's unique contribution to the nation's byway program and combine motor vehicles, hiking and biking in the outdoors. Each Back Country Byway provides the public with recreational opportunities while informing them about natural and cultural resources and multiple use activities on public lands. The byways managed by the BLM in Utah are listed in Table 3.14. • Wild and Scenic Rivers No rivers in Utah have been designated by Congress into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, Section 5(d) (1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs federal agencies to consider potential wild and scenic rivers in their land and water planning processes. In the five BLM RMPs in Utah where wild and scenic river considerations have been made, 35 rivers or river segments are eligible for listing in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Table 3.14). Twenty-nine of these are suitable for listing; therefore, these rivers are managed by the BLM as if they were Wild and Scenic. Suitability studies have not yet been completed on the remaining six. Rivers or river segments determined to be eligible are managed to protect free flow, outstandingly remarkable values and tentative classification. This protective management is in place until the river or river segment is determined, during the study phase, to be suitable or unsuitable. Similarly, suitable segments are managed to protect the free flow, outstandingly remarkable values and recommended classification until Congressional action regarding designation is taken (BLM 2004l). 3.4.13 Socioeconomics Utah represents the Region of Influence (ROI) for social and economic activities pertaining to this statewide LUP EA. The ROI is defined as the geographical area in which the principal direct and indirect socio-economic effects of the Proposed Action or Alternatives would likely occur. The purpose of documenting the socio-economic setting of the ROI is to provide an understanding of the social and economic forces that have shaped the area and to provide a frame of reference necessary to determine the degree of estimated economic effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Baseline data for the Utah ROI includes population and demographic data, as well as current business and economic statistical information for the state. Information was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of the Census and based on census data from the year 2000. Additional data was derived from the Sonoran Institute’s Population, Employment, Earnings and Personal Income Trends database. Population Utah had a total population of 2,233,169 in the year 2000. A comparison of 1990 and 2000 population data exhibits a 3.0 percent per year growth rate compared to the national growth rate of 1.31 percent per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and Utah population data, the population of Utah will increase by 32.9 percent from 2000 to 2020. This represents an annual population increase of 1.6 percent per year compared to a growth rate of less than 1 percent per year for the nation. During the 2000 census, 89.2 percent of residents of Utah reported their ethnic heritage as Caucasian, of this 89.2 percent, 9 percent reported Hispanic or Latino origin. The same census shows 1.7 percent of Utah’s residents as Asian, 1.3 percent as American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.8 percent as Black or

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-48

African American, 0.7 percent as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander and 4.2 percent as “other” (2.1 percent of Utah’s residents reported two or more races). Employment Utah supported 1,394,198 full- and part-time jobs in 2000, an increase of 939,585 jobs since 1970 (an annual average increase of 10.3 percent, more than three times the population growth rate in the ROI during the same time frame). The job mix for Utah has changed dramatically since 1970. The mining and farm and agricultural services sectors have decreased their shares of total employment, while all other sectors have marginally or substantially increased. The services and professional sector has experienced a major increase in the number of jobs (over 73 percent in 30 years). Major growth components of this sector include retail trade and finance and insurance and real estate (growth rates of 17.4 percent and 11.1 percent, respectively). Unemployment rates in Utah for the years 2000 to 2003 were below the national level, averaging 3.3 percent in 2000 and 5.6 percent in 2003. National rates were 4.4 percent in 2000 and 6.1 percent in 2003. Median household income is commonly used to understand the relationship of regional income trends within an ROI, without regard to personal income. Utah had a median household income less than the national average in both 1990 and 2000. The Utah growth rate closely followed the national rate of 46.8 percent. Wildland Urban Interface Wildland-urban interface communities are defined as areas where humans and their development meet or intermix with wildland fuels. Due to the high risk to human health and safety, personal and community property, as well as the high costs associated with suppressing fires in these areas, WUI areas have been identified as high-priority areas for hazard and risk reduction activities. The operational role of federal agencies in WUI areas has been defined as wildland firefighting, hazard fuels reduction, cooperative prevention and education and technical assistance (Wildland Fire Leadership Council 2003). Although primary responsibility for protecting private property and rural communities lies with individual property owners and local governments, the National Fire Plan, adopted in 2000, clearly focuses federal efforts in assisting in WUI areas. The Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy suggests that federal objectives and management intent in WUI areas include funding community programs such as FIREWISE, preventing the movement of wildfire into or out of WUI areas, improving wildfire suppression in WUI areas, assisting responsible jurisdictions in protection efforts, clarifying and reconciling jurisdictional inter-relationships and protection responsibilities through the development of a protection authorities matrix (Wildland Fire Leadership Council 2003). In 2001, the BLM completed a statewide fire assessment project (BLM 2001); see Appendix D. The project involved defining and ranking hazards and risks (such as fire density and population density values) and mapping statewide. These maps were developed to assist agency personnel in responding to resource needs and land management issues, as well to communicate to the public the hazards and risks to WUI areas presented by fire. In an effort to reduce excessive or unnecessary paperwork, the Utah Statewide Fire Assessment Project and associated fire risk assessment maps, are incorporated by reference into this document (BLM 2001). Also in 2001, the U.S. Department of the Interior and USDA issued a notice with a list of WUI communities within the vicinity of federal lands that were determined to be at high risk from wildfire (DOI 2001). Within Utah, over 400 communities were classified as "at risk" to wildfire. A list of these communities is presented in Appendix H (DOI 2001).

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-49

To address the risks associated with WUI areas, numerous federal, Tribal, state and local programs and initiatives have been implemented to address hazards posed to these areas. In particular, public outreach and education have been identified as critical to reducing WUI hazards. The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands has developed a Community Fire Plan and Guidance Document to assist with community planning and WUI fire prevention (UDNR 2002). It is currently the primary state agency coordinating state and local efforts to increase public awareness, facilitate citizen fire counsels and provide community fire prevention and safety training.

September 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment 3-50

Chapter 4 Environmental Impacts

4.1 INTRODUCTION This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the alternative comparisons. Two alternatives are evaluated: Alternative A (Proposed Action) where 21 LUPs would be amended to update fire management direction; and Alternative B (No Action) where the current LUPs and fire management direction would be maintained. The discussion in this chapter includes the potential environmental impacts, and uncertainties of these impacts, of the Proposed Action and continued existing conditions under the No Action Alternative. This chapter is organized with discussions of impacts on each resource (as defined in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, 3/11/05) under both the Proposed Action and No Action scenarios. The analyses of impacts of fire management actions on each resource are discussed in a short and long-term context. For surface and groundwater, soils, and cultural resources, a general description of fire’s potential effects is provided in order to give context from which to analyze and contrast the impacts of the management direction represented by the Proposed Action, and within the No Action Alternative. A cumulative effects section is presented at the end of the Chapter, which analyzes both the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives. The fire management actions that were analyzed as potentially impacting resources of concern are wildfire and suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments, including mechanical treatments and seeding. Chemical and biological treatments are another type of non-fire fuels management activity, yet it is not regularly employed by the BLM for hazardous fuel treatments. Since chemical and biological treatments would occur on a comparatively small average acreage (less than 4,500 acres per year) of the planning area and there are Resource Protection Measures that protect sensitive resources from potential effects of chemical treatments, no short- or long-term impacts to resources are described (Pollet 2004). [Note: The 4,500 acre figure for chemical/biological treatments was derived from Table 2.2. 10% of the non-fire fuel treatment acres identified in Table 2.2 equals 66,460. When this figure is spread over 15 years, the resultant treated acres are less than 4,500 annually.] Some key assumptions are required to lay the framework for meaningful analyses of impacts. These assumptions include: • Planned fire and non-fire fuel treatments in the No Action Alternative would occur, but they would be substantially less than the Proposed Action and would not typically be for the primary purpose of hazardous fuels reduction or community protection. • As it is used in this analysis, short-term is considered 0 to 5 years, and long-term is 6 to 15+ years. • The No Action’s primary fire suppression focus is on full suppression. The Proposed Action’s focus is primarily the same, initially, due to the existing FRCC of vegetation in the State. However, the Proposed Action does allow for a less stringent suppression approach through the use of an appropriate management response. Even if the Proposed Action is implemented, a measurable reduction in occurrence, severity or size of wildfires is not expected in the short- term. The difference in impacts between the alternatives would be primarily in the long-term trend of wildfire behavior and reduced risks to communities and ecosystems. • Wildland fire use is not a major component of treated acres in the Proposed Action because of the limitations related to the inability to rehabilitate following wildland fire use and fragmented land ownership. Wildland fire use in not an option in the No Action Alternative. • Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments are typically planned in areas with a low risk of noxious weed infestation or are followed by seeding to reduce the risk. The potentially impacted resources analyzed below are: air; soil and water; vegetation; special status species; fish and wildlife; cultural resources; visual resources; naturalness; solitude and primitive

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-1

recreation; forestry; livestock grazing; recreation and visitor services; special designations; and socio- economics. The issues associated with these resources to be analyzed in this document are identified both in Chapter 1, Section 1.7 and in Appendix A. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED ACTION As stated in Chapter 2, the Proposed Action would include a fire management program that incorporates suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments (e.g., biological, mechanical, seeding, and chemical treatments), ESR actions, and community protection. 4.2.1 Air Wildland fires are a source of air pollutant emissions during combustion of vegetation. The amount of emissions depends on the size and intensity of the fire, the fuel type and moisture content, and available fuel load (Sandberg et al. 2002). The level of resulting air quality impact depends on the amount and duration of emissions, atmospheric dispersion conditions, and terrain. The magnitude and extent of air quality effects resulting from the Proposed Action are complex to quantify due to the variability of potential fire management activities and the period of time each could occur. The Proposed Action includes air quality Resource Protection Measures to minimize air quality impacts. Potential impacts, both long- and short-term, would be minimized through action specific analysis and permitting and coordination efforts with the Utah Interagency Smoke Management Program to ensure compliance with all local, state and federal regulations, as described in Chapter 3. With these laws and protection measures in place, fire management activities would not unlawfully exceed air quality standards or impact NAAs or other sensitive areas (including Class I areas and communities) in Utah due to the Proposed Action. However, circumstances beyond the BLM’s control (i.e., uncontrollable wildfires) may impact air quality, but these acts of nature are outside the scope of the Proposed Action. SHORT-TERM In contrast to the current widespread management direction of full suppression of wildfires, the Proposed Action would potentially decrease the level of suppression being used on a wildfire through an AMR. The AMR may also allow for wildland fire use in appropriate areas. Under the Proposed Action’s wildland fire scenarios, slightly more acres may be burned and an increase in smoke and particulate emissions may result. For wildland fire use, emissions would be required to be within regulatory levels. Therefore, impacts on human health are not expected. Planned and permitted prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments can be effective methods for reducing heavy fuels loads that could adversely impact air quality during a wildfire. When properly executed, managed fires would be much smaller and involve less combustion and would occur when the fuels characteristics, as well as weather conditions, are optimal to enhance efficient vegetation consumption and air pollutant dispersion (NWCGb 2001). The anticipated increase in prescribed fire would be coordinated with the SMP program coordinator to prevent exceedances of air quality standards and to minimize impacts to NAAs and other sensitive areas (Utah Interagency Smoke Management 2004). Impacts due to prescribed fire events are anticipated to increase slightly from current conditions, but each event would be planned and undergo environmental review to quantify and minimize those impacts. The anticipated increase in mechanical treatments (including seeding) could cause short-term increases in exhaust and fugitive dust from the use of mechanical equipment during and immediately after application of treatments; however, mechanical treatments are planned and undergo environmental review to ensure compliance with air quality standards and to minimize impacts to sensitive areas. By utilizing options for fuels reduction other than fire, impacts to air quality, NAAs, and other sensitive areas could be reduced.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-2

LONG-TERM The Proposed Action would decrease the potential for severe and uncontrollable types of wildfires and create a trend toward a more "natural" fire occurrence on BLM-managed lands, which would enable the agency to manage wildfire and associated emissions more effectively. These efforts would decrease the potential for negative impacts to human health. The use of planned fire and mechanical treatments would continue to have a minor impact on air quality. The planned nature of these events would allow the BLM to time and locate actions for optimal control of emissions. As discussed above, the major impact from these actions is the trend created to decrease occurrence of severe and uncontrollable wildfires. 4.2.2 Soil and Water Resource Protection Measures have been built into the Proposed Action to protect soil and water resources. These measures would be implemented during wildland fire suppression activities, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions and would limit and minimize potential impacts. 4.2.2.1 Soil Due to the interconnectedness and interdependence of issues relating to erosion and runoff, and soil quality and health, impacts are collectively analyzed. This allows for a more complete analysis and assessment of potential impacts. There are no anticipated effects on soil source materials from fire management actions and no further discussion of this issue will be presented. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON SOILS A general understanding of how fire can affect soils is necessary to provide context for analysis of this alternative’s fire and fuels management proposals. Fires affect soils primarily by consuming or charring live or dead vegetation cover, litter, and organic soil layers. Fire may also alter soil chemical properties, post-fire soil temperatures, microorganism populations and their activity rates, erosion rates, and may temporarily increase nutrient availability (NWCGa 2001). The degree of short-term effect on these soil characteristics depends on amount of vegetation, and thickness and density of litter and organic layers and also depends on the intensity of fire (i.e., temperature). Soil texture and type, soil moisture at the time of burning, and depth and duration of heat penetration into soil horizons are also critical factors (NWCGa 2001). Appreciable changes in soil mineral fractions would not be anticipated as a result of a low severity fire (Beaton 1959; Summerfield 1976). Soil depth influences the quantity of material available for erosion and may therefore affect the magnitude of erosion. The single most important factor in topsoil and nutrient loss is the timing of vegetation recovery coupled with the severity of precipitation events. If post-fire rains are relatively gentle, some nutrients released by a fire may be reabsorbed; however, these nutrients are generally lost during severe, erosive rainfall. The potential for excessive post-fire erosion depends on the soil types in the burn area, the pattern of burn intensities, the amount of residual vegetation and organic matter, and the rate and amount of vegetation recovery and slope. Soil microorganisms (biological crusts) may be impacted by surface disturbances that compact or disaggregate these features. Disturbance of biological crusts on coarse- textured soils can increase the potential for wind erosion. Wetland and floodplain soils may also be affected by fire. Due to the high water content of wetland and some floodplain soils, penetration of heat by a surface fire can be dramatically less than in mineral soils. Since many wetland soils are composed of significant amounts of organic materials, and organic matter has a lower thermal diffusivity than mineral soils, penetration of heat can be furthered reduced.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-3

However, organic soil layers can become dry enough to burn. Considerable amounts of heat can be generated when organic soils burn, particularly in drought situations when the fire burns deeply into organic layers. SHORT-TERM Under the Proposed Action and in consideration of how naturally-ignited wildland fires are managed (appropriate management response vs. suppression only), it is possible that slightly more acres may be burned by wildland fire. An increase in the loss of vegetative cover to wildland fire could lead to the loss of soil structure and reduced porosity of soils in these impacted areas. This reduction in porosity and structure could result in a modification and reduction in infiltration rates and increased erosion and runoff (Ralston and Hatchell 1971). Wildland fire events would be subject to an appropriate management response and an aggressive initial attack would be considered where expected fire severity could adversely impact sensitive soils. Some level of ground disturbing activities associated with suppression and wildland fire use efforts would still occur regardless of the AMR employed. The proposed Resource Protection Measures would be implemented to minimize suppression and wildland fire use impacts to soils and vegetative cover, as well as to address indirect impacts associated with soil loss and the potential for sediment loading. Erosion and sediment controls and any revegetation may be proposed as post-fire treatments that would serve to contain and control soil loss and would serve to stabilize these sites. The emphasis on managing for low severity fire conditions in wetlands and riparian zones would decrease the frequency and intensity of future wildfire in these areas. High severity fires in wetlands and riparian areas are commonly associated with invasive non-native species, such as tamarisk, along river corridors. The increased ability to perform planned actions in wetland and riparian areas would improve future prospects for native species contributions to shade retention, woody debris delivery, stream-bank stability, pore water content and nutrient input. A corresponding decrease in the effects of severe fires would also be apparent in preserved organic soil horizons, ground litter and the ability of wetlands and riparian areas to cycle nutrients back into the local ecosystem. Incorporating soil protection measures in project design and implementation would limit impacts to soils from prescribed fire. Under the Proposed Action, the mechanical removal of fuels prior to prescribed burning would typically produce lower temperature fires, thus resulting in fewer direct and indirect impacts on soil. Resource Protection Measures would also minimize the impacts to soil resources associated with heavy equipment used for mechanical fuel treatments (e.g. increased soil compaction, increased runoff, reduced infiltration, damage to sensitive and organic soils). Indirect impacts include potential soil loss from wind and water erosion. Under the Proposed Action, there may be fewer indirect impacts from fire suppression efforts, but there would be increased use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, which could result in greater short-term soil disturbance and erosion than current activity. The Proposed Action, however, would allow more flexibility in planned activities, which would allow implementation of Resource Protection Measures to reduce potential effects to soil. LONG-TERM A trend toward DWFC would decrease the size of wildfires, their severity and burn duration. Less severe wildfires would result in fewer impacts to soil characteristics including microbial populations, soil temperatures and the chemical and physical structure of the soil than current management. The flexibility of the Proposed Action would continue to allow for high levels of suppression in areas where fire has not played a considerable role in the past and in areas with sensitive soils.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-4

Planned fire management and fuel reduction actions, under the Proposed Action, would be implemented to improve the soil resources and reduce erosion potential in the long-term by fostering a healthy, native understory. A decrease in the potential for destruction of biological crusts due to severe fire events would also reduce the erosion potential and increase fixation of atmospheric nitrate. Planned actions of prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments under the Proposed Action would reduce the likelihood of severe wildfires that result in soil structure loss and altered porosity and infiltration rates. The Proposed Action would also allow more flexibility then the No Action Alternative in implementing and timing planned management actions that would protect and enhance wetland and riparian soils. Over time, as fire returns to a more natural pattern, there would be fewer indirect impacts from large, severe wildfires including potential sedimentation of streams and reservoirs from wind and water erosion and fugitive dust from wind erosion. 4.2.2.2 Water GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S INTERACTION WITH SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER A general understanding of how fire can affect surface water and groundwater is necessary to provide context for analysis of this alternative’s fire and fuels management proposals. Fires reduce vegetation cover, especially in the short-term, which intercepts precipitation before it hits the soil surface. The lack of vegetation cover on burned or areas could allow precipitation to increase surface runoff, soil loss and sediment input to surface waters. These sites may have lower soil-water infiltration rates, which increase surface runoff and decrease soil moisture available for plants. The seasonal timing, size, duration and intensity of fires greatly influence the magnitude of impacts. Burned watersheds generally respond to rainfall faster than unburned watersheds, producing more “flash floods” (Anderson et al. 1976). Water repellent soils and cover loss cause flood peaks to arrive faster, rise to higher levels and entrain greater amounts of bedload and suspended sediments. Flood warning times are reduced for “flash” flows and the high flood levels can be devastating to property and human life. Fire can have many impacts on stream habitats including changes in soil erosion and sediment loads, nutrient loads and water temperature. Sediment from accelerated soil erosion and elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorous from ash are common in water after wildfires (NWCGa 2001). Sediment input may reduce the area suitable for spawning or smother fish eggs with fine materials. Removal of streamside vegetation increases water temperatures, increases streambank erosion and reduces the available streamside habitat (Monsen et al. 2004). In relation to groundwater, fire consumes accumulated surface litter and vegetation, altering infiltration by exposing soils to raindrop impact or creating water repellent conditions (DeBano et al. 1998). SHORT-TERM Surface Water Under the Proposed Action, the potential slight increase in wildland fire acres could increase runoff, erosion and stream temperatures. Nutrient concentration and turbidity increases in surface waters through increases in erosion and runoff, which carry nutrients and excess sediment into water courses from burned areas are possible. Under the Proposed Action, fires with potential for high severity in aquatic habitats (e.g., riparian zones and wetland areas) would generally be suppressed. This would minimize impacts to floodplain and riparian functions and values. There are no expected impacts to watershed drainage patterns. The prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would increase under the Proposed Action. Vegetation disturbance associated with these actions would be evaluated through an environmental planning and review process that would minimize impacts related to increases in surface runoff, soil loss and sediment input to surface waters. Often these impacts are short-term and conditions return to pre-fire levels once vegetation is re-established.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-5

The Proposed Action would allow more flexibility in planned activities to manage fuel loads and would implement Resource Protection Measures to reduce potential effects to water resources. Potential impacts to water resource issues would be considered before implementing prescribed burns, non-fire fuel treatments or emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts. Groundwater The Proposed Action is not expected to create impacts that differ substantially from the No Action in the short-term. However, minor impacts on groundwater quality may occur due to altered water absorption patterns from soil compaction due to mechanical equipment and from a decrease in vegetation cover following wildfire or fuel treatments. Alternatively, infiltration could decrease after a fire due to the formation of a hydrophobic soil layer. Altered water infiltration rates could potentially temporarily could increase or decrease the chemical levels (e.g., dissolved solids) in shallow aquifers (Gee et al. 1992, Allison et al. 1994). Water Quality The impacts to water quality are similar to those discussed in the preceding surface water section. Planned actions would have minimal impacts on impaired waters through implementation consistent with compliance strategies for restoring or maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] waterbodies. Resource Protection Measures would restrict activities in the vicinity of sensitive areas such as wetland and riparian areas, floodplain areas and impaired water bodies (i.e. 303(d)-listed) in order to reduce further degradation of the surface water conditions. The Proposed Action would not affect support for beneficial uses. LONG-TERM Surface Water Potential for long-term beneficial impacts to watershed condition would be greater under this alternative in comparison to current management (No Action). Overall, watershed conditions would improve by reducing the risk of high severity wildfire and promoting native vegetation types. Wildland fires would be smaller and less severe resulting in fewer impacts to storm flows and nutrient and sediment loads. The burning of riparian and wetland areas would generally be avoided, however, low intensity fires may be allowed to burn to reduce the likelihood of a future severe fire which would cause greater damage to those areas. A trend towards fewer severe wildfires would increase soil stability and would enhance overall bank and channel stability and Proper Functioning Condition of the watershed. Some areas would have a more sustainable supply of woody debris or native stream bank vegetation, which would also increase bank stability. Floodplains would have fewer disturbances from severe wildfires, which would allow greater stability and increased functionality of floodplains, including decreasing the impact of flashfloods. Planned fire actions, under the Proposed Action and eventual restoration of natural fire regimes, would improve water resources and reduce erosion potential in the long-term by fostering a healthy, native understory. The Proposed Action would allow more flexibility in implementing and timing planned actions that would protect water resources. Groundwater A trend towards fewer large, severe wildfires, that otherwise may cause damage to soil resources and the resultant impacts to groundwater, would occur. This is related to a reduction in the alteration of infiltration rates and would be realized through more vegetation surface cover and root zone presence and less fire-caused hydrophobicity. Water Quality The impact from the Proposed Action should result in improvement of the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] waterbodies. The potential for severe fires in sensitive areas such as wetland and riparian areas, floodplain areas and around impaired water bodies (i.e. 303(d)-listed) would decrease leading to the ability of those areas to maintain their functional ability to filter out dissolved solids and suspended solids, and promote a more stable baseflow condition through infiltration of surface flows.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-6

4.2.3 Vegetation A goal of the Proposed Action is to move vegetation with a FRCC of 3 and 2 toward a more ecologically sustainable FRCC 1 over a multi-year period. As the trend toward DWFC progresses there would be less risk of losing key ecosystem components from severe wildfire. The need for post-fire stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration to control soil erosion, the loss of wildlife habitat and other values at risk would also decrease. SHORT-TERM Salt Desert Scrub In the short-term, wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use in this vegetation type would help to limit further degradation due to expansion. Under the Proposed Action, aggressive seeding after wildfire and limited prescribed fire use in conjunction with seeding for invasive species control efforts would help to trend this vegetation type toward a lower FRCC. Non-fire fuel treatments, such as seeding following surface disturbance, would also help to prevent further expansion of invasive species and deterioration of this vegetation type toward a higher FRCC. Pinyon and Juniper Woodland In the short-term, wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use in degraded pinyon and juniper areas (FRCC 3) would help to limit further invasive species invasion and expansion, but would not decrease juniper expansion or promote recovery of pre-settlement vegetation types lost to juniper encroachment (e.g., sagebrush, perennial grasslands). Aggressive seeding following wildfire in FRCC 3 areas would help to trend these areas toward a lower, more desirable FRCC by limiting or reducing cheatgrass invasion and expansion and promoting recovery of historic vegetation types. Wildland fire use and prescribed fires in FRCC 2 lands (i.e., areas encroached by juniper but still with intact native understories) would help to trend areas toward recovery of the pre-settlement vegetation types and lower FRCC. Non-fire fuel treatments such as mechanical removal of pinyon and juniper from FRCC 2 and 3 areas would also promote recovery of pre-settlement vegetation types and trend these areas toward a lower FRCC. Sagebrush In the short-term, suppression of wildland fires in FRCC 3 and FRCC 2 sagebrush areas with depauperate native understories or a moderate or higher threat of cheatgrass invasion, followed by aggressive seeding with grasses and forbs, would help to limit further degradation due to cheatgrass invasion and expansion. This may also begin to lower the FRCC in areas where wildfires occur following successful post-fire seeding efforts. Since most low-elevation sagebrush FRCC 2 areas are at increased risk of cheatgrass invasion and expansion, full suppression efforts would generally be applied which would greatly limit the acreage of low-elevation sagebrush that may be improved via wildland fire. Since high-elevation FRCC 2 sagebrush areas are more likely to have intact understories and a lower threat of cheatgrass invasion, they would benefit to a greater extent from wildland fire use and prescribed fire. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire would also help to remove encroaching juniper, which would further help to trend these areas toward lower FRCC. Non-fire fuel treatments would be focused in those areas where fire is not appropriate due to the proximity of values at risk from fire and/or degraded vegetation conditions. By employing non-fire fuel treatments, the trend to lower FRCC would occur in treated areas. In summary, short-term results of the Proposed Action should help to limit further degradation of low- and high-elevation sagebrush due to fire related cheatgrass expansion, but would likely move more limited acreage of low-elevation sagebrush toward lower FRCCs. Grassland In the short-term, wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use in FRCC 3 and FRCC 2 areas of this vegetation type with existing or potential invasive species (primarily areas below 7,000 feet in elevation) would help to limit further degradation due to cheatgrass invasion and expansion. Post-fire seeding efforts would further help to limit cheatgrass invasion and expansion and start to trend these areas toward lower FRCCs. Allowing wildfires in areas of this vegetation type with low potential for cheatgrass invasion (primarily areas above 7,000 feet in elevation) would help maintain or reduce FRCCs. Prescribed fire (primarily areas above 7,000 feet in elevation) would help to trend this vegetation type toward a lower FRCC and reduce encroachment by juniper. Non-fire fuel treatments

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-7

would also help to prevent further expansion of juniper and trend this vegetation type toward a lower FRCC. Cheatgrass Cheatgrass dominated areas are considered to be in FRCC 3 and the same impacts, benefits and trends noted above for FRCC 3 grasslands would apply. In addition, management efforts aimed at reducing the risk of cheatgrass should help to limit further expansion of cheatgrass. These benefits should be accretive through time as post-fire seeding helps to recover native vegetation communities and FRCCs are lowered across salt desert scrub, sagebrush, grassland, blackbrush and creosote and bursage vegetation types that are prone to cheatgrass invasion. Blackbrush In the short-term, wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use and prescribed fire in this vegetation type would help to preserve existing blackbrush communities and limit further degradation due to cheatgrass invasion and expansion. Post-fire seeding efforts would further help to limit cheatgrass invasion and expansion. Non-fire fuel treatments would consist of small scale projects. Mountain Shrub In the short-term, wildland fire, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would begin to restore a more diverse seral mosaic (age structure) within this vegetation type. Under the Proposed Action, post-wildfire seeding would help to reduce the potential for invasion by weedy species. Collectively, these impacts would help to trend this vegetation type toward a lower FRCC. Mixed Conifer In the short-term, wildland and prescribed fire in FRCC 1 and FRCC 2 areas of this vegetation type would help to maintain or improve age class diversity and decrease fuel loadings, thereby maintaining or improving FRCCs. In FRCC 3 areas, use of non-fire fuel treatments may be used to help reduce excessive fuel loadings prior to the re-introduction of fire as a management tool. This approach would help to improve these areas to FRCC 2 or FRCC 1. Where aspen is a component of mixed conifer stands, fire would promote regeneration of clonal aspen sprouts while the spruce and fir component is reduced accordingly. Tree planting following fire would maintain species composition and age class diversity. Ponderosa Pine In the short-term, wildland and prescribed fire in FRCC 1 and FRCC 2 areas of this vegetation type would help to maintain age-structure diversity and decrease fuel loadings, particularly in forest understories, thereby maintaining or improving FRCCs. In FRCC 3 areas, use of non-fire fuel treatments may be used to help reduce excessive fuel loadings prior to the re-introduction of fire as a management tool. Reintroducing fire use would also reduce encroachment by juniper. Seeding and tree planting following fire would help restore and rehabilitate burned areas. Riparian and Wetland In the short-term, wildland fire, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would promote seral and compositional diversity in native riparian and wetland vegetation types. These fire management tools may also be useful in reducing exotic species and would help to trend this vegetation type toward lower FRCCs. Creosote and Bursage In the short-term, wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use and prescribed fire in this vegetation type would help to limit further degradation due to cheatgrass and red brome invasion and expansion. Under the Proposed Action, aggressive post-fire seeding would help to reduce the threat of invasive species expansion and begin to trend this vegetation type toward a lower FRCC. Aspen In the short-term, the use of wildland fire, prescribed fire and mechanical treatments and fencing until aspen could survive grazing and browsing would help to maintain or improve age class diversity and reduce juniper encroachment, thereby maintaining or improving the FRCC. LONG-TERM Salt Desert Scrub Wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use would continue to inhibit further loss and degradation in this vegetation type due to invasive species expansion. Ultimately, ongoing invasive species control efforts, which may include use of prescribed fire as a pretreatment, may help to

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-8

trend this vegetation type toward a more desirable, lower FRCC. Application of non-fire fuel treatments aimed at restoring native communities would improve the FRCC. Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Longer term effects would be similar to short-term effects for this vegetation type, with effects and benefits (i.e., reducing cheatgrass invasion and expansion and promoting recovery of pre-settlement vegetation types and stand densities) occurring across more acres and creation of a more diverse vegetation mosaic across the landscape. Wildfire and fuel treatments within encroaching woodlands would decrease tree canopy density and reduce the competition for water and sunlight with remaining understory species. A diverse vegetation mosaic would also help to reduce the risk of large, severe fires in this vegetation type. Sagebrush Wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use would continue to inhibit further loss and degradation in lower-elevation sagebrush vegetation types due to cheatgrass invasion. Over time, wildfires and subsequent rehabilitation restoration efforts may lower FRCCs and create a more diverse vegetation mosaic across portions of the landscape. Use of prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would help to trend this vegetation type, especially high-elevation sagebrush, toward a more desirable, lower FRCC. As areas trend toward FRCC 1 or FRCC 2 with intact native understories, fire would increasingly be allowed to play its natural role across this vegetation type, however this would most likely be limited to high-elevation sagebrush for the foreseeable future. A more diverse vegetation mosaic would also help to reduce the risk of large, severe fires in this vegetation type. Grasslands Wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use would continue to inhibit further loss and degradation of this vegetation type in areas susceptible to cheatgrass invasion. Ultimately, ongoing post- fire rehabilitation seeding would help to trend this vegetation type toward a more desirable, lower FRCC. Application of non-fire fuel treatments would help to prevent further encroachment by juniper, further degradation of FRCC and further loss of this native vegetation type. Cheatgrass Management efforts aimed at reducing the risk of cheatgrass invasion and rehabilitation already-invaded area would also help to limit further expansion of annual grasslands composed of cheatgrass. Likewise, these benefits should be accretive through time as post-fire seeding helps to recover native vegetation communities and FRCCs are lowered across salt desert scrub, sagebrush, grassland, blackbrush and creosote and bursage vegetation types that are prone to cheatgrass invasion. Blackbrush Wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use and prescribed fire would continue to inhibit further loss and degradation of this vegetation type due to cheatgrass invasion. Ultimately, ongoing post-fire rehabilitation seeding may help to trend this vegetation type toward a more desirable, lower FRCC, although that would be dependent in part upon determination of successful approaches for regenerating blackbrush. If successful non-fire fuel treatments are identified, their application may help to help to prevent further loss of blackbrush communities or degradation of FRCC. Mountain Shrub Longer term effects would be similar to short-term effects with the creation of a healthier, more diverse vegetation mosaic across more of the landscape. These efforts would promote a trend toward lower FRCCs and may help to reduce the risk of large, severe fires in this vegetation type. Mixed Conifer Longer term effects would be similar to short-term effects with the creation of a healthier, more diverse vegetation mosaic across more of the landscape. These efforts would promote the mixed conifer vegetation type to trend toward a lower FRCC and promote regeneration of aspen. Ponderosa Pine Longer term effects would be similar to short-term effects with the creation of a healthier, more diverse vegetation mosaic across more of the landscape. Riparian and Wetland Longer term effects would be similar to short-term effects across more of the landscape. These efforts would help this vegetation type to trend toward lower FRCCs. Creosote and Bursage Longer term, wildfire suppression and lack of wildland fire use and prescribed fire would continue to inhibit further loss and degradation in this vegetation type due to cheatgrass and

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-9

red brome invasion. Ultimately, this would help to trend this vegetation type toward a more desirable, lower FRCC. Application of non-fire fuel treatments would help to prevent further expansion of cheatgrass and red brome invasion and degradation of FRCC in this vegetation type. Aspen Longer term effects would be similar to short-term effects, creating a more diverse mix of successional stages of aspen forests across the landscape. Pure aspen stands would become more numerous and larger. Greater representation of early and mid seral aspen stands would be more resistant to insect and disease outbreaks, thereby reducing the risk of severe wildland fires. 4.2.3.1 Noxious Weeds SHORT-TERM Invasive, exotic and noxious species have infested much of the West, including Utah, in response to disturbances such as high severity fire. Invasive and noxious weed populations often multiply after wildfires due to seed banks in the soil that are quickly capable of utilizing the flush of nutrients and lack of competition. Aggressive seeding, rehabilitation, monitoring, and weed treatment after wildfire events would help minimize the impact from weed invasion after a wildfire. Impacts from wildland fire use on the spread of noxious and invasive weeds would be minimal. This is based on the agency’s use of wildland fire only in areas where a low potential for noxious and invasive weed occurrence and spread exists. Hazardous fuels reduction projects including prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would be planned to aid in the removal of noxious and invasive weeds. In some cases where weeds have been identified as an issue, seeding would follow planned fire and non-fire fuel treatments. Under the Proposed Action the spread of invasive and noxious weeds using these types of actions would be minimal. After any surface disturbing treatment, proper rehabilitation is essential to deter the re-establishment of weeds. Implementation may include the seeding of desirable native and non-native perennial grasses and perhaps shrubs and forbs. Appropriate seed mixtures of native and non-native plants seeded at appropriate times are effective in becoming quickly established and not allowing weed seedlings to take root. Encouraging the growth and productivity of desirable vegetation typically inhibits the re- establishment of invasive weeds. The degree and type of rehabilitation management required would depend on the nature and severity of the weed control treatment and the severity of the invasion prior to the treatment. LONG-TERM The long-term impacts from wildland fire suppression activities on invasive and noxious weeds is related to the likelihood of less severe and/or smaller wildfires, which would lower the potential for post-fire weed increases. This, in combination with continuing seeding, rehabilitation, monitoring and weed treatment, should control the spread of these weeds following wildfire. Impacts from wildland fire use on the spread of noxious and invasive weeds would be minimal. This is based on the agency’s use of wildland fire only in areas where the potential for noxious and invasive weed occurrence and spread is low. Hazardous fuels reduction projects including prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would be planned to aid in the removal of noxious and invasive weeds. Under the Proposed Action the long-term spread of invasive and noxious weeds using these types of actions would be minimal. 4.2.4 Special Status Species SHORT-TERM ESA-Related Species In accordance with Section 7(a) 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Utah BLM State Office engaged in formal consultation with the USFWS. This process

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-10

involved preparing a Biological Assessment (BA) that included impact analyses and subsequent determinations for all federally listed and proposed species. The BA considered potential project- related effects (direct and indirect) to each species and their habitat from the fire management actions presented in the Proposed Action Alternative. Effects determinations within the BA include Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA); May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA); and Not Contribute to Federal Listing (NCL). For any species with designated or proposed critical habitat, the determination for effects to that habitat was combined with the determination for effects to the species. All determinations take into consideration potential short- term, long-term, and cumulative impacts from wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuels treatments and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation. 24 species were given a determination of LAA, 8 species were given a determination of NLAA, and 11 species were given a determination of NCL (see Appendix F). Additional consultation with the USFWS would still be required for all implementation-level fire management activities if they would be implemented within suitable or potentially suitable habitat for federally listed species. The Alternative Consultation Agreement to Implement Section 7 Counterpart Regulations may be employed for consultation on projects that support the National Fire Plan. BLM-Sensitive Species In addition to RPMs designed to protect ESA-related species and their habitat, RPMs have also been built into the Proposed Action to protect BLM-sensitive species. These RPMs include the review and inclusion of appropriate conservation and management plan direction into project proposals, as well as direction contained in the BLM 6840 Manual for Special Status Species. The RPMs would also assure that any proposed project would conserve BLM-sensitive species and their habitats, and that any action authorized, funded or carried out by the BLM would not contribute to the need for any species to become listed. Some of the goals of the Proposed Action are to restore historical habitats and native plant species and to enhance, maintain, and protect ecological resources. Short-term adverse impacts would be offset by long-term effects of rehabilitation activities (built into the Proposed Action for soil disturbing activities), protection of ecological resources (from effective fire suppression), and reduction of fuels (following prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatment or implementation of wildland fire use). The subsequent, gradual return to a more natural fire regime would result in long-term beneficial effects. Despite the particular life history and habitat requirements of each special status species, some short- term effects can be generalized, based on the types of fire management activities being proposed and general ecological principles. The discussions presented below describe the general residual impacts that could occur following implementation of the Proposed Action with its RPMs. In some cases, depending on the severity or scope of an effect, or recovery rates of a particular species or habitat component, specific effects could be short- or long-term and are listed below. RPMs are designed to minimize effects, particularly from pre-planned fire management activities (such as prescribed fire and non-fire fuels reduction treatments), and prevent them from becoming long-term. Wildfire suppression has the highest potential for negative effects to special status species, since RPMs may not be able to be implemented if firefighter or public safety is at risk or for other necessary reasons. These direct short-term impacts include: • Visual or auditory disturbance or displacement of individuals from low-flying aircraft, vehicles, heavy equipment, and firefighters during fire management actions, affecting foraging, roosting, or reproductive behavior. • Mortality or injury of adults, young, or eggs from smoke inhalation during burning operations or from vehicles or equipment used during fire management actions. • Mortality of adults, young, or larvae of aquatic species from using occupied water sources for

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-11

fire management actions. • Nest/den abandonment or mortality of young or eggs, resulting in the loss of one year’s recruitment. • Injury or mortality due to inadvertent strikes during aerial drops of fire retardant. • Illness or mortality due to inadvertent chemical contamination of terrestrial species or aquatic habitats and species (special status species or prey species) during aerial applications of fire retardant. • Heat stress or mortality to special status plants from firing operations. • Crushing of special status plants, resulting in damage or mortality, from human foot traffic or use of vehicles and heavy equipment in fire management actions. • Damage to the seedbank of federally protected plants due to mechanical disruption during fire management actions. • Removal of key habitat components for nesting or denning, foraging, roosting, or cover due to equipment or operational tactics, including: snag removal for safety reasons; tree and shrub removal and soil disturbance during fireline construction; vegetation removal and soil disturbance during helipad or base camp construction; vegetation removal and soil disturbance during temporary road construction for access; and decreased water quantity for aquatic species from water removal during low flow periods. • Damage or loss of riparian or upland vegetation or downed woody debris and increased surface run-off from fire suppression operations or emergency rehabilitation and stabilization activities, resulting in: decreased channel stability and alteration of channel morphology; increased erosion and sediment and ash levels within and adjacent to the stream channel; increased water temperatures; degraded water quality (nutrient, temperature, and sediment levels); reduced riparian and instream habitat cover and woody debris necessary for properly functioning riparian areas and aquatic habitat; altered water velocities and substrate composition; and decreased and altered composition and abundance of aquatic and terrestrial food sources. Indirect short-term of suppression actions include: • Increased risk of predation from removal of cover. • Changes in food or prey quality and quantity or foraging habitats. • Spread of disease or non-native, predatory species among different water sources. • Soil erosion within the area of special status plant populations following fire suppression operations. • Increase in invasive plant species that may out-compete special status plant species from burning

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-12

operations during fire suppression tactics. Because of specific operational prescriptions for wildland fire use and pre-planning for prescribed fire, RPMs would be incorporated into site-specific project plans for prescribed fire and the identification of areas suitable for wildland fire use would be mapped in the FMPs. This would allow BLM to minimize or avoid many negative short-term effects to federally protected species from these activities. Conversely, these types of fire use would have a greater potential for positive long-term benefits to special status species and their suitable habitat (including designated and critical habitat), than wildland fire suppression. Direct short-term effects from wildland fire use and prescribed fire would be very similar to the effects described for wildland fire suppression. However, due to the pre-planned nature of prescribed fire and limited acres where wildland fire use would be appropriate, effects from wildland fire use and prescribed fire would be reduced compared to fire suppression. Direct and indirect effects from non-fire fuels reduction treatments and ESR actions would be similar to those for fire suppression, wildland fire use and prescribed fire. Because of pre-planning and specific operational prescriptions for non-fire fuel treatments and ESR actions, RPMs would be incorporated into site-specific project plans and operations as necessary. This would allow BLM to avoid or minimize negative short- and long-term effects to federally protected species from these activities. Additionally, these pre-planned treatments would have a greater potential for beneficial long-term effects to special status species and their suitable habitats (including any designated or critical habitats) than wildland fire suppression. Much of the uncertainty surrounding effects related to fire is eliminated for non-fire fuel treatments. The following direct short-term effects could occur to special status species from non-fire fuel treatments and ESR actions: • Visual or auditory disturbance from vehicles, heavy equipment, and humans during treatments. • Displacement or crushing of small animals (special status species or their prey) and special status plants from vehicles or heavy equipment and from piling of slash during treatments. • Removal of key habitat components for nesting or denning, foraging, roosting, dispersal, or cover from clearing vegetation, snags, or downed woody debris during treatments. • Soil or ground disturbance from vehicles or heavy equipment during treatments, resulting in disturbance or destruction of vegetation (federally protected plant species and habitats for wildlife or fish) and subsurface dens or burrows. • Damage to the seedbank of federally protected plants due to mechanical disruption during manual or mechanical treatments. Indirect short-term impacts of non-fire fuels actions include: • Increased risk of predation from removal of cover. • Changes in food or prey quality and quantity or foraging habitats. • Soil erosion within the area of special status plant populations following mechanical treatments in which seeding is not completed or is unsuccessful. • Increase in invasive plant species that may out-compete federally protected plant species following manual or mechanical treatments in which seeding is not completed or unsuccessful. Short-term Impact on Species Habitat Special status species have suitable habitat and are known to occur within all 11 vegetation types in the planning area. Habitat for these species would be vulnerable to any of the impacts that are discussed in Section 4.2.3 (Vegetation). Although fire management activities would vary among vegetation communities, they could affect species and species habitat within these vegetation types. Since species

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-13

occurrence records do not account for areas that have not been surveyed, unknown individuals or populations of a particular species may exist within any of these vegetation communities. Resource Protection Measures have been incorporated into the Proposed Action that would address unknown populations and consideration of suitable habitat associated with them in each vegetation type. The goals and objectives of the proposed fire management actions are based on the types and condition of the various vegetation communities within each planning area. In turn, these vegetation communities provide the key habitat components for the various special status species. Many habitats have been altered within Utah from human-caused changes in either the structure or composition of the vegetation communities, resulting in a change in the historical Fire Regime. Some habitats that are fire-adapted have had fire excluded, while noxious weed infestations now carry wildland fires in some non-fire-adapted habitats. Heavy fuel loads or invasive non-native plant species put these vegetation communities, and thus the species that inhabit them, at greater risk from severe fires. Changes in vegetation structure and composition can alter both the quality and quantity of various habitats for the federally protected species that occupy them. For impacts analyses to special status species, the baseline for each species is not a condition of “no wildland fires,” but rather the current condition of the vegetation communities in which the species live, and the current risk of severe wildland fire. The Vegetation section of this EA describes the FRCC, fire ecology, and current status of the vegetation communities on BLM-administered lands in Utah that, in turn, provide the basis for analysis of the Proposed Action. The list of habitat associations in Chapter 3 of this EA links the special status species that may be affected by the Proposed Action within these vegetation communities. Salt Desert Scrub Species that are found within salt desert scrub habitat would have greater short- term project-related impacts because this habitat is relatively far-removed from its natural fire regime compared to species in more ecologically intact habitats. Short-term impacts from implementation of fire management activities could consist of species mortality, temporary displacement, or habitat loss. Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Species that are found within pinyon and juniper woodland habitat would have greater short-term project-related impacts because this habitat is relatively far-removed from its natural fire regime compared to species in more ecologically intact habitats. In addition, species in this habitat type would be impacted because the expanse of this habitat type would decrease. Short- term impacts from implementation of fire management activities could consist of species mortality and temporary displacement, as would consist of habitat loss. Sagebrush Species that are found within sagebrush habitat would have greater short-term project- related impacts because this habitat is relatively far-removed from its natural fire regime compared to species in more ecologically intact habitats. Short-term impacts from implementation of fire management activities could consist of species mortality, temporary displacement, or habitat loss. Additionally, because high-elevation sagebrush communities would be suited for more widespread application of wildland fire use, species residing in high-elevation habitat would be expected to incur greater impacts than those residing in low-elevation habitat. Grassland Species that are found within grassland habitat would have greater short-term project- related impacts because this habitat is relatively far-removed from its natural fire regime compared to species in more ecologically intact habitats. Short-term impacts from fire management activities could result in mortality of special status species, temporary displacement, or habitat loss. Blackbrush (including Creosote and Bursage) Species that are found within blackbrush habitat would incur few impacts from the Proposed Action since treatments are very limited in this vegetation type. Short-term impacts could include mortality, temporary displacement or habitat destruction associated with wildfire suppression and non-fire fuels reduction treatments. Mountain Shrub Species that are found within mountain shrub habitat could incur short-term project- related impacts during fire management actions designed to maintain or lower the current FRCC. Short-

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-14

term impacts to mountain shrub species could include mortality, temporary displacement, and habitat loss. Mixed Conifer Species that are found within mixed conifer habitat could incur short-term project- related impacts during fire management actions designed to maintain or lower the current FRCC. Short- term impacts associated with these fire management actions could include species mortality, temporary displacement, or habitat loss. Ponderosa Pine Species that are found within ponderosa pine habitat could incur short-term project- related impacts during fire management actions designed to maintain or lower the current FRCC. Short- term residual impacts could include species mortality, temporary displacement, or habitat loss. Riparian and Wetland Species that are found within riparian and wetland habitat could incur short- term project-related impacts during fire management actions. These could include species mortality, temporary displacement, and habitat loss. Aspen Species that are found within aspen habitat could incur short-term project-related impacts during fire management actions. Short-term impacts from these fire management activities could result in mortality of special status species, temporary displacement, or habitat loss. Water Direct effects to water and aquatic inhabitants could occur from wildfire suppression and wildland fire use, including the introduction of fire retardant, aviation fuel or lubricants into streams and wetlands; erosion of exposed soils from fireline construction on steep slopes adjacent to streams; damaged riparian vegetation and soils (resulting in erosion) from the use of heavy equipment and establishment of fire camps; and reduced natural stream flow during drafting and pumping. These impacts would adversely impact water quality of various fisheries throughout the state. The collective short-term impacts of increased sedimentation (from erosion) could have watershed-wide effects including changes in temperature, turbidity and water chemistry. However, Resource Protection Measures that were developed for riparian and wetland habitat and BLM-sensitive species would minimize the potential for short-term adverse impacts to aquatic species and their habitat. Additionally, because Resource Protection Measures would ensure limited acres of prescribed fire and constraints on non-fire fuels reduction treatments in and adjacent to riparian and wetland and water habitats, short-term adverse impacts from these fire management activities would be minimized or eliminated. LONG-TERM (For ESA and BLM-Sensitive Species) With suppression being implemented only when necessary, and wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuels reduction treatments being used to minimize fuel loading, vegetation communities and wildlife habitats would transition over time to more closely reflect conditions associated with a habitat’s natural fire regime. This would create a more balanced (diverse) and stable ecosystem that would have a reduced threat of severe wildfire. This long-term effect would provide for more species diversity in a more fire-tolerant ecosystem. Because wildland fire use and prescribed fire would not likely consist of large fires, and rehabilitation would be implemented as necessary and appropriate, mortality or long- term displacement of species would likely be avoided. If management activities were implemented repeatedly within the same treatment area, (e.g., mechanical treatment followed by prescribed fire followed by biological treatment) populations could be displaced over the long-term. However, to the extent that suitable habitat were available nearby, these impacts would be offset by the reinstatement of natural conditions. Wildfire suppression has the highest potential for negative effects to special status species, since RPMs may not be able to be implemented if firefighter or public safety is at risk or for other necessary reasons. Thus, the following long-term residual effects could occur to special status species from wildland fire suppression:

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-15

• Federally protected species and their designated critical habitat could benefit from interdependent effects of wildland fire suppression actions that prevent loss of designated critical habitat or suitable habitat from severe wildland fires. • Federally protected species and their designated critical habitat could experience positive interrelated effects from post-fire ESR efforts in or near occupied sites, which would avoid or minimize further negative indirect effects to populations or key habitat components from either the wildland fire or fire suppression operations. • Long-term impacts to the federally protected species or their designated critical habitat could occur from: inadvertent high mortality of a species; or long-term changes (alteration, removal, damage, or fragmentation) to suitable habitat components. By implementing RPMs, negative long-term effects to habitat quality or quantity would typically be avoided or limited in scope and/or intensity. For many species, long-term negative effects would be greater from the wildland fire itself, rather than from the fire suppression operations. For situations where extensive or aggressive fire suppression would be necessary, or when species or habitat components have a long recovery rate, the following long-term negative effects could occur: • When a species has relatively few individuals, is extremely localized or specialized in its habitat, or has a slow reproductive rate, short-term effects may become long-term effects. Any direct mortality of individuals, loss of endemic populations, or alteration of potentially suitable habitat could cause long-term negative effects. Because wildland fire suppression operations are typically localized, even under extreme conditions, this activity would generally not affect wide-ranging species in the long-term, unless they have a low reproductive rate. • Long-term changes in quality or quantity of habitat when key habitat components are slow to recover, affect the ability of a federally protected species to continue occupying a site. These changes include: damage, removal, or fragmentation of nesting, roosting, foraging, dispersal, or cover habitats for terrestrial wildlife, particularly for woodland, forest, or some components of sagebrush habitats; long-term alterations to water quality or quantity; removal of riparian or upland vegetation, or downed woody debris; increased surface run-off; or introductions of disease or non-native, predatory species, for fish and aquatic species; and extensive or severe damage to seedbanks, substrates, vegetative composition, or structure of habitats for plant species. • Long-term changes in prey populations when key habitat components are slow to recover. • Increase in invasive plant species that may out-compete federally protected plant species or alter sensitive (or non-fire adapted) habitats of terrestrial wildlife species following fire. RPMs or ESR actions would typically mitigate this potential effect to prevent it from becoming a long-term impact. Pre-planning, including pre-project surveys and consultation with the USFWS, as well as implementation of RPMs, would typically prevent mortality of individual species during prescribed fire, non-fire fuels treatment and ESR actions. Additionally, identification of areas as not suitable for wildland fire use (areas that contain important or critical wildlife and terrestrial habitats) would prevent mortality of individual species. Thus, negative long-term effects from wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, and ESR actions to species or suitable habitat would generally be avoided or limited in scope and/or intensity. However, if key habitat components were targeted for permanent change in structure or

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-16

composition, long-term effects could be negative or beneficial for a species, depending on its particular habitat needs. The following long-term effects could occur from wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non- fire fuel treatment and ESR actions: • When a species has relatively few individuals, is extremely localized or specialized in its habitat, or has a slow reproductive rate, short-term effects may become long-term effects. Any inadvertent mortality of individuals, loss of endemic populations, or alteration of potentially suitable habitat could cause long-term negative effects. Because actions are typically localized compared to overall habitat availability, these activities would generally not affect wide-ranging species in the long-term. • Long-term changes in quality or quantity of habitat when key habitat components are slow to recover, affect the ability of a special status species to continue occupying a site. These changes include: damage, removal, or fragmentation of nesting, roosting, foraging, dispersal, or cover habitats for terrestrial wildlife, particularly for woodland, forest, or some components of sagebrush habitats; long-term alterations to water quality or quantity; removal of riparian or upland vegetation, or downed woody debris; increased surface run-off; or introductions of disease or non-native, predatory species, for fish and aquatic species; and extensive or severe damage to seedbanks, substrates, vegetative composition, or structure of habitats for plant species. • Long-term changes in prey populations when key habitat components are slow to recover. • Increase in invasive plant species that may out-compete special status plant species or alter sensitive (or non-fire adapted) habitats of terrestrial wildlife species following actions. RPMs would typically mitigate this potential effect to prevent it from becoming a long-term impact. • Long-term beneficial effects to species from: decreased risk for large, severe fire events through fuels reduction and the gradual transition to a more natural Fire Regime; or restoration of habitats that have been altered due to invasion of non-native species, or long-term exclusion of fire (in fire-adapted vegetation communities). increased species’ reproduction rates, population numbers, or distribution, potentially facilitating the return of a species to its historic range. Long-term Impact on Species Habitat Salt Desert Scrub Long-term impacts would include a beneficial stabilization of the ecosystem, with a decreased risk of severe fire. Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Short-term impacts including the loss of potentially suitable habitat for special status species would likely be offset by the long-term presence of suitable, unoccupied pinyon and juniper woodland habitat nearby, and the transition to a more stable ecosystem with less risk of severe wildfire. Accordingly, net long-term impacts would be beneficial. Sagebrush Long-term impacts would include expanded acreage of healthier high-elevation sagebrush habitat and an overall transition to a lower FRCC within both low- and high-elevation sagebrush habitats that would benefit species. Grassland The establishment of a lower FRCC would produce a long-term beneficial effect of a lower risk of severe wildfire. Additionally, because this habitat would eventually be expanded by removal of pinyon and juniper encroachment, special status species that utilize grassland habitat would benefit.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-17

Blackbrush (including Creosote and Bursage) Long-term impacts would be beneficial and would include either maintaining or lowering the existing FRCC and, subsequently, reducing the likelihood of a severe wildfire. Mountain Shrub Long-term impacts to mountain shrub habitat and its associated species would be beneficial. Fire management actions would begin to restore a more diverse mountain shrub ecosystem, trending it toward a lower FRCC with lower risk for severe wildfire. Mixed Conifer The long-term effects of the proposed project would eventually produce a more stable ecosystem with a lower FRCC, lower risk of severe wildfire and greater species diversity. These impacts would be beneficial to mixed conifer habitat and the species associated with it. Ponderosa Pine Long-term effects would eventually produce a more stable ecosystem with a lower FRCC, lower risk of severe wildfire and maintenance of habitat size (e.g. limiting pinyon and juniper encroachment), would result. These impacts would be beneficial to ponderosa pine habitat and the species associated with it. Riparian and Wetland The long-term impacts would include a reduced risk for severe wildfire and a more diverse ecosystem. Aspen Long-term, fire management actions would serve to lower the existing FRCC and, subsequently reduce the risk of a severe wildfire. Additionally, fire management actions within mixed conifer habitat could increase the aspen component. Collectively, fire management actions within mixed conifer and aspen habitats could increase overall aspen habitat throughout the planning area. These impacts would be beneficial to special status species and their aspen habitat. Water Long-term impacts to water and its aquatic inhabitants would be a reduced risk for severe wildfire in upstream and adjacent habitats. Consequently, the ecosystem would be less likely to incur such large-scale impacts from fire as to decimate an entire fish population. 4.2.5 Fish and Wildlife Fire management activities have the potential to directly and indirectly affect fisheries and wildlife throughout the planning area, depending upon treatment timing, extent, location, elevation, duration, fuel, severity of fires, as well as habitat type or vegetation community and soil type of treated area. Impacts on vegetation communities and habitats are discussed separately in Section 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, respectively. Any effects to vegetation have the potential to directly or indirectly affect the fish and wildlife species that inhabit them or areas adjacent to (or downstream from) them. Some of the goals of the Proposed Action are to restore historical habitats and native plant species and to enhance, maintain and protect ecological resources. These would likely be accomplished through the implementation of rehabilitation (post-wildfire and treatment) activities, where practical and applicable, thereby improving habitat condition for these species. Resource Protection Measures (Section 2.2.6) were built into the Proposed Action in order to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to species and habitat. Direct impacts would be short-term and less adverse over time. In the long-term, overall hazardous fuels reduction would gradually reduce the risk of a severe fire event and restore an ecosystem that reflects a more natural fire regime. SHORT-TERM Fish Resource Protection Measures included in the Proposed Action would limit the potential for impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources. However, direct effects could occur from wildfire suppression and wildland fire use, including the introduction of fire retardant, aviation fuel or lubricants into streams and wetlands; erosion of exposed soils from fireline construction on steep slopes adjacent to streams; damaged riparian vegetation and soils (resulting in erosion) from the use of heavy equipment

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-18

and establishment of fire camps; and reduced natural stream flow during drafting and pumping. These impacts would adversely impact water quality of various fisheries throughout the state. The collective short-term impacts of increased sedimentation (from erosion) could have watershed-wide effects including changes in temperature, turbidity and water chemistry. Because Resource Protection Measures would ensure limited acres and severity of prescribed fire and constraints on non-fire fuels reduction treatments in and adjacent to riparian and wetland, and water habitats, short-term adverse impacts from these fire management activities would be minimized or eliminated. Non-Game and Big Game Species Short-term adverse impacts (e.g., direct species mortality, habitat destruction and habitat displacement) to non-game and big game species would be minimized by Resource Protection Measures. However, fire management activities could still result in short-term adverse impacts. These impacts would likely affect suitable habitat utilized by raptors, migratory birds, small mammals, carnivores and predators and amphibians and reptiles, as well as a variety of habitats associated with big game species. Direct effects from wildfire suppression could include the introduction of fire retardant, aviation fuel or lubricants into any occupied or potentially suitable habitat; erosion of exposed soils from fireline construction on steep slopes; and damaged vegetation and soils from the use of heavy equipment and establishment of fire camps. Direct effects from wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, and ESR actions could include individual mortality to plant or animal species, habitat destruction, and/or species displacement. The four largest habitats within the planning area (salt desert scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, sagebrush and grassland within the planning area) would be heavily targeted for fire management activities since their current conditions are more far-removed from natural conditions. However, due to the abundance of these vegetation types, nearby suitable habitat would likely be available. The species that occur within these habitat types would be more likely to incur short-term impacts from fire management activities such as mortality, habitat destruction and temporary displacement. Species that are found only in mountain shrub, mixed conifer, riparian and wetland and aspen habitats would be less likely to incur short-term adverse impacts. Impacts specific to the following non-game and big game species subdivisions include: Raptors and Migratory Birds Raptors that are found in mountainous and forested habitats (e.g., mountain shrub, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine and aspen) and migratory birds that generally breed at higher elevations would likely incur few short-term impacts because these habitats more closely reflect a natural fire regime and, therefore, would likely be a lower priority for fire management activities. Raptors and migratory birds that are found within desert and riparian and wetland habitats would be more likely to incur project-related impacts because these habitats are relatively far-removed from their natural fire regimes. However, because Resource Protection Measures would be considered and implemented, as appropriate, for wildland fire use and planned actions, direct impacts would be limited to those associated with wildfire suppression activities and would include impacts such as mortality, habitat destruction and temporary displacement. Indirect impacts could include a short-term reduction in available prey sources. Small Mammals Small mammals are found in every habitat throughout the planning area. Because habitats would be prioritized differently for fire management activities (based on their relative likeness to the natural fire regime for that habitat), small mammal populations would be affected differently throughout the planning area. Vegetation communities for which Resource Protection Measures have been developed (e.g., sagebrush and riparian and wetland), would likely maintain viable populations of small mammals during the short-term. Vegetation communities for which Resource Protection Measures have

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-19

not been explicitly developed, could see a decrease in populations in the short-term (i.e., for the duration of a fire event or non-fire fuels reduction treatment). Carnivores and Predators Many of Utah’s carnivores and predators are solitary and secretive in nature and require large home ranges in order to secure adequate prey sources. Accordingly, they are generally found in mountainous and forested habitats (e.g., mountain shrub, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine and aspen). Because of their ability to travel long distances for food, shelter and safety and the fact that mountainous and forested habitats would likely be a lower priority for fire management activities (because they more closely reflect a natural fire regime), carnivores and predators would likely incur few short-term adverse impacts. Amphibians and Reptiles Because amphibians and reptiles are found in desert and riparian and wetland habitats, which are relatively far-removed from their natural fire regime and would likely be prioritized for fire management activities, these species groups could incur short-term adverse impacts including mortality, habitat destruction and temporary displacement. However, because Resource Protection Measures would be considered and implemented, as appropriate, for wildland fire use and planned actions, direct impacts would be limited to those associated with wildfire suppression activities. LONG-TERM Fish Long-term adverse impacts to fisheries would be minimized or avoided by implementation of Resource Protection Measures. Long-term beneficial impacts to fisheries would include a reduction in adverse impacts from a potentially severe wildfire and associated suppression activities. Non-Game and Big Game Species The long-term effects of the Proposed Action on fish and wildlife species would be similar to the long-term effects described for special status animal species (Section 4.2.4). Long-term effects are summarized below for the following non-game and big game species: raptors and migratory birds; small mammals; carnivores and predators; and amphibians and reptiles. With suppression being implemented only when necessary and wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire fuels reduction treatments being used to minimize fuel loading, the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats would transition over time, to more closely reflect conditions associated with the natural fire regime. This would create a more stable ecosystem in which the threat of an unnaturally severe wildfire would be minimized. Because wildland fire use and prescribed fire would be relatively small compared to the amount of habitat, and rehabilitation would be implemented as necessary and appropriate, mortality or long-term displacement of species would likely be avoided. Longer term displacements are possible if fire management activities were implemented repeatedly within the same treatment area (e.g., mechanical treatment followed by prescribed fire followed by biological treatment). However, to the extent that suitable habitat were available nearby, these impacts would be offset by the reinstatement of a natural fire regime. The establishment of noxious weed populations would be minimized or eliminated by Resource Protection Measures and stipulations in the Proposed Action. Regardless of species or associated habitat, long-term impacts for non-game and big game species would be beneficial. 4.2.6 Cultural Resources The direct effects of fire suppression efforts, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, seeding, non-fire fuel treatments and ESR actions could affect cultural resources. Cultural resources include archaeological, historic and architectural sites that are important for scientific research or preservation and interpretation and traditional cultural properties and religious sites that are important to Native American and other cultural groups. Resource Protection Measures incorporated into the Proposed Action, such as pre-treatment surveys and subsequent avoidance as well as the Utah State Protocol Agreement 3-7-01, should minimize these effects; however, not all cultural resources are easily

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-20

detectable or avoidable. Therefore, the potential for impact does exist for cultural resources throughout the state including those in recognized congressional and administrative designated areas of importance (including ACECs with cultural or archaeological values). Direct and indirect effects to cultural resources will be described in terms of short- and long-term threats from fire suppression efforts, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and mechanical reduction treatments. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES A general understanding of how fire affects cultural resources is necessary to provide context for analysis of this alternative’s fire and fuels management proposals. To put the effects from the potential variations in heat generated by fire into context with different cultural resource types a discussion is presented here. Fire effects are context dependent varying by temperature and duration of exposure to heat. Generally, higher temperatures and/or longer duration of exposure to heat increase the potential for damage to cultural resources. Variables that affect temperature and duration include type of fuel, fuel load and distribution, fuel moisture and soil type and moisture (Wiltz and Hanes 2001). As a general rule, fire does not affect buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few centimeters of soil cover (10 cm) are sufficient to protect cultural materials (Oster n.d.). However, there are times when conditions do carry heat below the surface, with the potential to affect buried materials. These conditions include: stumps that smolder and burn have the potential of affecting buried materials that are in the vicinity, heavy duff, surface logs and roots that smolder and burn. Fires that burn hot and fast through a site may have less of an effect on certain types of cultural materials than fires that smolder in the duff or burn for a long period of time. Prehistoric and historic resources potentially affected by fire may be inorganic (lithic, ceramics, cans, glass, rock art, etc.) or organic (basketry, wooden structures, dendroglyphs, etc.). Generally speaking organic materials are more at risk as they tend to burn or alter at lower temperatures than inorganic items. Fire can affect chipped and groundstone tools through changes in morphology rather than in chemistry. Exposure to heat and rapid cooling may cause fracturing, potlidding, crazing, shattering, changes in color and internal luster, which might reduce an artifact’s ability to render information about the past. Numerous studies provide data concerning the effects of temperature on obsidian, various silicates including chert, basalt and sandstone used for groundstone (Deal n.d., Buenger 2003, Loyd et al. 2002, Shackley and Dillon 2002, Waechter n.d.). As a general rule, hotter temperatures and longer exposure to fire may affect lithic materials. When these materials are likely to be present, it may be necessary to take protective measures. Different types of clays, inclusions and manufacturing techniques lead to different effects among distinct ceramic types. Heat damage is not as important a consideration for ceramic artifact types as it is for others. Generally, structural damage does not occur until temperatures exceed the original firing temperature. The main type of damage noted is to the surface decoration or glaze (Andrews 2004, Rude n.d.). Pyne (1996) generally suggests that when fires remain below 500 degrees C and occur within a half an hour (as is typical for prescribed burns), little damage to artifacts and resources even at shallow depths is likely to occur. Inorganic historic artifacts are generally safe from fire, but some artifacts such as soldered cans may melt at temperatures as low as 137-177 degrees C (Haecker n.d). Can morphology may be damaged and ceramic artifacts may crackle or spall in lower temperature fires. Other materials, such as machinery utilized in historic mining, are less susceptible. Inorganic structures constructed of sandstone, adobe, cement-mortared fieldstone, firebrick, cinder block or cement aggregate are generally fire resistant. Fracturing and spalling may occur at 700 degrees C (Buenger 2003). Any wooden sub-structure

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-21

(common in adobe structures) may be destroyed, possibly compromising the structure as a whole. Historic earthworks such as trails, roads, irrigation ditches, canals, etc. are less sensitive to fire. Fire has the potential to damage rock art. Though there are no specific temperature guidelines for rock art, fire effects include soot smudging and discoloration from smoke, which obscure the rock art images; degradation of the rock surface from spalling, exfoliation and increased weathering; changes in organic paints due to heat; and damage to rock varnish which may destroy its potential to date the art (Tratebas 2004, Kelly and McCarthy 2001). Organic artifacts (e.g., basketry, digging sticks, clothing, textiles) and features (e.g., structures, bow-stave trees, wikiups, culturally modified trees, historic timber structures) made of or containing organics such as wood, leather and hide or cordage are very susceptible to burning. Bone and shell can sustain some degree of burning without complete destruction (Buenger 2003). Plant and animal residues may survive exposure to fire. Pollen may be destroyed at temperatures greater than 300 degrees C, but animal proteins survive to 800 degrees C. Determining temporal context is an important part of archaeology. Fire has the potential to adversely impact the dating potential of archaeological data. Fire is likely to destroy organic material such as bone, wood or charcoal that yield radiocarbon dates. Fire can modify or destroy obsidian hydration rinds compromising obsidian hydration dates (Deal n.d., Buenger 2003, Loyd et al. 2002, Shackley and Dillon 2002, Solomon 2002). Finally, temperatures that exceed original firing temperatures (generally 400 degrees C) will destroy the potential for thermoluminessence dating of ceramics (Rude n.d.). SHORT-TERM Often, cultural resources are more at risk from impact due to fire suppression activities than from the wildland fire itself. Suppression efforts may be ground disturbing, such as fireline construction (hand and bulldozer lines), the establishment of helicopter bases, safety zones, fire camps, etc. and have the potential to destroy artifacts and the integrity of cultural resource sites. Water, foam detergents and fire retardants could damage artifacts and features by causing swelling and then contraction. Other potential impacts from the use of retardants would include rapid cooling and subsequent damage (e.g., breakage, spalling, corrosion, staining, rusting) to archaeological materials. Discoloration or warping of metallic surfaces could also occur. Rock art is particularly sensitive to retardants and should always be avoided. For all wildland fires or prescribed fires, post fire vandalism and artifact collection could occur. With an increase in burned acreage in the short-term this may increase. In contrast to the current widespread management direction of full suppression of wildfires, the Proposed Action would potentially decrease the level of suppression being used on a wildfire following an appropriate management response. A decrease in the potential to impact cultural resources from ground disturbing and other suppression activities would be realized. The decrease in suppression efforts may lead to an increase in fire size in the short-term and would increase the exposure of resources to heat and associated impacts. A cultural resource specialist would be consulted during suppression activities in areas containing sensitive cultural resources, which should help to minimize impacts. Following suppression, ESR actions as well as other planned actions with the potential to affect cultural resources, are subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800, consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer). The areas that would be subjected to surface disturbance are subject to Class III cultural resource inventory. Inventories would dramatically lower the potential for impacts to cultural resources. Many areas used traditionally for hunting would be expected to be revegetated following a wildfire event. For localities where food, medicinal or raw material plants are gathered, the threat of invasive species occupying those areas may be an issue of concern.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-22

The relatively small acreages available for wildland fire use, relative to other possible fire management actions, would minimize the potential for impacts. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire typically burn at a lower temperature and duration, thus the potential impacts from these methods would typically be less severe than those from an unmanaged wildfire event. Prescribed fire events frequently are preceded by non-fire fuel treatment actions to obtain a smaller, more manageable and less severe prescribed fire. Wildfire also was prescriptively used by many Native American tribes prehistorically to manage lands for horticulture, improve game habitat, manage subsistence and medicinal plant species, and for warfare and signaling (Blackburn and Anderson 1993, Pyne 1982). Non-fire fuel treatments can directly impact cultural resources, depending upon their location and type. For example, ground disturbing treatments like brush crunching is more likely to impact cultural resources than a chemical treatment. The potential for proposed prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, and ESR actions to affect cultural resources is considered during all phases of planning and implementation on a project-by-project basis. The most commonly selected method for the management of cultural resources located in the area of potential effect is the complete avoidance of the cultural resource. LONG-TERM The trend toward a decrease in fuel loads would decrease the number of large severe fires. This would decrease the level of suppression required on an average wildfire. A decrease in the impact to cultural resources from ground disturbing and other suppression activities would be realized in the long-term. Heat and duration-related impacts would be similarly lessened over time. Following suppression, restoration and rehabilitation efforts with the potential to affect cultural resources, are subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800, consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer). The areas that would be subjected to surface disturbance are subject to Class III cultural resource inventory. This would dramatically reduce the potential for impacts from ground disturbing activities. The relatively small acreages available to wildland fire use relative to other proposed treatments would make the potential for impact on a landscape scale much less. However, as more vegetation trends toward a lower FRCC, opportunities may exist to expand wildland fire use. Ground disturbing actions, including seeding are not associated with wildland fire use, removing the potential for associated impacts. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire typically burn at a lower temperature and duration, thus the potential impacts from these methods would typically be less severe than those from an unmanaged wildfire event. This advantage would continue to be utilized as more vegetation is brought to a FRCC which supports the use of these actions. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire in the long-term may result in beneficial effects for places of traditional cultural importance by bringing the native vegetation back to a more historically natural condition. However, Native American places of traditional cultural importance may be compromised if culturally important native plant species were replaced by non- native plant species which may be used for reseeding. Prescribed fire events frequently are preceded by non-fire fuel reduction actions to obtain a smaller, more manageable and less severe prescribed fire. Non-fire fuels reduction treatments can directly impact cultural resources, depending upon their location and type. The potential for proposed prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments to affect cultural resources is considered during all phases of planning and implementation on a project-by-project basis. The effects of these actions on cultural resources are not expected to differ from the short-term to the long-term unless non-fire fuel treatments can be phased out as a prescribed fire pretreatment due to the trend toward an FRCC that would not support undesirable fires.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-23

4.2.7 Visual Resources Under the Proposed Action, vegetation treatment strategies that are consistent with managing scenic quality on public land would be implemented. These treatments would reduce the risk of severe wildfire that could potentially affect all visual classes and result in impacts on visual scenic quality. Large, severe wildland fires change the landscape in a way that could degrade visual quality, especially on fragile soils where the duration of erosion impacts may be longest. Allowing fire to resume a more natural, ecological role across the landscape may constitute a short- term conflict between ecological sustainability and scenic aesthetics. Recent studies, however, have shown public support for controlled burns and other fuels reduction methods to reduce risk of larger, uncontrolled burns (USDA 2003). Resource values and short-term visual impacts versus long-term improvement in visual character of the landscape would be considered in planning fire management activities. SHORT-TERM Wildland fires generally have apparent visual impacts, such as blackened and charred areas. However, these impacts are a natural part of the environment. The severity of wildfire can have an impact on an area by making it more susceptible to visible indirect impacts such as erosion or soil sterilization. Efforts in the Proposed Action to lower the severity of fire are not expected to result in a substantial difference in short-term impacts between the Proposed and No Action scenarios. However, using an appropriate management response more land may be burned under the Proposed Action. Visual impacts of suppression efforts may include scarring from access roads and firelines. However, the Resource Protection Measure on masking overland travel and firelines to minimize potential OHV use would also lessen the impact to visual resources. Wildland fire use and prescribed burning could also have short-term impacts similar to wildland fire (e.g., charred areas, erosion). Non-fire fuel treatments and ESR actions could be implemented to reduce hazardous fuels with improvement in the character or scenic quality of the treatment area. Other non- fire fuel treatments may have a more negative impact on visual resources, such as leaving a pitted landscape with dispersed uprooted trees. VRM Classes I and II (less than 20 percent of the total planning area) are the most sensitive to visual impacts (BLM 2004y). Fuel treatment techniques may be limited in some VRM Class I and II areas due to Resource Protection Measures based on scenic quality objectives and wilderness objectives. In these areas the most effective methods of suppression that are least damaging to wilderness values and the environment would be used. If vegetation conditions allow, wildland fire use would be ideal in eliminating impacts from man-made ground disturbing activities, while lessening the risk of large, more severe wildfire in the longer term. VRM Classes III and IV (approximately 80 percent of the planning area) allow more flexibility in implementing more aggressive fuel treatments. Indirectly, these treatments could protect the more sensitive VRM Class I and II areas. Unplanned ignitions would be less likely to occur and spread in VRM Class III and IV areas due to fuels reduction, thereby reducing the overall short-term and longer-term threat to VRM Class I and II areas across the landscape. LONG-TERM Long-term effects to visual resources from wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, and ESR actions are anticipated to trend landscapes away from impacts from aggressive suppression and to minimize indirect impacts to visual resources. The indirect impacts that would be lessened over time due to smaller and less severe wildfire events include post-fire severe erosion and creation of sterilized non-vegetation supporting soil. The planned action of prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments and ESR actions would take into account the impact of those implementation

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-24

level actions on visual resources. The Proposed Action is anticipated to trend toward restoring a more natural visual landscape where fire and its visual impacts plays a natural role. 4.2.8 Naturalness, Solitude, and Primitive Recreation Management decisions associated with the goals and values of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and non-WSA lands likely to have wilderness characteristics are affected by a variety of influences outside the scope of proposed fire management actions that in turn, results in a complex strategy. Environmental actions, including changes to vegetation conditions and the resulting modification of fire’s role and regime, have resulted in an existing environment much different than the historical condition. Likewise, a variety of political and regulatory management constraints associated with other resource needs and safety considerations affect how the role of fire or non-fire fuels management can be applied within these areas. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and non-WSA lands likely to have wilderness characteristics share common values associated with naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, as well as a variety of supplemental values (ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value). As these lands share similar values and structural components, the degree and intensity of the Proposed Action’s impacts on these two separate management classifications would be similar under both for the short-term and long-term context. SHORT-TERM The goal of the Proposed Action would be to recognize fire as a natural component of the ecosystem and to allow it to play its natural role that mimics the historical fire return interval and severity. Recognizing that vegetation conditions and fuel loading within these lands are not in a historically natural condition, fire would still be considered a natural but managed component within these areas. Management of fire in its natural role within these areas would be implemented through a variety of control strategies associated with naturally ignited wildland fires as well as planned prescribed fires. Planned projects would each undergo a site-specific environmental evaluation to determine potential impacts to the resource prior to being approved. The application of the appropriate management response to naturally-ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives may be identified in predefined designated portions of these areas. Full suppression of wildland fires in these areas may be implemented to control fire size and severity. Likewise, managing naturally-ignited fires may occur as appropriate for letting fire play its more natural role. Though minimized by following the Resource Protection Measures associated with the Proposed Action, short-term impacts to naturalness resulting from management response to wildland fire efforts may still include ground disturbances associated with suppression efforts. ESR actions may be prioritized within these areas to stabilize wildfire areas, minimize the threat of invasive and noxious weed species becoming established, and to preserve the natural and unique values inherent to them. These efforts would be developed as to not impair wilderness values associated with these lands. The use of prescribed fire and non-fire treatments as a method to manage hazardous fuels and undesired vegetation cover may be implemented as well but would be designed as not to impair wilderness values. Short-term impacts on naturalness would be similar to fire suppression and ESR actions. Opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation may be restricted (e.g., access) or impaired (e.g., visibility) during all of these naturally-ignited and planned fire events. However, these impacts on the quality of visitor experience would be limited to the fire area and duration and likely would not affect overall use and wilderness characteristics outside of the fire area.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-25

LONG-TERM The Proposed Action would result in modification of the current condition to a condition that would be more representative of the natural vegetation cover. Long-term effects associated with the application of appropriate management responses fires and planned actions (movement toward natural fire regime and reduced severity of fire events) would outweigh any short-term adverse impacts associated with limited naturalness impacts, access and quality of experience impacts associated with opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. By implementing the proposed fire management goals of reducing hazardous fuels to restore natural ecosystems and allowing fire to function in its natural ecological role, natural conditions and the array of supplemental values contained within these management areas would be enhanced and preserved. Likewise, visitor experience and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation may be enhanced by the restoration of the historical natural condition. 4.2.9 Forestry The majority of forests and woodlands (collectively referred to as “forests” for this discussion) in the planning area consist of pinyon and juniper woodland that currently have minimal economic value, as discussed in Chapter 3. The following discussion presents impacts to the resource for each of the management actions in the Proposed Action. SHORT-TERM A change in fire management direction from full suppression (No Action) to the Proposed Action’s appropriate management response may result in more acres of forests being burned during wildfire events. This would decrease the amount of biomass, timber, firewood, fence posts, and pinyon nut harvesting opportunities in the areas affected by these events. In the short-term, the change in suppression efforts is not expected to greatly reduce the acreage of pinyon and juniper woodland that has encroached outside of its historical range. Forested areas including mixed conifer, aspen and ponderosa pine are expected to experience similar impacts in the No Action and Proposed Action with the exception of areas with FRCC 2 and 1 where suppression efforts would potentially be less aggressive. Wildland fire use, with its limited applicability, has the potential to reduce biomass and firewood collecting opportunities in areas that are burned. Given the smaller acreages identified for potential wildland fire use, the overall impact is expected to be minimal in the short-term. The use of prescribed fire in forests may be accompanied by non-fire treatment methods to bring the forests to a lower FRCC level and associated burn intensity. In the short-term, this would increase the opportunity for the harvesting of biomass and firewood. The use of non-fire treatment methods to reduce the occurrence of younger age classes in areas of old growth (in particular for ponderosa, aspen and mixed conifer) could increase the survivability of old growth forests during fire events (Howard 2003). This could increase the availability of higher economic value forest products, particularly in mixed conifer and ponderosa stands. The use of seeding and the planting of seedlings would increase the occurrence of desirable forest types. LONG-TERM Long-term impacts from the Proposed Action’s wildfire suppression efforts would reduce the acreage of pinyon and juniper encroaching on land outside of its historic range. This would directly decrease the availability of biomass and firewood collection in this vegetation type. This impact would be less pronounced in other forested areas. However, a decrease in tree density in mixed conifer stands should improve the health of these forests. Where aspen are a component of mixed conifer stands, fire would promote regeneration of clonal aspen sprouts while the spruce and fir component is reduced accordingly.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-26

The long-term impact of wildland fire use is expected to reduce biomass and firewood collecting opportunities in pinyon and juniper woodland. The use of wildland fire in forests would create a mosaic pattern and greater diversity of tree species, age classes and other vegetation types by breaking up expanses of homogeneous stands (Kovacic 1990). Impacts to mixed conifer, aspen and ponderosa forests would be less pronounced and would trend toward increasing the fire survivability of these forests by reducing ladder fuels. This is based on the planned action of using wildland fire only where lower FRCCs exist. Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would initially result in an increase in the opportunity for the harvesting of biomass and firewood, however, a trend toward less biomass availability would eventually occur. The use of non-fire treatment methods to reduce the occurrence of ladder fuels in areas of desirable old growth forests, particularly ponderosa stands, would also decrease the fire severity and increase the survivability of old growth forests during fire events in the long-term (Howard 2003). This would increase the availability of higher economic value forest products, particularly in mixed conifer and ponderosa stands. The use of seeding and the planting of seedlings would increase the occurrence of desirable woodland types. 4.2.10 Livestock Grazing The primary purpose of fire management actions on rangelands is to reduce fuels and the cover of encroaching undesirable vegetation species. Multiple benefits are obtained by fire and non-fire treatments. Increased production, nutrient quality and palatability of herbaceous plants are observed after a burn. Fire breaks up large tracts of sagebrush and pinyon and juniper dominated landscapes, and establishes a mosaic of vegetation types. The creation of openings and more nutritious, palatable forage would attract livestock and result in minor to moderate shifts in livestock utilization and distribution patterns. SHORT-TERM The Proposed Action’s goals and the use of an appropriate management response to determine the suppression response to wildland fire would result in similar or slightly more acres of vegetation being burned versus the No Action Alternative during the short-term. Full suppression would still be available for use in areas susceptible to invasive species, giving the Proposed Action the flexibility to limit impacts associated with invasive species. The biggest impact to grazing after a wildland fire is the temporary loss of allotment use. Grazing would be curtailed on the impacted areas for a minimum of one growing season; rest for at least two growing seasons is required if the burned area is seeded or otherwise mechanically treated. This could cause impacts to the permittee and the need to find alternative grazing or feeding arrangements. The need for management of livestock use on a burned area is most critical the first growing season after fire, particularly in plant communities of arid and semiarid regions (Trlica 1977). Following the recovery period, impacts to livestock grazing could include increased production, nutrient quality and palatability of herbaceous plants. If livestock have premature access to the burn, the full benefits of fire may not be realized, resulting in impacts to rangeland vegetation (Bunting et al. 1987). Wildland fire use would have similar impacts to grazing use as would fire suppression. Grazing would be curtailed from the impacted areas for a minimum of one growing season. Prescribed fire actions would be planned and coordinated with the permittee to lessen impacts to grazing use. The goal of a net benefit to vegetation types following prescribed fire events would improve allotment use after the recovery period. Pre-fire rest from grazing is required on many range sites to allow the accumulation of enough fine fuel to carry a prescribed fire. This is important in shrub, grass, pinyon and juniper, and forests (Jones and DeByle 1985). Non-fire treatments including mechanical and seeding where a vegetation composition change is desired would impact permittees by eliminating grazing from an allotment for a minimum of two growing

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-27

seasons. Coordination with the permittee for these planned actions would decrease the impact associated with the loss of use. LONG-TERM Long-term impacts from all fuels reduction methods in the Proposed Action are expected to make grazing resources more productive and stable. The removal of hazardous fuels would reduce the risk of severe wildfire, which would decrease the likelihood that such an event would result in longer recovery periods for impacted allotments. Wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire treatments and ESR actions would affect a similar trend toward increases in ecosystem health and stability, result in improvement of grazing resources and reduce the potential for longer recovery periods. 4.2.11 Recreation and Visitor Services The Proposed Action includes Resource Protection Measures that would preferentially protect developed Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and recreation site infrastructure from wildland fire. The potential exists for fire management actions to impact developed recreation sites and infrastructure. SHORT-TERM Developed recreation sites and infrastructure most likely to be damaged by wildfire and suppression efforts include: trails and OHV routes and associated interpretive and directional signage; dispersed camping areas; and developed facilities. Visitor experience may also be impacted by visual impacts to aesthetic qualities of the recreation area, degradation of air quality from smoke and road, trail and route closures. The most abrupt impact to potential recreationists is the complete or partial closure of recreation sites and facilities or even evacuation of those recreationists. If recreationists are allowed to enter or stay in the area, other impacts might include noise and visual impacts from ground equipment, helicopters and air tankers, firefighting equipment, and personnel. Indirect impacts of wildfire at developed facilities may include increased erosion and hazards associated with dead standing vegetation. Revegetation efforts may temporarily close areas to use. The resultant impact would be lost visitor days at developed facilities. The Resource Protection Measures implemented would decrease the potential for impacts to developed facilities. Suppression priority would be given to higher value sites and facilities. Despite the potential adverse impacts on developed recreation sites and facilities as a result of wildland fire, a positive impact would be the opportunity to educate the recreating public regarding the role of fire in the landscape (Silverman 1993). Wildland fire use would not be appropriate if it threatens developed recreation sites and its use is fairly limited in the Proposed Action. Therefore, potential impacts from wildland fire use would be negligible. Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments could impact the aesthetic quality of developed recreational sites and facilities. However, no impacts to the infrastructure or natural features at these sites are anticipated due to the planning required prior to implementation. Additional impacts from these actions may include temporary facility or site closures and the presence of crews performing the action. The aesthetic impacts would be temporary. Positive impacts include the removal of fuels, which left in place would create a wildfire danger to the site and facilities. LONG-TERM The use of an AMR for wildfire suppression may impact developed recreation sites and facilities by burning more of the surrounding vegetation, relative to the No Action Alternative, creating aesthetic changes to the landscape. However, a trend toward DWFC and the associated potential for less severe fire events would make the potential for the loss of these resources and visitor use days less likely. The

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-28

use of wildland fire to move vegetation toward a DWFC would lessen the potential for wildland fire to impact developed recreation sites and facilities. Prescribed burns as well as non-fire fuel treatments would reduce hazardous fuels, which reduces the risk of severe wildfire and the associated impacts to site use and site characteristics these sites are intended to utilize (NPS 2000). The reduced fuel load makes it less likely that a wildfire would burn the entire site. This increases both the level of safety for recreationists, as well as available visitor days. 4.2.12 Special Designations The Proposed Action recognizes fire as a natural component of the ecosystem and balances that need for fire with the need to protect special designations such as WSAs, ACECs and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers from impacts that could affect their values. Due to the Resource Protection Measures in the Proposed Action, federal laws regarding special designations impacts would be limited. Below is a qualitative description of potential effects from fire management actions in the Proposed Action. SHORT-TERM During and immediately after fire events, access to special designation areas and enjoyment of the opportunities associated with them may be restricted or impaired. Full suppression of wildland fires in these areas may be implemented to control fire size and severity, thus protecting resource values in and surrounding these special designations. The short-term impacts from suppression efforts in areas with identified values at risk, would be much less than allowing fires to potentially burn and harm historic, scenic or cultural values of special designations (such as ACECs). However, wildfire suppression activities could have some direct adverse impact to the abiotic and biotic components that constitute special designation areas as well as the suitability of WSAs. These short-term and limited impacts could include disturbance to soils, surfaces and groundwater, watershed functions, vegetation conditions and habitats for special status species and fish and wildlife. Impacts would be minimized by post-fire rehabilitation efforts. Appropriate management response may include limiting the use of mechanical suppression activities or other techniques for reducing impacts to special designations. Suppression may be prioritized to protect the unique values threatened by wildfire. The Proposed Action would include wildland fire use in some special designations. Wildland fire use objectives are generally designed to minimize long-term impacts (as described below) recognizing short- term impacts. Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments as a method to manage fuel loading and undesired vegetation may be implemented, but would be limited to protect the unique values present in special designations. Site specific treatment actions would go through environmental planning and review on impacts to naturalness and the other characteristics associated with the special designations. Prescribed fire would help maintain the naturalness of WSAs by bringing FRCC to a point allowing wildfire to play its natural role in the ecosystem. To minimize the impairment of values associated with special designations, Resource Protection Measures have been built into the Proposed Action. Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers would be managed as directed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. ESR actions would be implemented to stabilize wildfire areas and to minimize the threat of invasive and noxious weed species becoming established. LONG-TERM Long-term impacts associated with the use of an appropriate management response to wildfire suppression, wildland fire use and the planned actions of prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments on Special Designated area are the decreased risk of large severe wildfire events. With the removal of hazardous fuels, a trend increasing the preservation of the characteristics and values that make these

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-29

designations special would be in place. In consideration of outside constraints that affect the pristine condition of these areas, the Proposed Action would result in modification of the current condition to a DWFC that may be more representative of the natural condition. Since fire is a part of the natural environment, WSA’s natural character would not only be protected, but also likely enhanced. 4.2.13 Socioeconomics Anticipated impacts of the Proposed Action to social and economic resources are related to physical effects to the environment such as air and water quality, wildlife habitat and private property, effects to resource uses such as grazing and forest and woodland product opportunities and effects to welfare indicators such as safety. There is considerable overlap between short-term impacts and long-term impacts. The following section reviews anticipated impacts from the Proposed Action management options. SHORT-TERM Under the Proposed Action, an AMR would be implemented to maintain resource objectives. Wildfires that would threaten resource values (including WUI, cultural resources, sensitive ecosystems or infrastructure) would be controlled through suppression or their anticipated severity reduced by implementing prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments (discussed below). Short-term effects of wildfire and related suppression actions to social and economic resources would partially depend on the success of the selected suppression activities and the extent of burned areas relative to economic and socially important resources. Impacts would include preservation of valued resources and private property under a scenario where suppression measures are successful. For instance, in a WUI, property values are often linked to the scenic and recreational resources of adjacent or nearby public lands. Suppression actions would have both a short-term and long-term benefit of preserving these surrounding features, thereby maintaining values. Where wildfire destroys timber and vegetation harvesting opportunities, the economic potential to local and regional communities may be reduced over the short and long-term. Other short-term effects include temporary displacement of affected populations during wildfires, economic impacts to grazing allotment permittees due to temporary loss of allotment use, altered transportation routes and disruption of subsistence activities. Economically, suppression expenditures represent a short-term, direct cost to the BLM, but payroll to fire workers provides a short-term economic benefit to individuals and local communities. Allowing wildland fire use would result in short-term impacts to rangeland forage availability and associated economic impacts to the allotment permittee and timber and vegetation harvesting opportunities. However, benefits realized for grazing permittees in subsequent growing seasons (generally two years and out from an event) would be realized through an increase in the quantity and quality of forage for livestock consumption. Wildland fire use can also improve the economic value of timber stands by reducing younger age classes and potential ladder fuels, which would make available more water for and reduce the potential mortality rate for older age classes of timber, respectively. However, forest product opportunities could be lost impacting the wood product industry and pinyon- nut harvesting. Wildland fires often cause short-term increases in wildlife foods that contribute to increases in populations of some animals (Smith 2000). A general assumption is that increased habitat quality could translate to short-term surplus of game animals and thus enhance hunting opportunities. An indirect economic benefit could be realized by state game management agencies through increased hunting license sales. However, Smith (2000) notes that over time, game animal population increases are moderated by the animals' ability to thrive in the altered, often simplified, structure of the post-fire environment. When fire frequency increases or decreases substantially or fire severity changes from

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-30

presettlement patterns, habitat for many animal species declines (Smith, 2000). For game animals, population increases in the short-term may be leveled out to pre-fire conditions over the long-term. While wildland fire use would only be allowed when air quality regulatory criteria can be met, temporal effects including reduced visibility and associated travel hazards, and general public nuisance issues related to smoke are possible. These impacts may be particularly pronounced in the WUI. However, the degree to which these impacts could occur would depend on many factors, including intensity of fire, distance from the WUI, wind direction and other climate-related factors. Air quality-related costs include reduction in tourism when fires occur in regions with tourism-based economies. Three National Park Service (NPS) studies determined that air quality conditions affect the amount of time and money visitors are willing to spend at NPS units (Brookshire et al. 1976, MacFarland et al. 1983, and Schulze et al. 1983 in Sandberg et al. 2002). Evidence from these studies suggests that economic values related to air quality and visibility may be substantial during times of high visitor use. When wildland fire use is implemented, costs associated with deployment of firefighters are reduced. However, while this represents a benefit to the BLM, reduced expenditures translate into lost income opportunities for individuals who may have historically relied upon these types of jobs. Other short- term direct impacts to human welfare could include road closures and traffic detours, temporary public access restrictions to public recreation or subsistence-related use areas and altered landscapes. Short-term impacts from prescribed burns used under the Proposed Action would include similar impacts to air quality, health and welfare as would be expected to occur under the wildland fire use management scenario described above. However, prescribed fires would be more controlled and thus take place under optimal weather conditions that minimize the extent and duration of impacts. Prescribed fires would result in short-term costs to the BLM for manpower, equipment and other support services. Costs of prescribed burns vary widely depending on the size of the burn, physical factors of the area (presence of firebreaks or the need to construct fire breaks, roads and other assets) and the amount of equipment and personnel needed for the prescribed fire. Other factors that can affect prescribed burning costs include ignition type, mop-up requirements, damage from escape, smoke management, aesthetics and safety (Cleaves and Brodie 1990 in Chalmers et al. 2001). However, the costs to the agency are realized as short-term benefits to contracted workers and suppliers. Non-fire fuel treatments would be conducted in WUI areas to better protect the areas over the long- term. The short-term welfare effects of non-fire fuel treatments may include temporary increases in noise caused by heavy equipment, dust generation and restricted access to public lands during treatment activities. Economic benefits would be realized by contractors and equipment and material vendors. While the reduced wildland fire suppression efforts conducted under the Proposed Action may result in diminished circulation of related payroll and capital expenditures, these monies may be replaced at a lower amount by monies generated from non-fire fuel treatments. LONG-TERM Long-term impacts of wildfire and suppression efforts using the Proposed Action’s AMR would result in gradual achievement of the DWFC. This trend includes a decrease in the potential for severe wildfire events, which would decrease the associated impacts discussed in the short-term discussion. Impacts to the BLM for fire management would likely be reduced; however, this would result in diminished income opportunities to those employed in this field or to suppliers or other vendors. Over the long-term, the Proposed Action would enhance public and firefighter safety by reducing the number of homes and other property destroyed by severe wildfires. The potential for welfare impacts, such as those that may occur in the short-term would be reduced under a more natural fire regime.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-31

Resource-based professions would be better protected under the Proposed Action. Reducing the risk of severe wildfire would reduce the likelihood of impacts on forestry resources, tourism and grazing resources. Under the Proposed Action, wildland fire use and prescribed fire would result in a trend toward DWFC, which would enhance public and firefighter safety by reducing the number and extent of catastrophic wildfires and reducing the number of homes and other property destroyed by severe wildfires. Trends toward the DWFC over the long-term would reduce the costs to responding agencies for firefighting efforts, but would result in reduced income to individuals whose livelihoods depend on wildfire suppression. Such individuals would increasingly rely on other career opportunities for income, potentially resulting in a reduction of the available pool of workers needed for fire management activities. Non-fire fuel treatments would be conducted in WUI areas and in some cases prior to prescribed fire to better protect the areas in the long-term. Potentially, public safety could increase and fewer structures would be lost to wildland fire. The reduction of hazardous fuel loads would reduce the risk of a wildland fire impacting private lands or land administered by other agencies. As a result, overall public safety and firefighter safety would be improved. However, if over the long-term, the public perceives an improvement in wildland fire management, people that were dissuaded from moving into WUI areas due to hazards from catastrophic wildland fires might be more likely to move; thus, the Proposed Action might indirectly support increased movement into WUI areas. 4.2.14 Mitigation Measures The Resource Protection Measures under the Proposed Action, as shown in Table 2.3, would minimize or avoid impacts on resources. No additional mitigation for impacts would be necessary because of the protection already afforded by the protection measures. 4.2.15 Residual Impacts The Resource Protection Measures under the Proposed Action, as shown in Table 2.3, would minimize or avoid impacts on resources. There would be no residual impacts and no additional mitigation for impacts would be necessary. 4.2.16 Monitoring and Compliance Monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of the Proposed Action will be developed through FMPs and future site-specific project planning. FMPs are implementation-level planning documents that are reviewed annually and revised as needed to ensure that LUP goals, objectives, strategies and actions are being met. All fire management actions would be evaluated for adherence to the Proposed Action, including the Resource Protection Measures. In essence, monitoring will evaluate the degree to which the DWFC is being achieved. Further, specific monitoring requirements would 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 are issued, monitoring and evaluation protocols will be followed and/or developed to meet DOI and BLM guidelines.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-32

4.3 ALTERNATIVE B: NO ACTION As stated in Chapter 2, the No Action Alternative would follow the existing LUPs emphasis on fire suppression. In the current LUPs there is little discussion of wildland fire use, prescribed fires and non- fire fuel treatments. The No Action Alternative generally mandates full suppression of wildland fires, with wildland fire use not addressed. The No Action Alternative allows for only limited prescribed fire and a limited level of fuel treatments, as specified in individual management plans. 4.3.1 Air SHORT-TERM Short-term impacts from smoke of the No Action Alternative would continue at current levels. The impacts of wildland fires and suppression efforts to air quality, NAAs, and other sensitive areas (such as Class I areas) would likely be comparable to impacts from wildland fire and suppression efforts described in the Proposed Action. Due to the limited use of wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and fuel treatments in the No Action Alternative, short-term impacts to air quality from these activities (such as smoke emissions and fugitive dust) are likely to be less than for the Proposed Action. Similar to the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative dictates the use of standard operating procedures including participation in the Utah Interagency Smoke Management Program, and would minimize potential air quality impacts. Applicable federal, state and local air quality regulations would not be violated due to activities planned by BLM. LONG-TERM Under the No Action Alternative, a trend toward more severe and uncontrollable wildland fires is anticipated. These fires have the potential to create more smoke emissions than smaller controlled fires and cannot be timed to minimize impacts to existing air quality conditions. Increased pollutant concentrations, and impacts to NAAs and other sensitive areas could increase as a result of these fires. Impacts to human health would also increase, particularly from exposure to particulate matter, with some events likely requiring special precautions be taken by the public to protect sensitive populations. The No Action Alternative's minimal wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments would keep direct impacts from these actions at a minimum, but allow for larger wildland fires, and accompanying smoke emissions, and trend away in the long-term from the "natural" occurrence and scale of wildfire in the planning area. 4.3.2 Soil and Water 4.3.2.1 Soil There are no anticipated effects on soil source materials and no further discussion of this issue will be presented. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON SOILS The potential general effect of fire on soils is described in Section 4.2.2.1 (“GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON SOILS”) for the Proposed Action. This description is common to both the No Action Alternative as well as the Proposed Action Alternative. SHORT-TERM Due to the lack of Resource Protection Measures and an appropriate management response, soils would be at greater risk under this alternative, due to soil disturbance and compaction related to intensive fire suppression activities such as fireline construction, road construction and other uses of heavy equipment. Fewer non-fire fuel treatments and prescribed burns would occur under this alternative limiting the ground and vegetation disturbance and soil compaction resulting from these actions.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-33

Similar to the Proposed Action, indirect impacts of the No Action Alternative include potential sedimentation of streams and reservoirs from wind and water erosion and fugitive dust from wind erosion. However, no substantial difference between the two alternatives is expected. LONG-TERM Wildfires under the No Action Alternative would become increasingly larger and more severe resulting in a greater occurrence of impacts to soil resources. High severity fires would remove more of the vegetation cover and organic matter, reducing nutrient cycling. Increases in physiochemical alteration and decreases in plant-available moisture in shallow soils would occur. High severity wildfires are also more likely to adversely affect soil microorganisms, decreasing biological crusts that prevent erosion and fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. High severity fires could result in the formation of water-repellent soil layers (Robichaud et al. 2000), which can decrease infiltration and increase the energy level and quantity of runoff causing accelerated erosion and potentially debris flows. The degree of water repellency in soils following a fire is positively correlated with fire severity. These impacts would decrease the ability for soil to foster natural vegetation growth and wildlife habitat. 4.3.2.2 Water GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER The potential general effect of fire on surface and groundwater is described in Section 4.2.2.2 (“GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER”) for the Proposed Action. This description is common to both the No Action Alternative as well as the Proposed Action Alternative. SHORT-TERM Surface Water Short-term effects to surface water would be similar to those seen under the Proposed Action. Surface water would be at risk from soil disturbance and increased erosion potential related to fire suppression activities such as fireline construction, road construction and other uses of heavy equipment. This may result where wildfires are suppressed in an aggressive and focused manner, versus the Proposed Action, where lower severity and non-resource threatening fires may undergo limited suppression efforts. Fewer non-fire fuel treatments and prescribed burns would occur under this alternative limiting the ground and vegetation disturbance, increased runoff and increased sediment loading associated with these actions. Groundwater Short-term effects to groundwater would be similar to those seen under the Proposed Action. The small differences in suppression and fuel treatment actions between the two alternatives are not expected to substantially impact this resource. Water Quality The use of federally mandated procedures in the vicinity of sensitive areas such as riparian and wetland, floodplain and 303(d)-listed impaired water would likely result in similarly limited impacts on water quality, as described in the Proposed Action. However, the No Action Alternative would provide less guidance and fewer restrictions and protections with respect to activities in these areas. LONG-TERM Surface Water Surface water resources would trend toward greater impacts under this alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, full suppression of wildfires would remain the principal response to wildland fires. The effort to fully suppress wildfire could lead to an increase in fuel loads. This may result in the increase of uncontrollable high severity fires, which would degrade floodplain health and the functioning condition of watersheds. This would be apparent in an increase in the loss of vegetation cover and organic matter, degradation of sustainable stream banks and widths and more erosion. The

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-34

effect would be increases in dissolved and suspended solids, nutrients and temperature variations outside of normal conditions. Groundwater The increasing occurrence of high severity fires could decrease the amount of precipitation able to infiltrate into the subsurface. The water that does make it into the subsurface could have an increased nutrient load obtained as it passes through burned vegetation and physiochemically altered shallow soils. The impact to groundwater would be dependent on the depth to groundwater below ground surface and the type of sediments or bedrock it passes through. The change in the infiltration capacity of the soil would be dependent on the fires severity, soil type and pervasiveness of vegetation root structures. Water Quality The use of already established procedures in the vicinity of sensitive areas such as riparian and wetland, floodplain and 303(d)-listed impaired water would likely result in similar limited impacts on water quality as in the Proposed Action. However, the expected increase in severe and uncontrollable wildland fires would make the ability to follow these guidelines less probable resulting in a decrease in water quality during and following these events. The effect would be increases in dissolved and suspended solids, nutrients and temperature variations outside of normal conditions. 4.3.3 Vegetation SHORT-TERM Though direct impacts on vegetation types are similar to those described by the Proposed Action, how fire is managed and the tools available for vegetation and fuel treatments differ. Full suppression of wildland fire, no wildland fire use and limited prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments under the continuation of existing management would result in a continued departure from historic and desirable fire conditions. Rather than emphasizing the proactive management approaches identified in the Proposed Action to improve FRCCs across various vegetation types, the primary management tools available under existing fire management direction would be limited mainly to emergency stabilization and rehabilitation associated with wildland fire. LONG-TERM Long-term impacts would be extensions of existing and ongoing trends associated with current management. However, the potential exists in some vegetation types for catastrophic ecological effects as thresholds are crossed (e.g., there may come a point where establishment of annual grasslands expands to a point that is essentially irreversible or uncontrollable given available management tools and resources). The number of acres burned and severity of fire would continue to increase across all vegetation types in future years due to the lack of emphasis on treatment of hazardous fuels. This would result in increasing demands for rehabilitation and treatments as FRCCs continue to trend further away from ecological sustainability. The continued lack of natural fire on the landscape coupled with the relatively small number of acres subject to hazardous fuel treatments would continue to change the composition and structure of vegetation communities and eventually reduce native plant diversity and associated resource values. Fuel loadings would also continue to increase in most vegetation types. Fire-dependent plant communities would continue to deteriorate as a result of continued fire suppression. FRCC would continue to trend to higher condition classes and the risk of losing key ecosystem components would continue to rise across most vegetation types. Indirect impacts to vegetation through the loss of organic and water content of soil and other physiochemical soil changes would increase, affecting the ability for native vegetation to become established after severe fires and decreasing biodiversity due to the spread of opportunistic non-native species. Salt Desert Scrub Invasive species, especially cheatgrass would continue to spread into this community. Vegetation conditions within this vegetation type would remain at FRCC 3, but continued

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-35

expansion of cheatgrass would eventually increase fire frequency and severity, resulting in ongoing, potentially accelerating, loss of native salt desert scrub communities. Pinyon and Juniper Woodland The vegetation in this community would continue to encroach into and displace rangelands, shrublands, and low- to mid-elevation forests creating even larger, homogenous stands of pinyon and juniper. This would lead to increasingly large, severe, undesirable wildland fires and further exacerbate invasion by cheatgrass and other exotic annuals (USDA Forest Service 1997). FRCC would continue to increase and existing FRCC 2 areas would trend toward FRCC 3 areas. Sagebrush Given current conditions and trends, the displacement of native herbaceous understory species by cheatgrass and other exotic annuals would continue, particularly in low-elevation sagebrush communities. Pinyon and juniper would continue to invade this ecosystem (USDA Forest Service 1997). Regardless of any rehabilitation and/or restoration efforts to successfully reduce FRCC in low-elevation sagebrush, the lack of available fire and fuels management tools under the No Action Alternative would limit further recovery of this ecosystem. In areas where pinyon and juniper have not invaded, high elevation sagebrush stands would continue to increase in age and density, creating homogeneous, even- aged, late seral stands. Biodiversity would continue to decrease as the native herbaceous understory is displaced by cheatgrass or shaded out by increasingly dense canopies of sagebrush and/or pinyon and juniper. On-going range improvement projects may offset these trends to some extent, but are not projected to treat nearly as many acres and would not effectively integrate fire use into management of this ecosystem. Grasslands Given current conditions and trends, native perennial grasslands would continue to be displaced as cheatgrass, other invasive species, sagebrush and pinyon and juniper continue to invade this ecosystem (USDA Forest Service 1997). Net acreage of native grasslands would continue to decline and FRCCs would continue to deteriorate in all grassland vegetation types susceptible to cheatgrass invasion or juniper encroachment. Cheatgrass Treatment options to control cheatgrass are limited under the No Action Alternative and increasingly large and severe wildfires would continue to promote cheatgrass infestation and increase its dominance. Left unchecked, cheatgrass expansion has the potential to reach a threshold of irreversibility, where the sheer scale and fire ecology dynamics of cheatgrass dominance render it virtually impossible to control with available techniques and resources. Blackbrush Invasive species would continue to spread into this community. These species provide fuel and may increase fire frequency and severity, which would likely result in loss of blackbrush communities. FRCC would likely trend from FRCC 2 toward FRCC 3 as cheatgrass invasion becomes more widespread in this vegetation type. Mountain Shrub Many mountain shrub communities would continue to be encroached upon and converted to pinyon and juniper woodland. This would increase the potential for uncharacteristically large and severe wildland fires and would result in a gradual decline in health of native mountain shrub communities. As a fire-adapted ecosystem, without the rejuvenating benefits of periodic fire, the diversity of successional stages of existing mountain shrub communities across the landscape would remain skewed toward late mature or decadent stands (USDA Forest Service 1997). This would continue to trend FRCC in mountain shrub vegetation types toward FRCC3. Mixed Conifer Given recent conditions and trends, shade-tolerant fir species would continue to move toward dominance. Stand replacement fires in mixed conifer forests outside the historical range of intensity and severity are likely because of the continued growth of ladder fuels and accumulation of heavy fuels (Bradley et al. 1992). White fir is expected to continue to increase in density due to the lack of frequent, low-severity fire, setting the stage for future insect outbreaks and more severe fires (USDA Forest Service 1997). Over time, insects and diseases in these conifers may increase fuels levels to a point where fires that do occur would likely burn outside the historic range of variability in terms of the

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-36

severity and the aerial extent of burn. FRCC would likely trend toward increased representation of FRCC 2 and FRCC 3. Ponderosa Pine Given current conditions and trends, this ecosystem would continue to convert, in some areas, to Douglas-fir or white fir, and pinyon and juniper would continue to encroach into this vegetation type. Stands would continue to increase in density, creating homogeneous, even-aged conditions that were rare or nonexistent prior to suppression. The continued growth of ladder fuels and accumulation of heavy fuels would lead to uncharacteristically large and severe wildland fires (Bradley et al. 1992, Covington and Moore 1992, USDA Forest Service 1997). As Utah BLM managed ponderosa pine communities are already in FRCC3, no further change in FRCC would occur although the degree of departure from historical fire patterns would continue to increase. Riparian and Wetland Flammable invasive species (e.g., tamarisk) would continue to increase, which may increase fire frequency and severity. In particular, low elevation riparian areas would continue to be at risk of degradation and departure from historic fire regimes due to invasive species. Creosote and Bursage Invasive annual grasses would continue to spread into this community. FRCC for this vegetation type would likely deteriorate from FRCC 2 to FRCC 3. Continued expansion of cheatgrass and red brome would increase fire frequency and severity, potentially resulting in ongoing loss of native creosote and bursage communities through conversion to annual grasslands. Aspen Existing aspen stands would continue to be encroached upon and overtopped by conifer species and trend further toward skewed representation by late mature and decadent stands. FRCCs would likely deteriorate from FRCC 2 to FRCC 3 as departure from historic fire return intervals increased along with fuel loadings. Aspen stands would be increasingly susceptible to higher severity fires that could potentially result in higher amounts of soil organic matter being consumed by fire and reduced post-fire sprouting and regeneration of aspen. In some areas, increased mortality of aspen clones due to higher severity fires could limit post-fire recovery of aspen stands. Ultimately, representation of aspen as a component of the vegetation mosaic across the landscape would decline further in the absence of periodic fires. 4.3.3.1 Noxious Weeds SHORT-TERM There would be no effect from No Action on noxious weeds in the short-term. LONG-TERM A dramatic increase in the range of invasive weeds is expected to continue. The likelihood of larger and more severe wildfires under the No Action Alternative would allow invasives like cheatgrass to progressively colonize new areas. More aggressive seeding and rehabilitation programs would be required to control infestations. 4.3.4 Special Status Species SHORT-TERM Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would continue its current fire management practices. The BLM would still be required to conduct Section 7 consultation with USFWS for all site-specific fire management activities implemented within suitable or potentially suitable habitat for federally listed species. The Alternative Consultation Agreement to Implement Section 7 Counterpart Regulations could be employed on projects that support the National Fire Plan. Because wildfire suppression under the No Action Alternative would consist of full suppression in most cases, short-term impacts from burning could be less than under the Proposed Action where some acres would be considered appropriate for potential wildland fire use. Short-term impacts (e.g., habitat

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-37

modification, plant mortality and/or displacement of animal individuals or populations) from actual suppression activities would be similar. Though prescribed fire would be limited under the No Action Alternative, short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Both alternatives would require consultation with the USFWS prior to implementation activities, which would ensure protection of species and their habitat. Accordingly, few adverse impacts to species (plant and animal) and their habitat would likely occur. Under the No Action Alternative, few acres of non-fire fuels reduction treatments would occur. For those that would occur, Resource Protection Measures are either nonexistent or outdated. Therefore, short-term impacts associated with ground disturbance and potential for noxious weed infestation could occur. LONG-TERM Long-term ecosystem-wide beneficial effects of the Proposed Action on special status species and their habitat would not be attained under the No Action Alternative. With implementation of full suppression efforts in many cases, fuel loading would continue to increase and the subsequent risk of a severe wildfire would increase. Indirect adverse effects (from changes in vegetation composition and structure caused by aggressive fire suppression and potentially severe wildfires) to individuals, populations and habitats would continue. 4.3.5 Fish and Wildlife SHORT-TERM Because wildfire suppression under the No Action Alternative would consist of full suppression in most cases, short-term impacts from burning could be less than under the Proposed Action where some acres would be considered appropriate for wildland fire use. Short-term impacts (e.g., introduction of toxic materials into the ecosystem, habitat modification, plant mortality and/or displacement of animal individuals or populations) from actual suppression activities would be similar. Because prescribed fire would be less under the No Action Alternative, short-term impacts would be similar to those listed for the Proposed Action, only to a lesser degree. Less direct, adverse impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitat, would occur. Under the No Action Alternative, fewer acres of non-fire fuel reduction treatments would occur. Therefore, short-term impacts associated with ground disturbance and potential for noxious weed infestation (i.e., alteration of habitat, particularly habitat used for foraging) would be less than under the Proposed Action. Fish Direct effects could occur from wildfire suppression, including the introduction of fire retardant, aviation fuel, or lubricants into streams and wetlands; erosion of exposed soils from fireline construction on steep slopes adjacent to streams; damaged riparian vegetation and soils (resulting in erosion) from the use of heavy equipment and establishment of fire camps; and reduced natural stream flow during drafting and pumping. If they occurred, these impacts would adversely impact water quality of various fisheries throughout the state. The collective short-term impacts of increased sedimentation (from erosion) could have watershed-wide effects including changes in temperature, turbidity and water chemistry. Non-Game and Big Game Species Short-term adverse impacts (e.g., direct species mortality, habitat destruction and habitat displacement) would likely affect suitable habitat utilized by raptors, migratory birds, small mammals, carnivores and predators, and amphibians and reptiles, as well as a variety of habitats associated with big game species. Direct effects from wildfire suppression could include the introduction of fire retardant, aviation fuel or lubricants into any occupied or potentially suitable habitat; erosion of exposed soils from fireline

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-38

construction on steep slopes; and damaged vegetation and soils from the use of heavy equipment and establishment of fire camps. Direct effects from prescribed fire and non-fire fuels reduction treatments could include individual mortality to plant or animal species, habitat destruction, or species displacement. In addition to direct impacts, indirect impacts could include increased sedimentation and subsequent habitat modification as a result of scorched soil and upstream erosion. LONG-TERM Although short-term adverse impacts from wildfire suppression, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuels reduction treatments would be less under the No Action Alternative than under the Proposed Action, long-term beneficial effects would also be less. Specifically, more extensive use of wildfire suppression activities and a lack of applicable and up-to-date Resource Protection Measures would increase the potential for noxious weed establishment over time, thereby modifying wildlife habitat (particularly habitat that would otherwise provide forage resources). Additionally, a greater risk of severe wildfire would result because fuels would not be allowed to burn, or treated. Adverse long-term impacts individuals, populations, and habitats would continue due to changes in vegetation composition and structure. Fish Long-term adverse impacts to fisheries could include alteration of habitat quality from repeated short-term impacts, and an increasing risk of severe wildfire and, subsequent adverse impacts. Non-Game and Big Game Species The long-term effects on fish and wildlife species would be similar to the long-term effects described for special status animal species. Because wildland fires would primarily be suppressed under the No Action Alternative, and prescribed fire and non-fire fuels reduction treatments would not likely consist of large treatment areas, the overall condition of the landscape would continue to be far-removed from its natural fire regime and the build up of hazardous fuels would continue with an increase in severe fires and the associated alteration of habitats. 4.3.6 Cultural Resources GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES The potential general effect of fire on cultural resources is described in Section 4.2.6 (“GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRE’S EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES”) for the Proposed Action. This description is common to both the No Action Alternative as well as the Proposed Action Alternative. SHORT-TERM Under the No Action Alternative in a short-term scenario, fuel loads would likely continue to increase. The potential for severe wildland fires is similar to that in the short-term under the Proposed Action. However, a more concerted effort to suppress wildland fires under the No Action Alternative would occur that would increase the likelihood of impacts to cultural resources. This includes impacts to traditional cultural properties and areas of Native American religious concern. Assuming suppression efforts are successful, follow up restoration and rehabilitation actions would be smaller in acreage than under the Proposed Action subjecting cultural resources to fewer potential impacts. Wildland fire use is not addressed in the No Action Alternative, so suppression-related impacts would increase where a fire might otherwise be allowed to burn under the Proposed Action. Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatment methods would be conducted on a smaller scale. This would, in the short- term, potentially decrease the impact to cultural resources from ground disturbing activities. LONG-TERM With the continued buildup of hazardous fuel loads, wildland fire is expected to trend toward larger and more severe events. The impact of these severe events would be increased to cultural resources such as

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-39

archaeological values and traditional Native American vegetation collection or ceremonial use sites. The inability to use wildland fire and a low amount of planned fuel reduction treatments would exacerbate this trend. These events would have a greater likelihood of damaging cultural resources than the Proposed Action. In addition, aggressive suppression efforts would be required to control the impacts from severe events, increasing the potential for impacts to cultural resources from ground disturbing activities. Extensive restoration and rehabilitation actions would be required following these events, increasing the need for more cultural evaluations to minimize impacts from restoration and rehabilitation actions. As mentioned in the short-term, wildland fire use is not an option, so the potential for suppression related impacts could occur at a greater frequency than in the Proposed Action. Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatment methods would be conducted on a smaller scale than under the Proposed Action. While decreasing the impact to cultural resources from ground disturbing activities, it would exacerbate the trend toward an increase in hazardous fuel loads. This would result in larger more severe fires and more aggressive suppression efforts to contain them. The trend toward the occurrence of wildland fire outside of its historic and prehistoric severity range would make archaeological features that may have survived many fire events more prone to destruction. The higher severity fires may make areas used by Native Americans for religious purposes more prone to longer lasting alterations to the landscape and the values Native Americans place on them. 4.3.7 Visual Resources SHORT-TERM Under the No Action Alternative, current management would be continued. Current fire management generally mandates full suppression of wildland fires, with wildland fire use not being addressed. The continued suppression of wildfire would increase hazardous fuels accumulation and could increase the risk of a severe wildfire. Short-term effects of full fire suppression activities could change the landscape to clearly appear altered by man. For example, a bladed fireline may create a visual contrast that would make human intervention apparent. Potential visual effects from a severe wildland fire may include loss of trees, blackening of the landscape, blackened deadfall, including the disruption of line and form from ground disturbing activities. Large areas, including areas in VRM Classes I and II, could be blackened and charred and large amount of smoke would be produced. The use of prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments is currently limited. Regardless, the short-term effects of specific prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments are likely to be similar, but decreased, compared to the effects described in the Proposed Action. As in the Proposed Action, short-term effects would be evaluated with respect to long-term benefits. LONG-TERM Under this alternative the trends of increased risk and hazard due to the accumulation of fuels would be likely to continue for all VRM classes, with large and severe wildland fires potentially burning and charring visually sensitive areas. 4.3.8 Naturalness, Solitude and Primitive Recreation SHORT-TERM Under current planning, the role of fire as a natural and important component of the ecosystem has not been fully acknowledged nor has the appropriate response to naturally-ignited fires been identified. Under the No Action Alternative, the focus on fire management would continue to be on full suppression with no Resource Protection Measures in place to minimize the impact of these efforts on wilderness character values. Short-term impacts from wildland fire suppression could, therefore, be more severe than those anticipated by the Proposed Action, potentially impairing the value components of these areas. Wildland fire use is not allowed in existing land use plans.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-40

LONG-TERM The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the current condition: a trend towards away from the natural condition. The lack of wildland fire use in these areas and its ability to enhance the historic fire regime would continue to trend conditions toward larger and more severe fire conditions. Since a continuation of the current undesired fire regime and vegetation condition would be accommodated by this alternative, a long-term adverse impact to naturalness and supporting supplemental values associated with wilderness character lands would likely result. Subsequent opportunity values for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation may be impaired as well. 4.3.9 Forestry The majority of forests in the planning area consist of pinyon and juniper woodland that have minimal economic forestry values, as discussed in Chapter 3. The following qualitative discussion presents impacts to the resource if No Action Alternative is taken. SHORT-TERM Short-term impacts would continue on a trend of pinyon and juniper encroachment due to full fire suppression. The availability of biomass and forest product opportunities would continue to increase for pinyon and juniper. In addition, an overall increase in ladder fuels in the form of densely stocked mixed conifer species would increase competition for water, thereby stressing large ponderosa stands making them more susceptible to wildfire, insects and disease (Keyes et al. 2003). The overall impact of existing management goals would lead to the periodic occurrence of larger, more severe and less controllable wildfires with the associated loss of biomass and healthy forest conditions, and forest product opportunities. Wildland fire use is not an option in existing management goals. The lack of wildland fire use in appropriate areas would increase the amount of biomass and forest product opportunities in the short- term. The absence of wildland fire use and the presumed suppression of those fires would result in the continuing accumulation of fuel loads and a corresponding increase in the likelihood of large severe wildfires. Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be less than the Proposed Action, which would leave more biomass and forest products available for harvesting. However, with a decreased emphasis on non-fire fuel treatments and associated use of public and commercial entities to assist in the treatments, less of these potentially available forest product opportunities would likely exist. LONG-TERM Long-term impacts due to wildfire suppression would be similar to the short-term impacts. Wildland fire use would not be an option, which would exacerbate the problem of fuel loading over time. The smaller amount of prescribed fire and non-fire fuel reduction treatments would likewise continue the trend of making forest areas more susceptible to larger and more severe wildfires, with the associated loss in biomass and forest product opportunities. 4.3.10 Livestock Grazing SHORT-TERM The goal of full suppression of wildfire and the lack of wildland fire use in the No Action Alternative would protect allotment use in the short-term. However, an improvement in the quality of grazing conditions and ecosystem health and stability would not be realized. Also, an increase in fuel loading, particularly in unpalatable species, would continue to increase the likelihood of severe wildfires. Allotment recovery periods following wildfire and wildland fire use would remain similar to the Proposed Action and no impacts to allotment use, substantially different than described under the Proposed Action, are expected to occur.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-41

Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be conducted on a smaller scale than in the Proposed Action. While minimizing the short-term impacts to allotment use by not doing these actions, a continued trend in increasing fuel loads would remain. LONG-TERM Full suppression of fires would result in a trend toward increased hazardous fuels, which would increase the risk of severe, uncontrollable wildfire. This may lead to the loss of allotment use for longer periods of time than under the Proposed Action. Severe wildfire would result in a loss of seed banks and physical and chemical degradation of soil that negatively impacts an allotment’s ability to recover after wildfire. The lack of wildland fire use and the lower level of prescribed fire and non-fire treatments in areas with grazing allotments would trend away from DWFC. This may lead to more and larger wildfires, which are harder to control and have a more damaging impact to grazing resources and the associated allotment use. 4.3.11 Recreation SHORT-TERM The impact to recreational sites and facilities from wildland fire suppression under the No Action Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. The widespread management goal of full suppression of wildfire would increase the preservation of recreation infrastructure. The lower level of prescribed fire and non-fire fuel reduction treatments, particularly surrounding sites and facilities, would create an increasing trend of hazardous fuel loads compared to the Proposed Action. LONG-TERM Under the No Action Alternative, the emphasis on full suppression would aim to protect developed sites, facilities and the surrounding area. The lower levels of planned fire and non-fire fuel treatments, relative to the Proposed Action, would continue the current trend of increasing hazardous fuel loads. In addition, many of the developed sites and facilities have the potential to have numerous ignition sources (campfires, improper disposal of cigarettes, vehicle exhaust systems, fireworks, and others) creating a situation where potential for impacts to infrastructure and recreationist safety would greatly increase with time. 4.3.12 Special Designations SHORT-TERM The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the current fire management direction. Existing management includes an emphasis on full suppression, no wildland fire use and limited hazardous fuel treatments. The impacts from these actions would not differ greatly in the short-term from those experienced in the Proposed Action. However, the potentially greater focus on suppression efforts may decrease the amount of special designation areas that burn in severe fire. LONG-TERM This alternative would likely continue to trend toward increased hazardous fuels in or around special designation areas. If heavy fuel loads were ignited, then a fire of high severity and temperature could damage historic, cultural or scenic values associated with special designations. Suppression efforts implemented to protect these areas would become more aggressive and may require infringement on WSA values to protect other values present. This may involve the occurrence of ground disturbing activities in and around special designation areas, including large fire camps within areas managed for solitude and primitive recreation and fireline establishment. Excluding fire from playing its natural role in

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-42

ecosystems, as set forth in the No Action Alternative, is counter to managing wilderness areas for naturalness. 4.3.13 Socioeconomics SHORT-TERM Full fire suppression would continue under the No Action Alternative. The primary impacts from continuing the current fire management practices are risks to public and firefighter safety during fire suppression activities. In the short-term, full suppression would prevent the immediate destruction or loss of use of resources (e.g., timber, grazing allotments, or businesses). Fire suppression costs, watershed rehabilitation costs, costs of health impacts (particularly from air quality effects), altered transportation patterns, altered landscapes and impacts on subsistence activities would still occur under the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not place a protection emphasis on WUI. Under this alternative, wildland fire use would not be a tool used for fire management. Prescribed fire would still occur, but to a lesser degree than under the Proposed Action. Costs to the BLM for prescribed burns would consequently be less; however, income to contracted individuals and suppliers would also be reduced. The short-term impacts of non-fire fuel treatments occurring under the No Action Alternative would be the same as those under the Proposed Action, except that the number of such treatments would be fewer if the Proposed Action is not implemented. LONG-TERM Over time wildfires would tend to grow larger in size, intensity and severity due to unnatural fuel loading conditions. Nonetheless, the movement of people into WUI areas is expected to continue. The threat to WUI areas from severe or catastrophic wildfire would continue to increase as the WUI areas themselves increase in number and in size. Under the No Action Alternative, protecting communities and private parcels from wildfire would become increasingly more difficult and expensive. Severe wildfires are difficult to contain and pose a greater threat to firefighter and public life and safety, including fire-related debris-flow hazards. Severe wildfires burn with such severity that the ecosystems may be drastically changed. Economic impacts would arise both directly from fire damage and indirectly from changes in local economic activity, such as a drop in tourism. Both direct and indirect effects of wildfires would exact a heavy economic toll on many communities. Wildland fires would burn both public and private lands over a broad spectrum of rangeland and forested ecosystems, often encompassing and endangering entire watersheds critical to community water supplies. These burned lands would be susceptible to the establishment of undesirable invasive or noxious weeds. The cost to eradicate unwanted invasive species such as cheatgrass could be substantial. Wildland fires would temporarily stimulate local economies through the influx of federal and state funds, both during the fire and after the fire through rehabilitation activities. 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS Cumulative impacts are defined in the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 1500-1508) in §1508.8 as: “The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non- Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” Past actions that have affected the resources in the planning area are reflected in the “Affected Environment” section in Chapter 3. Present, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions are included in the “Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario” described below.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-43

4.4.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario The following reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events were identified that may contribute cumulative impacts to the project. Reasonably foreseeable actions are planned or proposed, not speculative or in the distant future. They also include continuation of recent trends in use. The interdisciplinary team has identified the following actions as reasonably foreseeable: • National Fire Plan activities for federal and state land management agencies • Land and Resource Management planning throughout Utah • Continuing adherence to Utah BLM’s Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997) • BLM’s 13 Western States Vegetation Environmental Impact Statement (revision in process) • Regulatory actions and guidance for sagebrush restoration • TMDL planning • Continued increase in WUI • Increase in motorized and non-motorized recreational use of BLM lands • Continued expansion of mineral extraction activities including oil and gas • Ongoing growth and development throughout the planning area • New coal-fired power plants • Utility corridor development • Continued and increased noxious weeds infestation • Continued human-caused and natural ignitions 4.4.1.1 Air PROPOSED ACTION Implementing the National Fire Plan across Utah would cause additional short-term localized increases in particulate emissions from planned ignitions. However, a long-term reduction in the risk of violations of air quality standards from large, uncontrolled smoke emissions would occur. Increased motorized recreational use, ongoing growth and development and new coal-fired power plants throughout the planning area would contribute particulate matter emissions and fugitive dust emissions. Increased recreational use may increase human-caused ignitions, which, in the short-term may add to emissions. Since the Proposed Action contains measures to avoid violating air quality standards, increases in smoke emissions would be considered in planned actions. Long-term reduction in the risk of smoke emissions from unplanned fire would help to offset the increased emissions from development and recreational use. Implementing the National Fire Plan on other agency lands and on BLM lands would cumulatively increase planned actions and increase emissions during the spring and fall when most prescribed burning is completed. NO ACTION Cumulative effects of No Action are similar to cumulative effects of the Proposed Action in the short- term. In the long-term, under No Action the increased risk of more emissions from large, unplanned wildfires would combine with additional emissions from increased recreational use of off highway vehicles (OHVs), use of automobiles to access recreational areas, development and coal-fired power plants to increase impacts to air quality and visibility than is currently experienced.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-44

4.4.1.2 Soil and Water (including floodplains and riparian and wetland zones) PROPOSED ACTION Reasonably foreseeable actions may contribute to cumulative effects on soil and water by following Utah BLM’s Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997) that reduce impacts from grazing and improve soil and vegetation conditions. Implementing Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands combined with the BLM’s Vegetation EIS would improve water quality, reduce soil compaction, reduce soil loss and reduce noxious weed infestation. Soil Effects of the Proposed Action (long-term reduction in soil loss, erosion, compaction and damage to soil crust, and less risk of altered porosity and infiltration rates) would be added to the effects from reasonably foreseeable recreational use and noxious weeds, but the Proposed Action would help to minimize the total negative effects. Forthcoming regulations on water quality (TMDLs), the National Fire Plan being implemented on a large scale and the revised BLM Vegetation EIS would improve soil conditions when combined with the long-term effects of the Proposed Action. Water The impact on surface water, groundwater and water quality would translate into an increase in soil stability, woody debris and stream bank vegetation, bank and channel stability, surface water infiltration to replenish the groundwater supply and functionality of floodplains. Cumulative effects from recreational use, noxious weeds, and mineral extraction would continue to have negative sediment load effects. The implementation of Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands, water quality (TMDLs) regulations, and restrictions on OHV use would improve water quality and supply when combined with the long-term effects of the Proposed Action. NO ACTION Soil There would be an increasing risk over time of loss of vegetation cover and organic matter and an increase in erosion, along with a reduction in microorganisms and infiltration on BLM lands which would be minimally offset by implementation of the National Fire Plan by other agencies. Cumulative effects from reasonably foreseeable actions would exacerbate these problems with the exception of the improvements made when regulations decrease impacts. Overall, the trend for soil condition under this alternative would be downward. Water Cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative would generally have negative effects on surface water, groundwater and water quality, largely from increasingly severe wildfires. Infiltration may be increased or reduced, affecting groundwater. Large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan, by other agencies and improvements made when regulations decrease impacts would have the same positive benefits as described under the Proposed Action. However, they would not occur on BLM lands, which are 40 percent of the cumulative effects area. This would cause a long-term lack of improvement in water quality. Effects from other reasonably foreseeable actions would exacerbate these problems. Overall, the trend for water would be downward with increased alteration of natural hydrologic systems. 4.4.1.3 Vegetation (including invasive and non-native species management) PROPOSED ACTION Reasonably foreseeable actions may contribute to cumulative effects on vegetation. Implementation of the Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands would improve the health of upland and riparian vegetation. Community growth, resulting in increased WUI would increase conversion of land available for native species habitat to other uses (e.g., agriculture, landscaping). Increased recreational use and development for mineral extraction may contribute to the continued spread and introduction of noxious weeds. This may offset gains in the control of invasive species potentially seen with implementation of the Proposed Action.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-45

As with the Proposed Action, large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan and the revised BLM Vegetation EIS would result in limiting and reducing cheatgrass invasion, reducing the risk of large scale catastrophic fires, lowering FRCCs, preventing further juniper encroachment, recovering native vegetation communities, preventing further loss of fire-dependent vegetation communities and promoting a healthier, more diverse vegetation mosaic. However, the Proposed Action would contribute cumulatively to the overall improvement of vegetation health. NO ACTION Effects of implementing the National Fire Plan on a large scale would occur as described above. However, since those effects would not occur on 40 percent of the lands in Utah the overall effectiveness would be reduced considerably, particularly in the WUI. The trend to a higher FRCC would continue in a large portion of the state. Implementation of the Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health Standards and Guides would improve some components, but are not likely to be able to overcome the negative impacts on vegetation caused by the No Action Alternative. Community growth, resulting in increased WUI would compound the management problem of increased fuel loadings and an associated increase in undesirable and invasive vegetation species and make fire management on adjacent BLM lands more expensive. Increased recreational use and future development for mineral extraction may contribute to the continued spread and introduction of noxious weeds which would exacerbate the problem of cheatgrass, red brome and other invasives. 4.4.1.4 Special Status Species PROPOSED ACTION Increased vegetation treatments, recreation, mineral development, population growth and urban development could cumulatively impact special status species. Special status species could be subject to temporary displacement and habitat alterations from reasonably foreseeable actions, but BLM-executed actions (and other federal actions) would be planned to avoid and minimize the impacts on special status species and their habitat. Noxious weeds could, however, affect the habitat of some species. The short-term adverse impacts of the Proposed Action would be offset by long-term beneficial effects of rehabilitation activities (large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan, the BLM Vegetation EIS and Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health) and reduction of hazardous fuels (following a prescribed fire, non-fire treatment or implementation of wildland fire use). The subsequent, gradual return to a more natural fire regime would result in long-term improvement in special status species habitat. Hazardous fuels would be reduced, which would reduce the risk of large, catastrophic fire events, including the risk of habitat alteration. NO ACTION Impacts from reasonably foreseeable actions would be as described under the Proposed Action. Additionally, although short-term adverse impacts would be minimized under the No Action Alternative, the long-term risk of severe wildfire (and associated risk to special status plants and animals and their important habitat) would continue on the BLM lands. Disturbance and habitat quality impacts from reasonably foreseeable actions would contribute to negative impacts to special status species. 4.4.1.5 Fish and Wildlife PROPOSED ACTION Reasonably foreseeable actions would subject wildlife to temporary displacement and habitat alterations. In the long-term, overall hazardous fuel reductions associated with the Proposed Action and large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan and BLM’s Vegetation EIS would gradually reduce the risk of a severe fire event and restore ecosystems that reflect more natural conditions. Since planned actions in the Proposed Action would be timed to avoid and minimize the impacts on critical habitat and breeding

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-46

seasons, the Proposed Action would contribute minimal effects to those of the reasonably foreseeable actions. Therefore, the net cumulative effects from the Proposed Action on fish and wildlife and their associated habitat would be minor. NO ACTION Reasonably foreseeable actions would have similar effects as described under the Proposed Action. In addition to these, the No Action would contribute adverse impacts (from long-term changes in vegetation composition and structure caused by aggressive fire suppression and potentially severe wildfires) to individuals, populations and habitats. The cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative would generally be adverse to wildlife and their habitats. 4.4.1.6 Cultural Resources (including Native American religious concerns) PROPOSED ACTION Reasonably foreseeable actions include increased recreational use, WUI, vegetation treatments, WUI, population growth, and mineral resource development in areas containing cultural resources. This would include an associated increase in vandalism, artifact collection and destruction, and alterations to landscape characteristics valued in Native American religious beliefs and practices. The Proposed Action would reduce the impacts that wildfire and wildfire suppression have on cultural resources in the long-term; however, in the short-term more artifacts may be revealed following fire. Cumulative effects activities would add to the disturbance, possible destruction, or removal of cultural artifacts. Existing regulations and protocols should help reduce the impacts on cultural resources. Ongoing growth and an increase in the WUI may alter fire management activities, which, under the Proposed Action would consider the impacts and protect cultural resources. NO ACTION No Action would, in the long-term, increase the impacts that wildfire and wildfire suppression may have on cultural resources. Cumulative effects activities would add to the disturbance or removal of artifacts and the alteration of attributes Native American’s consider important in the practice of religious beliefs. Ongoing growth and an increase in the WUI may alter fire management activities, including added pressure to suppress more wildfires, which, under the No Action could lead to more loss or damage of cultural resources. 4.4.1.7 Visual Resources PROPOSED ACTION Reasonably foreseeable actions may affect visual resources through increased recreational use, other vegetation treatments, impacts from new coal-fired power plants, and through other growth and development activities. Development of lands for oil and gas extraction and for utility corridors is expected to expand the road network on agency land and linear features containing a modified reclamation vegetation type or mix relative to the surrounding landscape. These actions would magnify impacts to visual resources due to fire management related actions in the short-term. Reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatment strategies that are consistent with managing scenic quality on public land would be implemented. These treatments would be consistent with fire management goals and would reduce the risk of severe wildfire that could potentially affect all visual classes and visual scenic quality. A decrease in high value visual resources is expected due to other actions. However, the Proposed Action could help offset the current fire management trend toward less natural landscapes and improve the prospects for visual resources in the long-term.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-47

NO ACTION Cumulative effects from development of oil and gas combined with the impacts from No Action would be the same as those for the cumulative effects from the Proposed Action. Decreases in high value visual resources are expected due to other actions. The No Action would continue the current fire management trend toward less natural landscapes and would impact the maintenance of high quality visual resources in the long-term by incorporating suppression related linear features, such as firelines, on the landscape. 4.4.1.8 Naturalness, Solitude and Primitive Recreation PROPOSED ACTION Reasonably foreseeable increases in recreational use, growth and development, and implementation of the National Fire Plan would reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Naturalness would be enhanced in the long-term as fire is allowed to play its natural role on more landscapes. This would omit the presence of large fire crews and other related intrusions. Increased recreational use could likely reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation offsetting that caused by the Proposed Action. Continued increases in the WUI and more people in general would likely influence the treatment methods in the long-term, which would affect the ability of fire to play its natural role. NO ACTION Large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan and the BLM’s Vegetation EIS would increase naturalness in the long-term, but the No Action Alternative would limit this increase to non-BLM lands. Increased recreational use may likely reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in addition to that caused by the No Action. 4.4.1.9 Forestry PROPOSED ACTION Community growth, resulting in increased WUI would contribute more acres to the areas where intense management of forests would be needed to protect property within the interface. Future development for mineral extraction may further reduce the acres of forests. There would be an initial gain in the availability of forest product harvesting opportunities through improved access. Increased recreational use may increase human-caused ignitions contributing to increased wildfires that reduce the biomass available for commercial use. Future development for mineral extraction may, along with the Proposed Action, decrease forest products available for use in some forested areas. However, the Proposed Action would reduce the effects from wildfires and contribute to the sustainability of forest products, offsetting some of the impacts from other foreseeable actions. NO ACTION Future development for mineral extraction may reduce the acres of forests. There would be an initial gain in the availability of forest product harvesting opportunities through improved access. Natural and human-caused ignitions would continue to ignite fires that would have an increased risk of causing severe effects on forestry and reduce biomass and forest product availability. 4.4.1.10 Livestock Grazing PROPOSED ACTION Cumulatively, implementation of the Rangeland Health Standards and Guides, BLM’s Vegetation EIS and large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan would lead to improved rangeland health. These along with an incorporation of allotment resting periods following wildland fire and planned fire management actions would add to the increase in rangeland health. However, increased recreational

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-48

use and continued spread of noxious weeds may impact grazing resources. The negative effects of noxious weed spread may be somewhat mitigated by the Proposed Action, as it would contribute to the overall improvement of health of grazing resources and make them more resistant to invasion for noxious weeds. NO ACTION Large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan on lands adjoining BLM-administered lands may offset the predicted increase in vegetative fuel load and the continued increase in the likelihood of severe wildfires moving onto BLM lands containing grazing allotments. Implementation of Rangeland Health Standards and Guides and BLM’s Vegetation EIS, would eventually lead to improved rangeland health. However, the increase in fuel loadings from the No Action would reduce stability of grazing resources. Negative impacts from the spread of noxious weeds combined with the added risk of severe wildfires from the No Action could reduce health and productivity of grazing resources. 4.4.1.11 Recreation and Visitor Services PROPOSED ACTION Recreation may be affected from reasonably foreseeable actions. Increased recreational use and facility development, ongoing growth and development, wildfire, increase in vegetation treatments, increase in the WUI and noxious weeds would all change visitors’ experiences. Cumulatively, these effects, along with the Proposed Action may increase the susceptibility of recreational facilities, dispersed camping areas, trails, OHV routes and sanitation facilities to fire or fire suppression impacts. Increases or reprioritization of fuel treatment projects may be required to protect recreational resources. Long-term benefits include reduced fuel loadings leading to increased protection against wildfire, resulting in improved safety of recreationists. The expected increase in recreation facilities would put a demand on fuel treatment funds. The opportunity to use these limited funds to do fuel treatments surrounding the recreation sites and facilities may be even more limited due to competition for funding with WUI areas. This could create greater impacts to recreation sites and facilities and to WUI areas trying to share funding. NO ACTION The impact of agency priorities for the creation of developed recreation sites and the maintenance of existing sites would have the greatest impact on visitor day availability of developed sites and facilities. Noxious weed spread would be exacerbated by the No Action which could eventually lead to reduced recreational enjoyment. 4.4.1.12 Special Designations PROPOSED ACTION Reasonably foreseeable actions would lead to additional human pressure on special designations, an increase in noxious weed spread and the potential for human-caused fires to affect the areas as use increases. The overall effect of the Proposed Action together with reasonably foreseeable actions on special designations would be to reduce potential impacts from wildfire, which would help maintain the naturalness of WSAs by allowing wildfire to play its natural role in the ecosystem, help protect the special qualities of ACECs and help to protect from invasion of noxious weeds. The Proposed Action would allow flexibility in management of fire and fuels to accommodate the increased use and impacts that it causes. Additionally, it would help to reduce the spread of noxious weeds.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-49

NO ACTION Cumulative effects of No Action could lead to more intense suppression actions adversely impairing the unique values associated with these designations, continue the trend toward larger fuel buildups in and around special designation areas, damage historic, cultural or scenic values associated with special designations and have an adverse impact on management of these areas. These would all be exacerbated by the reasonably foreseeable actions and would contribute to the adverse effects the No Action has on special designations. 4.4.1.13 Socioeconomics (including WUIs associated with BLM lands and adjacent ownerships) PROPOSED ACTION Large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan and other vegetation treatments would cause a reduction in the cost of suppression, increased payroll benefits for non-fire and planned ignition treatments, protection of wildland-urban interface areas and their associated resources values, protection of forest products values, increased hunting license sales, and maintenance of air quality. A decreased long-term potential for severe wildfire would lead to increased firefighter and public safety and a reduction in catastrophic loss of property. Reasonably foreseeable actions together with the Proposed Action would cause a short-term displacement of affected populations (from smoke and dust), reduction in payroll benefits for suppression forces, temporary loss of allotment use, altered transportation routes, disruption of subsistence activities and temporary increases in noise. A decreased long-term potential for severe wildfire would reduce suppression payroll. Cumulatively, continued expansion of WUI, increase in recreational use of BLM lands, future development for mineral extraction activities and ongoing growth and development throughout the planning area would put more pressure to protect resources within and outside of the WUI from wildfire. More people in the area potentially expose more of the public to the impact from fire management actions on adjacent BLM lands. The cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and reasonably foreseeable development scenario may result in addition payroll for planned management actions and its corresponding increase in agency expenses. Additional public response to the Proposed Action may cause alterations in proposed treatments, wildland fire use implementation and expansion of the WUI. NO ACTION Continued fire suppression in most areas would cause an increase in payroll benefits for suppression forces, particularly in the long-term with the increased potential for severe wildfire. In the short-term, current access and recreation would be maintained. Other social and economic impacts include long-term reduction in the suppression payroll, risk to WUI areas and their associated resources values, increased risk of loss of forest products values, temporary reduction in game and hunting license sales through loss of habitat, reduction in of air quality, temporary loss of allotment use and long-term increase in catastrophic loss of property. Cumulatively, continued increase in WUI, increase in recreational use of BLM lands, future development for mineral extraction activities and ongoing growth and development throughout the planning area potentially exposes more of the public to large, severe wildfire and could increase the value of resources damaged by them. This would occur through the public’s desire to aggressively suppress all wildland fires while not incorporating planned fuel treatments to lessen fuel loads.

September 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-50

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

March 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts 4-51

5.1 INTRODUCTION Issues identified for analysis within this EA are included in Appendix A. This appendix includes the resource concerns identified, including those resources considered as Critical Elements of the Human Environment and related issues derived from the BLM, affiliated agency reviews and comments received. Consultation and coordination among agencies and public parties with interests in the process was planned and conducted to ensure the opportunity for involvement throughout the plan amendment and EA process. Federal, state and local government agencies and Tribes that create, administer and monitor policy for these lands and adjacent lands were among the interested parties. BLM established a coordinated collaborative effort in developing the EA, by seeking the active participation from all of these parties. 5.2 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED The BLM coordinated and collaborated with numerous federal, state, Tribal and local government agency representatives as well as private organizations and individuals wishing to participate in the LUP Amendment and FMP revision processes. The BLM contacted more than 60 federal representatives, 40 Utah state agency representatives, several in the neighboring states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, officials of county and city governments across Utah and more than 70 Tribes and Tribal representatives. Each was provided with notices regarding public scoping meetings and planning bulletins informing them about the purpose, schedule and progress of the project. The mailing list, containing all agency points of contact, is contained in the Administrative Record within the project documentation. Table 5.1 lists Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA. Table 5.1: List of Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA.

Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination

U.S. Environmental Protection Consultation for responsibilities The EPA provided formal comments to the BLM Agency (EPA), Region 8 under NEPA and Section 309 of during public scoping on May 17, 2004 and the Clean Water Act identified concerns that included the need to develop broad fire planning to protect local ecology, recreation, and commodity production. The EPA requested that BLM consider management needs for local fuel hazards; that fire management planning would conform with Interim Air Quality policy and local smoke management plans; and that management be developed to protect aquatic resources from adverse impacts on soil and water. The EPA also identified analysis considerations associated with livestock grazing and noxious weed control. The BLM considered EPA’s comments and incorporated them into the Proposed Action and the analysis of the alternatives. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Consultation under Section 7 of FWS is a participating party who is consulting (FWS) the Endangered Species Act (16 under an agreement that tiers off the BLM and USC 1531) and Biological FWS November 1, 2001 consultation agreement Assessment Review and March 3, 2004 alternative consultation agreement for land use planning. The service has provided comment and analysis recommendations for the species list prepared by the BLM. The service has also reviewed, provided additional Resource Protection Measures, and concurred with the species findings within the Biological Assessment, completed on March 4, 2005. The Biological Opinion was completed in September,

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-1

Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination

2005. Tribes and Tribal Consultation as required by the Planning Bulletins were provided to approximately Representatives within Utah American Indian Religious 50 tribes by BLM on June 21, 2004. In addition, and Surrounding States Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC individual letters were sent to each Tribal 1531) and NHPA (16 USC 1531) government on June 29, 2004 regarding BLM’s intent to conduct this EA and request their participation and cooperation. Tribes were also invited to Public Scoping Meetings during July 6 to July 14, 2004. On May 6, 2005, a CD containing the draft EA was mailed to each tribe with a letter informing each tribe of the availability of the draft EA and requesting input on the document. Utah Governor’s Office of Consultation on on-going multi- BLM and Maxim Technologies met with the RDCC Planning and Budget – agency planning actions and on June 23, 2004 to discuss the scope of proposed Resource Development associated federal planning fire management planning and to seek input from Coordinating Committee actions associated state agencies that may be affected by (RDCC) the proposed federal actions. The UDWR and FFSL indicated their desire to be involved in federal fire planning discussions (see proceeding comments). RDCC also responded to the BLM with a formal letter on July 15, 2004 that outlined the UDWR’s considerations. On April 12, 2005, during the public comment period for the Draft Land Use Plan Amendment EA, BLM and Maxim Technologies presented to the RDCC a summary of the EA and its proposals, and fielded questions regarding the EA. The RDCC responded to the BLM during this comment period with a formal letter, dated April 20, 2005, which contained comments from Utah Geological Survey and DEQ/Division of Air Quality. Utah Department of Consultation on proposed fire BLM and Maxim staff met with SHPO in June 2004 Community and Economic management as required by the and July 2004 to discuss scope of planning and the Development - Utah State NHPA (16 USC 470) possibility of SHPO acting as a participating party. Historic Preservation Office SHPO had determined at these meetings not to (SHPO) act as a participating party, but they did provide feedback on the scope and analysis of the Proposed Action. In a meeting on January 25, 2005, BLM and SHPO agreed to develop a programmatic agreement specifically addressing wildland fire use on public lands within Utah. The programmatic agreement is being prepared, as directed by 36 CFR 800.14(b), as a means of minimizing and resolving adverse effects to historic properties and significant scientific, cultural, and historic resources. Utah Department of Natural Consult on fire management FFSL attended the BLM Statewide IDT meeting on Resources – Division of planning on adjacent state lands June 22 - 23, 2004 and contributed to scope and Forestry, Fire and State Lands analysis discussions. BLM met with FFSL on August (FFSL) 24, 2004 to discuss the proposed direction of statewide fire management on public lands, as well as the need to coordinate with local BLM field offices in the development of fire management planning at a local level as identified in the FMPs that tier off the statewide LUP Amendment. Maxim Technologies staff coordinated with FFSL staff in September and October 2004 to obtain

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-2

Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination

resource data and historic wildland fire information to support BLM data and the development of the EAs. Utah Department of Natural Consult with UDWR as the The UDWR, in association with the Governor’s Resources- Division of agency with expertise on impacts Office and Planning and Budget, and RDCC, Wildlife Resources (UDWR) on fish and wildlife species provided formal comments to the BLM on July 15, 2004 and a request to be included as a participating party. The BLM coordinated proposed fire management actions with UDWR and consideration of wildland fire use to benefit wildlife habitat. Maxim staff coordinated with a variety of UDWR personnel from July through October 2004 in developing fish and wildlife resource data, GIS data, and scope of analysis within the EAs. These meetings also included coordination with the UDWR Utah Natural Heritage Program. Summit County Fire Chief Informal discussion with the On July 14, 2004, SCFC discussed lands and realty (SCFC) county fire chief about county issues with the BLM in regards to actions within lands issues the Salt Lake Field Office. The BLM provided the SCFS with explanation and maps associated with the Iso-Tract planning area and how lands are exchanged. Uintah County Commission Informal discussion with county On July 13, 2004, the UCC Commissioner (UCC) commissioner on resource issues provided comments to the BLM in regards to in county protection of sage grouse habitat and limited restriction on livestock grazing of burned areas. Comments in regards to habitat were incorporated into the Proposed Action for the statewide amendment EA and Vernal FMP EA. The limited restriction on livestock allotment resting was considered during the development of the land use plan and FMP Proposed Actions. Wayne County Economic Consult on federal planning On June 28, 2004, WCED provided comments to Development (WCED) impacts on local government the BLM during public scoping regarding planning consideration of wildland urban interface coordination in Wayne County, as well as how federal planning may provide mutually benefits to each entity. Considerations of WCED’s comments were incorporated into proposed fire management planning. 5.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5.3.1 Notice of Intent During preparation of the EA, the public was notified of the Proposed Action. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to initiate this planning effort was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2004. The publication of this NOI initiated a public scoping comment period, inviting participation of affected and interested agencies, organizations and members of the general public to assist the BLM in determining the scope of issues to be addressed. Comments were received from April 2, 2004 through July 21, 2004. 5.3.2 Public Involvement Plan A Public Involvement Plan was prepared in June 2004 to manage and ensure an effective, consistent and open communication process among BLM and other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, Native American tribes, the public and other stakeholders. This Plan not only outlined the

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-3

series of ‘Open House’ public meetings to be conducted throughout the state that would allow for comment and discussion on current and proposed fire management, but also planned for continued public involvement opportunities and actions from the start of the project through to completion. 5.3.3 Planning Bulletin A Planning Bulletin was also developed to advise the public and describe the fire management project and its background; encourage public participation at the public scoping meetings; identify contact information; and identify opportunities and methods for submitting comments throughout the NEPA process. In addition to providing background information, the Bulletin outlined the public involvement process for the project; the schedule; a listing of public meetings; instructions on making comments and joining the mailing list; information about the project’s public website; and contact information. On June 24, 2004, the Bulletin was sent to 1,149 individuals, organizations, state, county and city government agencies, Tribal governments and groups on the BLM’s mailing list. The BLM sent each Tribal government an individualized letter (dated June 29, 2004) inviting them to consult on the project. All entities on the mailing list were contacted about the project and invited to submit comments. In addition, a website was established that displays information about this project (www.ut.blm.gov/fireplanning). 5.3.4 Public Scoping Meetings From July 6 through July 14, 2004, BLM conducted five Open House meetings in Moab, Cedar City, Richfield, Vernal and Salt Lake City, Utah. The intent of the public meetings was to provide opportunities to federal, state and local agencies, interested organization and members of the general public to provide meaningful input to the planning process. As well as being announced in the Planning Bulletin, These meetings were announced in the Planning Bulletin. On June 25, 2004, a public notice was delivered as a media advisory and press release to newspapers, radio stations and one cable television station throughout Utah and to newspapers and radio stations in Arizona, Colorado and Nevada on June 25, 2004. The notice announced public scoping meeting dates, times and locations and invited the public to participate. Further, the Utah BLM webpage advertised the meetings and scoping period. Approximately 700 subscribers of the Utah BLM electronic newsletter (“E-Briefs”) received related information. A series of Public Scoping Meetings were held across the state according to the schedule in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 Public Scoping Meetings

Date City Facility Address July 6, 2004 Moab BLM Field Office 82 East Dogwood July 7, 2004 Cedar City Heritage Center, 90 North Main Festival Hall 1 July 8, 2004 Richfield BLM Field Office 150 East 900 North July13, 2004 Vernal Western Park 302 West 200 South July 14, 2004 Salt Lake City BLM Field Office 2370 South 2300 West An open house format was used for the scoping meetings, in which attendees could interact informally and individually with BLM representatives at stations providing information on fire management planning, land use planning and local fire operations. Attendees signed a registration sheet and received an information packet with handouts including a comment form, state map depicting the five FMP planning areas, the NOI and a list of project-related web resources. Additional handouts and personnel were available at stations in the meeting room. One station provided a description of BLM land use planning and the LUP Amendment process and schedule; another provided details of Fire Management Planning actions statewide with FMP boundaries and a list of potential actions; and a third provided a description

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-4

of local BLM Field Office Fire Management and Operations. Visual aids included maps of FMP planning areas, LUP areas, fire occurrence in each FMP planning area, project schedule and two flow charts showing the relationship of a LUP to an FMP and the fire management implementation process. An introductory video on fire management and fire tips related to the Wildland Urban Interface was also provided for viewing. Attendees were invited to write or ask questions for further clarification and to fill out a comment, providing input on the project. Visual aids included maps of FMP planning areas, LUP areas, fire occurrence in each FMP planning area, project schedule and two flow charts showing the relationship of a LUP to an FMP and the fire management implementation process. Attendees were free to fill out a comment form at the comment table before leaving the meeting. Both written and verbal comments were recorded, analyzed and reported in the Scoping Report and considered in preparation of this EA. A total of 3 comments were solicited at these five meetings. 5.3.5 Public Scoping Comments During the scoping comment period, a total of 20 letters were received via mail or email, with 91 total comments recorded. Ten organizations, 3 individuals, and 3 agencies or governmental bodies submitted letters. Organizations providing comments were the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Wild Utah Project, The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Canyon Country Youth Corps, Wildlife Management Institute, Red Rock Forests, Sierra Club- Utah Chapter, and the Southern Utah Wilderness Society. Government agencies or bodies providing comments were the Environmental Protection Agency, the Wayne County Economic Development agency, and the State of Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee. Detailed discussions took place between the BLM, The Wilderness Society and other environmental groups to address substantial comments raised during the public scoping period. A comment summary table was developed that grouped comments by topic and is a part of the project Scoping Report which can be found in the Administrative Record for this project. 5.3.6 Release of Draft EA and Public Review and Comment Period On March 28, 2005, the BLM released the draft land use plan amendment EA for public review and comment. Letters were mailed on that date to approximately 200 members of the public and officials who had asked to remain on the mailing list for the project or had expressed interest in being notified of the EA’s availability. The letter informed the public of the comment period and of the process for submitting comments on the EA. The letter included the contact information, the due date for comments, and how to obtain a copy of the EA. Copies were posted on the internet, were available in hard-copy, or as a PDF on a CD. Another letter was mailed to each of the state’s county commissions informing them of the comment period and inviting input on the document’s consistency with their own planning documents. A press release was issued by the Utah State Office on March 30, 2005 to inform the public of the document’s availability. The Environmental Notification Bulletin Board was updated state-wide to announce the review and comment period. During the Public Comment Period, on April 12, 2005, BLM made a second presentation to the State of Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee summarizing the EA and its proposals. The comment period, which ended April 30, 2005, garnered three letters and one email.

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-5

5.4 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS The BLM received 4 comment letters on the draft. Those comments, and BLM responses, are summarized in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 Comments and Responses on Draft LUP Amendment Commenter and Comment Comment Response Number United States When a fire affects a listed Chapter 2, Table 2.3 outlines Resource Fish and threatened or endangered species, Protection Measures (RPM). RPM SSS-1 Wildlife the FWS recommends the BLM states: “Initiate emergency Section 7 Service (FWS) consider contacting FWS biologists to consultation with United States Fish and assist as technical advisors to the Wildlife Service (USFWS) upon the FWS-1 Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Team. determination that wildfire suppression may pose a potential threat to any listed threatened or endangered species or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.” By following RPM SSS-1, after being notified by the consulting BLM Field Office, the FWS could state their desire to become a technical advisor to the Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) team if ESR actions are warranted. FWS-2 FWS recommends that the BLM The sagebrush discussion (Section 3.4.3.1) analyze past and current has been revised to state that drought has management practices on “contributed” to sagebrush mortality landscapes experiencing sagebrush across “portions” of the state. BLM is a die-offs in order to identify the collaborator on a Sagebrush Restoration causes of the die-offs. Effort involving other federal (including FWS), state, and local partners. A goal of this effort is to analyze past and current management practices to provide for greater understanding of sagebrush ecology. Greater understanding will result in development of future management practices aimed at restoring sagebrush communities. FWS’s recommended analysis is beyond the scope of this EA. The BLM recognizes the value of this analysis and is working toward its completion in the near future. FWS-3 FWS states that decadent (i.e., >30% The relationship between increased shrub sagebrush cover) sagebrush does cover coupled with decreased not necessarily result in lower herbaceous cover is well established in the grass/forb communities. scientific literature (Winward 1991, Olson 2002, Sands et al. 1999). Studies have indicated that treatments to reduce sagebrush cover/density/biomass result in increases of herbaceous cover and/or density (Kauffman 1999, Crawford et al. 2004, West 1999). A sentence was reworded in Section 3.4.3.1 to clarify that sagebrush communities cover a wide range of ecological conditions across Utah. FWS-4 FWS requests BLM Table 3.2 was revised to reflect sagebrush

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-6

Commenter and Comment Comment Response Number acknowledgement that sagebrush occurring in both Fire Regimes II and III. Section could occur in Fire Regimes II and III. 3.4.3.1 Sagebrush, Fire Ecology was revised to state: “Sagebrush is characterized by Fire Regimes II and III; it is considered to be generally in a FRCC 2 if it is above 6,500 feet and FRCC 3 below 6,500 feet because of high risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire due to cheatgrass invasion.” This change was made to recognize that sagebrush fire return intervals are broad enough to encompass both of these fire regimes.

Further, the Fire Ecology section was revised to state: “Pre-settlement, stand- replacing fire frequencies for low-elevation sagebrush are estimated to vary from 7 to 110 years (Whisenant 1990; Peters and Bunting 1994; Miller et al. 2001, FEIS 2004).” This change was made to reflect the large variability in fire return intervals in sagebrush communities. FWS-5 FWS states: “We believe it is Table 2.1, Sagebrush states: “Fire important that fire not be prescribed management actions in sagebrush must in a low elevation sagebrush be carefully balanced between invasive community that has not been species concerns, wildlife habitat and the subjected to fire for 50 years if it is need to restore fire.” This statement otherwise functioning properly.” acknowledges the importance of considering more than the fire return interval in determining the need for fire management actions. FWS-6 FWS recommends seed mixtures Table 2.1 reflects the BLM’s commitment to contain a “substantial amount of restoring native vegetation types, thereby native seeds;” and recommends avoiding use of non-native species in fire against using non-native species “if management actions. Also see Table 2.3, there is a risk of the non-native Resource Protection Measures. RPMs V-1 vegetation reseeding itself or and FW-9 denote the importance of using spreading via other methods (i.e., native species, with limitations on the use rhizomes).” of non-native species. FWS-7 FWS notes the discrepancy in the BA Although there is a slight discrepancy in and in the EA in describing “long- the description of “long-term” in the BA term.” The BA states long-term as and the EA, the BLM believes this slight being greater than 10 years, and the variation does not affect analyses, effects, EA describes long-term as 6 to 15+ or conclusions in the BA or the EA. These years. general time-frames were provided to broadly group effects. FWS-8 FWS recommends “that any Decisions regarding additional livestock allotment that is currently in a use are outside the scope of this EA. See downward trend or is in stable Appendix A for explanation of the issues functioning at risk or non-functioning analyzed in this EA. Decisions regarding status not be permitted to accept livestock use and distribution are made in any additional livestock.” Further, existing Land Use Plans and in individual FWS suggests “that the EIS (sic) Allotment Management Plans. Further, clearly outline the contingencies of considerations relating to use and livestock distribution when treating distribution on allotments undergoing an allotment.” treatments would be made during site- specific analysis that would occur when individual treatments are proposed. As

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-7

Commenter and Comment Comment Response Number stated in 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or Other Plans, this EA complies with Utah BLM’s Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (1997). FWS-9 FWS States: “The Service BLM’s Utah Standards and Guidelines for recommends that the BLM use Healthy Rangelands (1997) outlines treatment success criteria to livestock resting periods following fire and determine when livestock should be other treatments. The following sentence allowed to utilize treated areas was added to the Proposed Action instead of merely stating that treated (Section 2.2.2.1): “All ESR actions would be areas will be rested for a minimum or conducted following BLM’s ESR one or two growing seasons. Handbook.” Recent Utah BLM state-wide Conditions may be such that guidance (IB-2005-030) recommends also livestock grazing would be following new revisions to the BLM’s ESR compatible shortly after treatment or Handbook (to date, still in draft) that: not for several years. These decisions • States livestock use will resume only should be based on plant when ESR objectives (as identified in establishment, soil stability, ground an individual ESR plan) have been met cover, and species composition.” by treatment and rest • Establishes comprehensive monitoring • Authorizes emergency grazing closures FWS-10 FWS recommends that the long-term BLM will consider these impacts during site- potential impacts of displacement specific analysis that would occur when on non-game and big game species individual treatments are proposed. be considered when planning the timing and frequency of repeated treatments. FWS-11 FWS recommends “that roads and Table 2.3, Resource Protection Measures trails be closed in and around a (RPM), SW-3 states that OHV closures could treatment area until success criteria be utilized to complete necessary for the treatment are established rehabilitation on firelines, or other areas of and met.” direct soil disturbance. Rec-2 states that “vehicle tracks created off established routes would be obliterated after fire management actions in order to reduce unauthorized OHV travel.” Other RPMs are designed to protect soil and water resources, and limit establishment of noxious weeds. Section 2.2.2.1 lists road and trail closures as a possible action following fire and other treatments. FWS-12 The FWS recommends developing BLM has revised Section 4.2.15 to clarify the detailed monitoring protocols, monitoring associated with this proposed including success criteria, adaptive LUP Amendment. In summary, BLM would management tools, and description monitor for the degree to which DWFC is of circumstances for modification of achieved. This would be accomplished treatments and actions. through monitoring developed in site- specific planning and FMPs. FWS-13 The FWS recommends establishing The BLM notes this recommendation. Site- control sites for every treatment, and specific planning will determine the need documenting baseline conditions for control sites and the amount of before treatment in the treatment documentation of baseline conditions. area and the control site. The feasibility of incorporating this recommendation into every treatment is infeasible (i.e., time and expense) and

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-8

Commenter and Comment Comment Response Number unnecessary across Utah. For instance, BLM actions may be implemented to result in a desired condition (i.e., reduced stems per acre following a mechanical treatment) regardless of the previous (i.e., baseline) or adjacent (i.e., control) condition. Further, the Purpose and Need of this EA is to address broad fire management goals, objectives, strategies and actions. This recommendation is currently being followed in many fire management projects. These FWS recommendations will continue to be considered in future site-specific project planning. Greg Peterson suggests the use of Kochia The BLM recognizes the benefit of using Peterson (via prostrata for reducing exotic species Kochia prostrata in reducing fire spread in e-mail) invasion and catastrophic wildfires. cheatgrass-dominated areas. See Table Further, Peterson suggests that the 2.1, Grassland for a reference to using Peterson-1 BLM ensures seed purity when using Kochia prostrata in greenstripping. Table this species to reduce unintended 2.3, Resource Protection Measures, V-2 introduction of other invasive Kochia states that all seed used would be tested species. for purity. State of Utah Utah Geological Society The potential for fire-related debris flow Governor’s recommends that fire-related debris- hazards exists under the No Action Office of flow hazards be recognized as a alternative. Section 4.3.13 (No Action Planning and potential impact in the EA. Alternative) has been revised to Budget, acknowledge the potential threats to WUI Resource from fire-related debris-flow hazards. There Development are no actions or decisions included in the Coordinating Proposed Action which would lead to such Committee hazardous debris flows. Based on land ownership in Utah (especially surrounding Utah - 1 populated areas), this impact is unlikely to occur from BLM actions. Utah-2 UDEQ requests an assessment of the See 2.4.2, Non-Fire Fuel Treatment need for burning as compared to Alternative. alternative mechanical treatments. Utah-3 UDEQ requests a quantification of Policy and guidance driving the Purpose the amounts, types of material and and Need for this amendment (as acreage to be burned. described in Chapter 1) does not allow the BLM to provide such specificity at the land use planning level of analysis. Future, more site-specific assessments of proposals would provide descriptions such as those requested. Utah-4 Description of the types of burns The EA allows for all types of burns to meet proposed. the goals, objectives, strategies and actions to meet DWFC. Policy and guidance driving the Purpose and Need for this amendment (as described in Chapter 1) does not allow the BLM to provide such specificity at the land use planning level of analysis. Site-specific planning will disclose the actual burning

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-9

Commenter and Comment Comment Response Number tactics used to meet these goals and objectives. Utah-5 UDEQ requests a description of Table 2.3, Resource Protection Measures, measures to reduce emissions. RPM A-1 states that weather conditions would be evaluated during prescribed fire and wildland fire use. Further, RPM A-1 calls for BLM to coordinate with UDEQ for prescribed fire and wildland fire use. Section 3.4.1.1 describes BLM’s compliance with the Utah Smoke Management Plan. The Utah Smoke Management Plan requires that burn plans include actions to minimize fire emissions, reduce exposure, and evaluate smoke dispersion. Such compliance would continue, as stated in Section 1.6. Utah-6 UDEQ requests that the BLM provide A quantification of the emission of in this EA a quantification of emission regulated pollutants can only be of regulated pollutants. determined once site-specific burn treatments are identified, and therefore, is outside the scope of this planning-level document. The BLM follows the Utah Smoke Management Plan’s requirements for quantification of emission of regulated pollutants. Utah-7 UDEQ requests a description of BLM assumes UDEQ is referring to applicable regulatory requirements. applicable air quality regulatory requirements. See Section 3.4.4.1 Air Quality Standards. Also see Appendix C for a list of other applicable regulatory requirements and policies to be followed in this EA. Utah-8 UDEQ requests a qualitative Section 4.2.1 states that “fire management description of air quality impacts activities would not unlawfully exceed air focused on new or increased qualify standards or impact NAAs or other impacts on downwind communities sensitive areas in Utah due to the Proposed and visibility impacts in Class I areas. Action.” This sentence was rewritten to acknowledge Class I areas and communities. Further, under description of ‘Short Term’ impacts, the EA states: “The anticipated increase in prescribed fire would be coordinated with the SMP Program Coordinator to prevent exceedances of air quality standards and to minimize impacts to NAAs and other sensitive areas.” Table 2.3, Resource Protection Measures, RPM A-1 states that the BLM will “Coordinate with UDEQ for prescribed fires and wildland fire use.” By following this RPM and guidance in the SMP, the requested description of impacts is unnecessary in this EA. Utah-9 UDEQ requests modeling of The inclusion of the requested modeling downwind concentrations of information is outside the scope of this land pollutants to document compliance use planning amendment. Policy and

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-10

Commenter and Comment Comment Response Number with NAAQS, and visibility impacts in guidance driving the Purpose and Need Class I areas. for this amendment (as described in Chapter 1) does not require that BLM provide such specificity at the land use planning level of analysis. Future, more site-specific assessments of proposals may provide the requested modeling. Utah-10 UDEQ notes references to Utah Air These rules are described in 3.4.1.1 Air Conservation Rule R307-202, and Quality Standards. R307-204. Utah -11 UDWR noted that Chapter 4.2.3 Chapter 2 clearly states when it is failed to recognize that seeding with appropriate to use non-native species desirable non-native species may be when seeding. Chapter 4.2.3 was revised appropriate. to remove references specifying that only native species would be used for seeding. The TWS et al. requests clarification of Sections 1.2 and 1.6 were revised to Wilderness the relationship of this EA to the FMP provide more clarification on the Society EAs. relationship of this EA to the FMP EAs (TWS), Sierra (which are under development). Project Club Utah manager Jolie Pollet further clarified this Chapter, Red issue with Tom Fry of TWS on June 6, 2005 Rock Forests on a telephone conversation. Tom Fry indicated TWS et al. confusion had been TWS-1 cleared up. TWS-2 TWS et al. requests a description of BLM has included the requested the definition of WUI community, and information in Appendix D (map and include an approximation of the narrative). Section 2.2.5 and the glossary scope, location, ownership and further describe concerns relating to WUI vegetation types surrounding such communities. lands. TWS-3 TWS et al. requests clarification of BLM has provided clarification in Appendix the limitations of using FRCC. D and in Section 2.2.2. Revisions were also made to Table 2.1. TWS-4 TWS et al. suggests ample caveat BLM has made clarifications in Section and qualifiers regarding acres for 2.2.4. analysis presented in Table 2.2. TWS-5 TWS et al. noted that in some Section 2.2.3 was revised to include further instances Alternative B (No Action) explanation of the limitations regarding provided for more use of fire for wildland fire use. The No Action resource benefit compared to the alternative does not allow for wildland fire Proposed Action. use; both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives allow for an appropriate suppression response (which may include less aggressive actions such as monitoring, confinement or containment. Only the Proposed Action allows for wildland fire use.

5.5 LIST OF PREPARERS BLM selected an environmental consultant, Maxim Technologies, from a list of qualified environmental services contractors through a competitive procurement process to support Utah BLM on this important LUP Amendment EA. Therefore the preparers of this EA included a combination of BLM and contract personnel.

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-11

5.5.1 BLM Preparers BLM’s Interdisciplinary Team assisted in the preparation of this EA and with development and evaluation of the proposed fire management direction and LUP Amendment as well as with portions of the EA document. BLM participants and their responsibilities are listed in Table 5.4. BLM also assigned a contracting officer’s representative and technical project lead with primary responsibilities for oversight of contractors, agency collaboration and the NEPA process. Table 5.4 BLM Preparers

Name Title Document Section Responsibility Jolie Pollet Project Manager Technical coordination, vegetation, fire ecology, Proposed Action, Resource Protection Measures Matthew Higdon NEPA Planner; Technical coordination, planning, NEPA Asst. Project Manager Ron Bolander TES Specialist Section 7 consultation, review of wildlife, special status species Chris Keefe TES Specialist Section 7 consultation, review of wildlife, special status species Lori Hunsaker Cultural Resource Specialist Cultural resources, Native American consultation Lisa Bryant Soils Scientist Soils Kathy Radigan Forester Forestry and woodlands Brad Washa Fuels Specialist Fire Management Steve Madsen Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Tom Mendenhall Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Larry Lichthardt Range Specialist Livestock grazing David Mermejo Wilderness Planner Recreation, special designation, wilderness, visual Jack Brown ESR Specialist ESR Greg Zschaechner Air Quality Specialist Air quality Keith Rigtrup Planner Socioeconomics, environmental justice George Cruz Hydrologist Watersheds 5.5.2 Maxim Technologies Preparers Maxim assembled a team of managers and resource specialists (see Table 5.5) who assisted the BLM Interdisciplinary Team to provide independent, objective NEPA compliance and support; conduct environmental assessment of potentially affected resources; and complete GIS data analysis and detailed maps. Table 5.5 Maxim Technologies Preparers

Name Title Document Section Responsibility Jim Melton Project Manager Planning, NEPA David Steed Asst. Project Manager US Fish and Wildlife consultation, planning, NEPA Mike Egan Asst. Project Manager Planning Susan Hatch Biologist Special status species, fish and wildlife, collaboration Terry Grotbo Senior NEPA & Planning NEPA review Advisor Fred Gifford GIS Coordinator GIS, database Valerie Waldorf Lead GIS Specialist GIS, maps, figures Wynn John Environmental Engineer Air quality, visual, forestry Stephanie Phippen Hydrologist Watershed Craig Clement Geologist Water, soils, geology Greg Dawdy Biologist Fisheries Sarah DeRosear Wildlife Biologist Special status species

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-12

Name Title Document Section Responsibility Bruce Glisson Vegetation Specialist Vegetation David Kane Senior Ecologist Vegetation, grazing Tennille Flint Biologist Soil and water Jeff Bass Fire Fuels Specialist Fire and fuels management Karen Lyncoln Socioeconomics Specialist Socioeconomics, environmental justice Richard Leferink Environmental Specialist Socioeconomics, environmental justice Dale-Marie Herring Technical Writer/ Coordinator Writing, editing Michael Polk Cultural/Paleontologist Cultural, paleontology Don Southworth Archaeologist Cultural Angela Nelson Environmental Specialist Land use, special designations Dick Mangan Fire Specialist Fire and fuels management

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-13

Chapter 6 References and Glossary

September 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 5-14

6.1 REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Anderson, H.W., M. D. Hoover and K. G. Reinhart. 1976. Forests and Water: Effects of Forest Management on Floods, Sedimentation, and Water Supply. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-18. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Berkeley, CA: U.S. pp. 115 Andrews, B. 2004. DRAFT: Vegetative Treatments and their Potential Effects to Cultural Resources. Uncompahgre Plateau Study Project, Contract No. UPSP03-01. Report on file at Bureau of Land Management, Durango Field Office. Durango, CO. Arno, S. 2000. Fire in Western Forest Ecosystems. IN: Brown, J. and Kapler-Smith, J. eds. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Ogden, UT: pp. 97-120. Arno, S. and R. H. Wakimoto. 1987. Fire Ecology of Vegetation Common to Wildland Home Sites. IN: Symposium and Workshop on Protecting People and Homes from Wildfire in the Interior West. October 6-8, 1987. Missoula, MT, pp. 118-123. Atwood, D. et al. 1991. Utah Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Field Guide. USFS, NPS, BLM, UNHP, USFWS, EPA, Navajo Nation, and Skull Valley Goshute Tribe Baskin, R. et al. 2002. Water-Quality Assessment of the Great Salt Lake Basins, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming— Environmental Setting and Study Design. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4115. U.S. Geological Survey. pp. 47 Beaton, J. D. 1959. The Influence of Burning on Soil in the Timber Range Area of Lac le Jeune, British Columbia. II. Chemical properties. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 39: 6-11. Belnap, et al. 2003. Biological Crusts: Structure, Function, and Management. Springer. New York. Belsky, A. J. and J. L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West (Oregon Natural Desert Association). Available at http://www.onda.org/library/papers/WeedReport.pdf. [Accessed Sept 14,2003] Biological and Conservation Database. 2002. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, The Nature Conservancy, and NatureServe. Blackburn, T.C. and M.K. Anderson. 1993. eds. IN: Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Anthropological Papers No. 40. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA. Blaisdell, J. P., R. B. Murray and E. D. McArthur. 1982. Managing Intermountain Rangelands - Sagebrush-Grass Ranges. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134. Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Ogden, UT. pp. 41 BLM. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States. Wyoming State Office. May 1991. BLM. 1998. Utah Weed Program. Available from: http://www.blm.gov/utah/resources/weeds. [Accessed Aug 12, 2004] BLM. 1998b. Utah Statewide Fire Assessment Project. Available from BLM Utah State Office. BLM. 1999a. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan. BLM, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Cedar City, Utah. 111 pages plus maps. BLM. 1999b. Utah Wilderness Inventory. BLM. 1999c. St. George Resource Management Plan. BLM. 2000a. Technical Reference 1734-6. BLM. 2000b. Utah BLM, BLM Facts and Figures 2000. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/FactsFigures/FactsFigures00/ff29.html. [Accessed Aug 10, 2004] BLM. 2001. Utah Statewide Fire Assessment Project. Utah State Office, July 31, 2001. Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 2003a. Utah Wilderness Inventory Revision Documents for Moab. BLM. 2003b. Utah Wilderness Inventory Revision Documents for Monticello. BLM. 2003c. Forest and Woodland Management Action Plan. October 1, 2003.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-1

BLM. 2004a. Utah BLM, BLM Recreation Sites. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/Recreation/recsites.html. [Accessed December 15, 2004]. BLM. 2004b. Wild & Scenic Rivers. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/wildandscenicrivers/index.htm. [Accessed July 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004c. Wilderness Study Areas. Available from: http://www.blm.gov/utah/moab/wsa.html. [Accessed August 6, 2004]. BLM. 2004d. Utah Wilderness, Questions & Answers Regarding Wilderness Study Areas. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/utahwilderness/qandas.htm. [Accessed July 12, 2004]. BLM. 2004e. BLM, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Visitor Information. Available from: http//www.utblm.gov/monument/. [Accessed August 9, 2004]. BLM. 2004f. Scenic Byways. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/Recreation/scenicbyways.html. [Accessed August 9, 2004]. BLM. 2004g. Geographic Information System. Unpublished data. BLM, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 2004h. NLCS Summary Tables, National Scenic and Historic Trails by State as of September 30, 2003. Available from: http://www.blm.gov/nlcs/summary_tables.htm. [Accessed August 10, 2004]. BLM. 2004i. ACECs—Utah’s Special Places. Utah ACECs. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/acec/utah_acec.htm. [Accessed August 10, 2004]. BLM. 2004j. Wild & Scenic Rivers. Existing Planning Decisions—Wild and Scenic Rivers. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/wildandscenicrivers/existingdecisions.htm. [Accessed August 10, 2004]. BLM. 2004k. Places to Play (Richfield Field Office). Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/richfield/play.html. [Accessed August 11, 2004]. BLM. 2004l. Wild and Scenic Rivers. Existing Planning Decisions - Wild and Scenic Rivers. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/wildandscenicrivers/existingdecisions.htm. [Accessed September 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004m. Price Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix 3 - Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process. Available from: http://www.pricermp.com/documents/Appendicies/Appendix_3- Wild_&_Scenic_Rivers.pdf. [Accessed September 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004n. San Rafael Final Resource Management Plan. BLM, San Rafael Resource Area, Moab District, Utah. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/planning/OTHERS/SRARMP-ROD%20MAY%201991.PDF. [Accessed September 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004o. San Juan Resource Management Plan - Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I. BLM, San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah. September 1987. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/planning/SJFEISVI.PDF. [Accessed September 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004p. St. George Field Office (formerly the Dixie Resource Area) Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. BLM, Utah State Office. March 1999. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/planning/STGEORGE/STGEOROD.PDF. [Accessed September 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004q. Dixie Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. BLM, Cedar City District Office. September 1998. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/planning/STGEORGE/DIXIEEIS.PDF. [Accessed September 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004r. Utah BLM, Facts and Figures 2000, National Natural Landmarks. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/FactsFigures/FactsFigures00/ff23.html. [Accessed September 23, 2004]. BLM. 2004s. Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Draft Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. BLM, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. November 1998. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/monument/Monument_Management/intial%20planning/deis/deis.html. [Accessed October 7, 2004].

BLM. 2004t. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Proposed Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. BLM, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. July 1999. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/monument/Monument_Management/initial%20planning/ feis/chapter_2/feis_2_K.html. [Accessed October 7, 2004].

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-2

BLM. 2004u. House Range Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision, Rangeland Program Summary. BLM, Richfield District. October 1987. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/planning/HOUSERODRPS.PDF. [Accessed October 7, 2004]. BLM. 2004v. Utah Wilderness, Utah Wilderness Review. Available from: http://www.ut.blm.gov/utahwilderness/utwilreview.htm. [Accessed August 6, 2004]. BLM. 2004w. Utah NEPA Guidebook. Available from http://www.ut.blm.gov/landuseplanning/NEPAguidance.htm [Accessed May 2004] BLM. 2004x. Draft Land Use Planning Handbook Revision. BLM Handbook H-1601-1 BLM. 2004y. Manual H-8410-1. Visual Resource Inventory. Available from: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8410.html. Accessed December 22, 2004. BLM. 2005. Biological Assessment for the Proposed Action Utah Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (UT-USO-40-01) and Salt Lake (UT-020-2004-0091), Richfield (UT-050-04-045), Moab (UT-063-04-02 & UT-060-2005-042), Southern Utah (UT-040-04-054), and Vernal(UT-080-2004-0430) Support Centers Fire Management Plans.

Bowers, J. E. 1993. Shrubs and Trees of the Southwest Deserts. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association. Bradley, A. F., N. V. Noste, and W. C. Fischer. 1992. Fire Ecology of Forests and Woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Brockway, D.G., R. G. Gatewood, and R. B. Paris. 2002. Restoring Grassland Savannas from Degraded Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands: Effects of Mechanical Overstory Reduction and Slash Treatment Alternatives. J. Environ. Manage. 64, pp 179- 197. Brookshire et al. 1981. The Benefits of Preserving Visibility in the National Parklands of the Southwest. Vol. VIII. Methods Development for Environmental Control Benefits Assessment. Report prepared for the U.S. EPA, Washington Brown, J. K. 2000. Chapter 9: Ecological Principles, Shifting Fire Regimes and Management Considerations. Pp 185-203. IN: Brown, James K., J. Smith, and J. Kapler eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMS-GTR-42-Vol.2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Brown, J.K., R.W. Mutch, C.W. Spoon, and R.H. Wakimoto, Technical Coordinators. 1995. IN: Proceedings: Symposium on Fire in Wilderness and Park Management; March 30-April 1, 1993; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Buenger, B. 2003. The Impact of Wildland and Prescribed Fire on Archaeological Resources. Dissertation. Submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas. http://www.blm.gov/heritage/docum/Fire/Dissertation_Buenger.htm. Buffington, L. C. and C. H. Herbel. 1965. Vegetational Changes on a Semidesert Grassland Range from 1858 to 1963. Ecological Monographs 35: 139-164. Bunting, S. C., B. M. Kilgore, and C. L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for Prescribed Burning Sagebrush-Grass Rangelands in the Northern Great Basin. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-231. Intermt. Res. Sta., Ogden, UT. Page 33. Burden, C. B. et al. 2003. Ground-Water Conditions in Utah, Spring 2003. Geological Survey. Utah Division of Water Resources. Utah Division of Water Rights. Cooperative Investigations Report No. 44. Burkhardt, J. W. and E. W. Tisdale. 1976. Causes of Juniper Invasion in Southwestern Idaho. Ecology 57. pp. 472-484. Burt, W.H. and R.P. Gossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass. Callison, J. et al. 1985. The Effects of Fire on the Blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) Community of Southwest Utah. J. Range Manage. 38(6): pp. 56-60. Chalmers, S. R. and B. R. Harsough. 2001. Thinning and Prescribed Fire as Methods to Reduce Fuel Loading—a Cost Analysis. In: Thinnings, A Valuable Forest Management tool. An International Conference (CD-ROM). Sept. 9—14, 2001. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. Quebec City. Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer. 1982. Wild Mammals of North America. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-3

Cleaves, D. A. and J. D. Brodie. 1990. Economic Analysis of Prescribed Burning. IN: J. D. Walstad and Others, eds. Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. pp. 271– 282 Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse and their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 967-985. Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1992. Postsettlement Changes in Natural Fire Regimes: Implications for Restoration of Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests. Pages 81-99 IN: Kaufmann, Merril R., W.H. Moir, and R.L. Bassett, tech. coord. Old-Growth Forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-213. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Page 201.

Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren et al. 1986. Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 1. The New York Botanical Garden. New York: Deal, K. No Date. Fire Effects to Flaked Stone, Ground Stone, and Other Stone Artifacts (DRAFT). IN: Kevin C. Ryan and Anne Trinkle Jones, editors. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. Rainbow Series, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. In press. DeBano, L.F.; D. G. Neary; and P. F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons. New York: Page 333. DeBano, L. F., S. M. Savage, and D. M. Hamilton. 1976. The Transfer of Heat and Hydrophobic Substances During Burning. Soil Science Society of America Journal 40:779-782. Demographic and Economic Analysis—Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget—State of Utah—2002 Baseline Economic and Demographic Projections. Available from: http://governor.utah.gov/dea/LongTermProjections.html. [Accessed Sept 27,2004] Department of Water Quality. 2002. Utah Water Quality Assessment Report to Congress (305(b) report). [Online]. Available from: http://waterquality.utah.gov/. [Accessed August 2004]. Dohahue, D. L., 2001. Available from: http://www.deserttortoise.org/abstract/abstracts2001/2001abs14.html. [Accessed Sept 10,2004] DOI. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001. "Urban Wildland Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Land That Are at High Risk from Wildfire; Notice". Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 160, August 17, 2001, pp. 43384-43435. Edwards, T.C., et al. 1998. Utah GAP Analysis: An Environmental Information System. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Year listed—1998. EPA. 1992. Memorandum: Clarification on Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Guidance for Modeling Class I Area Impacts. John S. Seitz, Director; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10), October 19. EPA. 2002. List of 156 Mandatory Class 1 Federal Areas. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/oar/vis/class1.html. [Accessed August 12, 2004]. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Amended in 1991. FEIS (Fire Effects Information System). 2004. [Online]. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [Accessed Sept 2,2004] FHWA (US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration). 2004. America’s Byways, Utah. Available from: http:// www.byways.org/browse/states/UT/. [Accessed August 9, 2004]. Fielding, D. J., M.A. Brusven et al. 2000. Grasshopper habitat manipulation. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management User Handbook Technical Bulletin No. 1809, Washington, D.C. p.VII.15-1-VII.15-5. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, and University Press of Colorado. Denver, Colorado.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-4

Fuller, W., W. H. Fuller, S. Shannon, and P. S. Burgess. 1955. Effect of Burning on Certain Forest Soils of Northern Arizona. Forest Science 1: 44 50. Garcia, Suzanne. 2004. Recreation Program Lead, Utah BLM. Personal communication via email with Tetra Tech FW, Inc., December 8, 2004. Garwood, A. N. (ed.), 1996. Weather America. Toucan Valley Publications, Inc.; Milpitas, CA; pp. 1217-1249. Goodrich, S. and B. Barber. 1999. Return Interval for Pinyon-Juniper Following Fire in the Green River Corridor, Near Dutch John, Utah. IN: Monsen, S. B., and R. Stevens eds. Proceedings of the Ecology and Management of Pinyon-juniper Communities Within the Interior West. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 391-393. Greer, D. C. et al. 1981. Atlas of Utah. (Project Director) Weber State College, Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah. Gruell, G. E. and L. L. Loope. 1974. Relationships Among Aspen, Fire, and Ungulate Browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Hadley, H. 2004. Personal communication via e-mail with Stephanie Phippen at Tetra Tech FW, Inc. Haecker, C. No Date. Fire Effects on Materials of the Historic Period (DRAFT). IN: Kevin C. Ryan and Anne Trinkle Jones, eds. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. Rainbow Series, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. In press. Hanes, R. 2001. Fire Effects Guide: Cultural Resources. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Available from: http://fire.fws.gov/ifcc/monitor/EFGuide/cultural_resources.htm. Hansen, P.L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. University of Montana, School of Forestry. 646 pp. Harniss, R.O., and R.B. Murray. 1973. Thirty Years of Vegetal Change Following Burning of Sagebrush-Grass Range. J. Range Manage. 26:322-325. Harrison, R. D., B. L. Waldron, K. B. Jensen, and others. 2002. Forage Kochia Helps Fight Range Fires. Rangelands. 24(5):3-7. Heyerdahl, E. K., P. M. Brown, and S. G. Kitchen. 2004. Fire Regimes and Forest Structure Across Landscapes of Utah: A Multiscale History from Tree Rings. A Progress Report for the Bureau of Land Management. Higdon, M. 2004. Personal Communication. Land Use Planner, Utah BLM with Maxim Technologies. Salt Lake City, Utah. Houston, D. B. 1973. Wildfires in Northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54:1111-1117. Howard, J. L. 2003. Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum. In: Fire Effects Information System, (FEIS). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: http: / / www.fs.fed.us / database / feis /plants/tree/pinpons/fire_effects.html/. [Accessed October 12,2004] Howery, L.D. and G.B. Ruyle. 2002. Noxious Weeds: A Disaster Looking for a Place to Happen in Arizona. Available from:http://rangelandswest.org/ Jones, J. R. and N. V. DeByle. 1985. Fire, p 77-81, IN: N. V. DeByle and R. P. Winokur, eds. Aspen: Ecology and Management in Western United States. General Technical Report RM-119, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Page 283. Kay, Charles E. 2002. A Photographic History of Vegetation and Stream Channel Changes in San Juan County, Utah. Available from: http://extension.usu.edu/rra Kay, Charles E. 2003. Long-Term Vegetation Change on Utah’s Fishlake National Forest: A Study in Repeat Photography. Available from: http://extension.usu.edu/rra Kelly, R. and D. F. McCarthy. 2001. Effects of Fire on Rock Art. IN: Steven Freers and Alanah Woody, eds. American Indian Rock Art. Vol. 27, pp 169-176.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-5

Keyes, C., P., R. L. LaMadeleine, V. Applegate, and D. Atkins. 2003. Utah Forest Health Report: A Baseline Assessment, 1999/2001. USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Health Protection, Forest Health Monitoring, State of Utah Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. Of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, January 2003, Salt Lake City, UT. Kitchen, S. 2004. Kitchen, eds. IN: Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Knight, D. H. 1994. Mountains and Plains: The Ecology of Wyoming Landscapes. Yale University Press. 338 p. Kovacic, D., W. Romme, and D. Despain. 1990. Landscape Dynamics of Yellowstone National Park: The Role of Fire 1690 to 1990, Media Services and NCSA, Available from: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/scms/DigLib/text/geosciences/Landscape-Dynamics-Yellowstone-kovacic.html. [Accessed October 6, 2004] Krueper, D. J. 1992. Effects of Land Use Practices on Western Riparian Ecosystems. IN: D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-229. Pp. 321-330 Lanner, R. 1984. Trees of the Great Basin. University of Nevada, Reno Press. Reno, NV. Limbach, E. 2004. Personal Communication. Range Management Specialist for the Burley and Pocatello Field Offices of the BLM with Bruce Glisson. Loyd, J. M. et al. 2002. eds. IN: The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publication, Bishop Field Office, California McAuliffe, J. R. 1995. Landscape Evolution, Soil Formation and Arizona's Desert grasslands. IN: M. McClaran and T. R. V. Devender (eds.) The Desert Grassland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 68- 129 p Menakis J. P., D. Osborne, and M. Miller. 2003. Mapping the cheatgrass-caused departure from historical natural fire regimes in the Great Basin, USA. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Mermejo, D. 2004a,b,c. Personal communication. Wilderness Specialist for the Utah State Office of the BLM with Angie Nelson, Environmental Planner, Tetra Tech, Inc., August 20, 2004 (a). August 23, 2004 (b). October 4, 2004 (c). Miller, R. 2002. The Role of Fire Across the Sagebrush Biome. From: Restoration and Management of Sagebrush/grass Communities Workshop. Elko, NV. November 4-8, 2002. Miller, R. F. and J. A. Rose. 1999. Fire History and Western Juniper Encroachment in Sagebrush Steppe. J. Range Manage. 52:550-559. Miller, R. F. and P. E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene Changes in Semi-Arid Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands: Response to Climate, Fire, and Human Activities in the U. S. Great Basin. BioScience 44:465-474. Miller, R. F. and R. J. Tausch. 2001. The Role of Fire in Juniper and Pinyon Woodlands: A Descriptive Analysis. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication No. 11: 15-30. Miller, R. F., C. Baisan, J. A. Rose, and D. Pacioretty. 2001. Pre- and Post-Settlement Fire Regimes in Mountain Big Sagebrush Steppe and Aspen: The Northwestern Great Basin. Final Report to the National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Avenue, Boise Idaho. Monsen, S.B., R. Stevens, and N.L. Shaw. 2004. Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands. General Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-136-Volume 1-3. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pages 1- 884, plus appendices and index. Mueggler, W. F. 1989. Age Distribution and Reproduction of Intermountain Aspen Stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 4(2):41-45. Mutch, R. 1970. Wildland Fires and Ecosystems a Hypothesis. Ecology 51: 10461051. National Interagency Fire Center. Available from: http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html. [Accessed August 12, 2004] Not available. 1995. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale – Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, Revised August 1995.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-6

NPS. (National Park Service). 2000. Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment. Available from: http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/laro/ppdocuments/fire management.htm#4.0 NPS. (National Park Service). 2004. National Trails System, Visit the Trails, List of National Scenic and Historic Trails. Available from: http://www.nps.gov/nts/nts_trails.html. [Accessed August 6, 2004]. NWCGa. (National Wildfire Coordination Group). June 2001. Fire Effects Guide. NFES 2394. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. NWCGb. (National Wildfire Coordination Group). December 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire. NFES 1279. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. O’Brien, R. et al. 1999. Description of Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper Woodlands in Utah and Nevada from an Inventory Perspective. IN: Proceedings: Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities Within the Interior West. Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-9. p55. Oster, E. No Date. The Effects of Fire on Subsurface Archeological Materials (DRAFT). Kevin C. Ryan and Anne Trinkle Jones. Eds. IN: Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. Rainbow Series, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. IN press. Paige, C. and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea-Managing Sagebrush Habitats for Bird communities. Partners in Flight-Best Management Practices. Boise, ID 51p. Parrish, J., F. Howe, R. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0 Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Publication Number 02-27, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT. 302 p. Paysen, T. E., R. J. Ansley, J. K. Brown et al. 2000. Pp. 121-159. IN: Brown, James K., and Jane Kapler Smith, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257p. Pellant, M. 2002. Cheatgrass: Invasion, Occurrence, Biological/Competitive Features and Control Measures. From: Restoration and Management of Sagebrush/grass Communities Workshop, Elko, NV, November 4-8, 2002. Peters, E. F. and S. C. Bunting. 1994. Fire Conditions Pre- and Post-Occurrence of Annual Grasses on the Snake River Plain. Pp. 31-36 IN: S. B. Monson and S. G. Kitchen, eds. Proceedings – Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT. Pollet, J. 2004. Personal communication. Fire Ecologist, Utah BLM with Maxim Technologies. Salt Lake City, Utah. Pope, D. and C. Brough (eds.), 1996. Utah's Weather and Climate. Publishers Press; Salt Lake City, UT. Population, Employment, Earnings, and Personal Income Trends, Sonoran Institute, Economic Profiling System. Pyke, D.A. and S.J. Novak. 1994. Cheatgrass Demography - Establishment Attributes, Recruitment, Ecotypes, and Genetic Variability. IN Monsen, S. B., and S.G. Kitchen (comps.). Proceedings–Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. May 18-21, 1992. INT-GTR-313. USDA Forest Service, Boise, ID. Pp 12-21. Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Pyne, S. J., P.L. Andrews, and R. D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. Second edition. Wiley, New York. Ralston, C. W. and G. E. Hatchell. 1971. Effects of Prescribed Burning on Physical Properties of Soil. In Prescribed Burning Proceedings. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeast Station. Ratzlaff, T.D. and J.E. Anderson. 1995. Vegetal Recovery following Wildfire in Seeded and Unseeded Sagebrush Steppe. Journal of Range Management 48:386-391. Robichaud, P. R., J. L. Beyers, and D. G. Neary. 2000. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report, GTR- RMRS -63. Romin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection Proximal to Disturbances from Land Use Activities. Unpublished Final Report, Utah Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah. Romme W. H., L. Floyd-Hanna, and D. Hanna. 2002. Ancient Pinyon-Juniper Forest of Mesa Verde and the West: A Cautionary Note for Forest Restoration Programs. Available from: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p029/rmrs_p029_335_350.pdf. [Accessed October 8,2004]

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-7

Rondeau, R. 2001. Ecological System Viability Specifications for Southern Rocky Mountain Ecoregion. Available from: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/. Rude, Trisha and Anne Trinkle Jones. No Date. Fire Effects to Prehistoric Ceramics (DRAFT). Kevin C. Ryan and Anne Trinkle Jones. Eds. IN: Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. Rainbow series, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. In press. Sandberg, D., R. Ottmar, J. Peterson, and J. Core. 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effect of Fire on Air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 5. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 79p. Scher, J. S. 2002. Juniperus scopulorum. In: Fire Effects Information System (FEIS). USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: http: // www.fs.fed.us / database / feis /. [Accessed August 2004]. Shackley, M. and Steven and Carolyn Dillian. 2002. Thermal and Environmental Effects on Obsidian Geochemistry: Experimental and Archaeological Evidence. J. M. Loyd, T. M. Origer, and D. A. Fredrickson eds. IN: The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publication, Bishop Field Office, CA. Silverman, A. 1993. Appropriate Risks for Recreation in Wildlands. Proceedings: Symposium on Fire in Wilderness and Park Management. Missoula, MT. March 30-April 1, 1993. Solomon, M. 2002. Fire and Glass: Effects of Fire on Obsidian Hydration Bands. J. M. Loyd, T. M. Origer, and D. A. Fredrickson eds. IN: The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publication, Bishop Field Office, CA. Smith, J. K. ed. 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. pp 83 p. Summerfield, H. B., R. L. Miles, S. G. Leonard, and R. L. Everett. 1986. Edaphic Relationships in Climax Singleleaf Pinyon Stands of Western Nevada. Research Note INT-364. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. [2293]. Ogden, UT. Summerfield, H. B. 1976. Effects of Prescribed Burning on Watershed Conditions. In Use of Prescribed Burning in Western Woodland and Range Ecosystems. A symposium, 43-46. Logan, UT: Utah State University. Tratebas, A. 2004. Rock Art and Fire. PowerPoint presentation. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/heritage/powerpoint/Alice_Tratebas_firearch2_files/frame.htm. Trlica, M. J. 1977. Distribution and Utilization of Carbohydrate Reserves in Range Plants, p. 73-96. IN: Ronald E. Sosebee, and 9 others. Rangeland plant physiology. Soc. for Range Manage. Denver, CO. UDEQ. 2004. Division of Water Quality. [Online]. Available from: http://waterquality.utah.gov/. [Accessed August 2004]. [Accessed September 2004] UDAQ. 2004b. Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). Utah Interagency Smoke Mgmt, 2004. Available from: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/SIP/Regionalhazesip/regionalhaze.htm. [Accessed October 2,2004] UDAQ. 2004c. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Section Home. Available from: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/HAPS/index.htm[Accessed October 1,2004] UDNR. (Utah Division of Natural Resources). 2002. Community Fire Planning for Wildland / Urban Interface: Guidance Document. Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, Salt Lake City, Utah. February 2002. Unemployment Rate for States, and Public Data Queries, US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm. [Accessed September 9, 2004] U.S. Census Bureau: Annual Projections of the Total Resident Population—1990 to 2100. Available from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum-T1.html. [Accessed September 21, 2004] U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data Derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments. Available from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html. [Accessed August 9, 2004] USDA. 1994. General soils (STATSGO). Available at: http://www.fgdl.org/metadata/fgdc_html/gsoils.fgdc.htm. [Accessed September 2004].

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-8

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Rangeland Resource Trends in the United States. Chapter Three. Available from: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr68b.pdf USDA. 2002a. Howard, Janet L. 1999. Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis. In: Fire Effects Information System (FEIS). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: http: / / www.fs.fed.us / database / feis /. [Accessed August 2004]. USDA. 2002b. Tirmenstein, D. 1999. Artemisia tridentata spp. tridentata. In: Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: http//www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. [Accessed August 2004]. USDA. 2002e. Johnson, Kathleen A. 2000. Artemisia tridentata spp. vaseyana. In: Fire Effects Information System (FEIS). USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. [Accessed August 2004]. USDA. 2002i. Howard, Janet L. 1996. Populus tremuloides. In: Fire Effects Information System, (FEIS). USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. [Accessed August 2004]. USDA. 2003. Recreation Research Update. Special Fire Issue. U. S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures, Riverside, CA. 2p.

USFS/BLM. 2004. USDA Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act: Interim Field Guide. FS–799. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 58 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Available: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov. [Accessed September 15,2004]. U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Precipitation History of the Colorado Plateau Region, 1900-2000. Fact Sheet 119-02. [Online]. Available from: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs119-02/. [Accessed August 2004]. Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC). Available at http://agrc.utah.gov. [Accessed August 27, 2004] UDAQ. (Utah Division of Air Quality). 2004a. State Implementation Plan Sections' Descriptions and Text. Available from: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/SIP/Sipcomp.htm. [Accessed August 17, 2004]. UDWR. (Utah Division of Natural Resources). 2004. [Online]. Available from: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/SearchSelection.asp?Group=MAMMALIA&Species=VE. UDWR. (Utah Division of Natural Resources). Available at http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc. [Accessed Sept 2, 2004] Utah Geological Survey. 2000. Survey Notes. v.32, no.1. [Online]. Available from: http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladtopoform.htm. [Accessed August 2004]. Utah Interagency Smoke Management. 2004. Utah Interagency Smoke Management Program. Available from: http://www.utahsmp.net. [Accessed August 17, 2004]. Utah Outdoor Activities. 2004. Internet Web Site: http://www.utahoutdooractivities.com/blm/html. [Accessed August 5, 2004] Utah State Historical Society. 2004. The Land. [Online]. Available from: http://historytogo.utah.gov/land.html. [Accessed August 2004]. Valentine, K. A. and J. B. Gerard. 1968. Life-History Characteristics of the Creosotebush, Larrea tridentata. New Mexico State Univ. Agr. Exp Sta. Bull. 526. 32 Waechter, S. A. No Date. Big Fire, Small Fire: the Effects of Burning on Flaked Stone Artifacts. Available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~e472/cdf/fire/BigSmall/ Welsh, S.L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 1993. A Utah Flora. Second edition. Brigham Young University Press. Provo, Utah. West, N. E. and M. A. Hassan. 1985. Recovery of Sagebrush-Grass Vegetation Following Wildfire. J.Range Manage. 38(2): 131-134.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-9

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing Fire Frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: Ecological and Management Implications. pp 4-10. IN: E. D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith and P. T. Tueller (eds) Proceedings of a Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Whitson T., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey (and others) 1991. Weeds of the West. University of Wyoming Press, Jackson WY. 630p Wildland Fire Leadership Council, 2003. Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. U. S. Department of Agriculture and U. S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. June 20, 2003. Wiltz, L. K. No Date. Effects of Wildland Fire on Cultural Resources. National Interagency Fire Center, Communicator’s Guide. Available at: http:www.nifc.gov/preved/comm._guide/wildfire/fire_10.html. Winward, A. 1991. Management in Sagebrush Steppe. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station. Special Report 880. Oregon State Univ. in cooperation with Agricultural Research Service, U. S. department of Agriculture. Corvallis, OR. Winward, A. et al. 1997. Vegetation Types of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Compilation of Keys to Habitat and Vegetation Types. Winward, A. 2004. Personal communication. USDA Forest Service Regional Ecologist [retired] with Maxim Technologies, Salt Lake City, Utah. Wood, B.W. and J.D. Brotherson. 1986. Ecological Adaptation and Grazing Response of Budsage (Artemisia spinescens) in Southwestern Utah. IN: McArthur, E.D. and B.L. Welch, comps. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus. Provo, UT. General Technical Report INT-200. July 9-13, 1984. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. pp. 75-92. Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. Wright, H. A., L. F. Neuenschwander, and C. M. Britton. 1979. The Role and Use of Fire in Sagebrush-Grass and Pinyon- Juniper Plant Communities: A State-of-the-Art Review. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-58, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee, 2002. Wyoming Guidelines for Managing Sagebrush Communities with Emphasis on Fire Management. Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Wyoming BLM. Cheyenne, WY. pp. 53 Zeveloff, S. and F. Collette. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain West. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. pp. 288-290. Zlatnik, Elena. 1999. Juniperus osteosperma. In: Fire Effects Information System, (FEIS). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: http//www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. [Accessed August 2004]. Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. [Accessed August 2004].

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-10

6.2 GLOSSARY

Agency Any federal, state, or county government organization participating with jurisdictional responsibilities. Air Quality The characteristics of the ambient air (all locations accessible to the general public) as indicated by concentrations of the six air pollutants for which national standards have been established (e.g., particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead), and by visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas. For the purposes of the Utah Smoke Management Plan, concentrations of particulate matter are taken as the primary indicators of ambient air quality. Alternative One of at least two proposed means of accomplishing planning objectives. Ambient Air Literally, the air moving around us; the air of the surrounding outside environment. Analysis The examination of existing and/or recommended management needs and their relationships to discover and display the outputs, benefits, effects, and consequences of initiating a Proposed Action. Appropriate Management Response Specific actions taken in response to a wildland fire to implement protection and fire use objectives. Responses range from full suppression to managing fire for resource benefits (fire use). Area of Critical Environmental Concern An area of public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and provide safety from natural hazards. Aspect Direction toward which a slope faces. Assessment The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose.

At-Risk Community An area comprised of: • An interface community as defined in a federal register notice, OR • A group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) within or adjacent to Federal land AND • In which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildland fire disturbance event AND • For which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of a wildland fire disturbance event.

At-Risk Watershed The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA 2003) defines an at-risk watershed as one where a major risk from a fire disturbance exists to a municipal water supply or stream feeding such a system. At- risk watersheds do not have to be directly associated with at-risk communities or their WUIs under Section 102(a)(1) of the HFRA. However, when managers work with communities to assess the risk of wildland fire, they should include the risk of wildland fire to

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-11

municipal watersheds in the Community Wildfire Protection Plans described in Section 101(3).

Biological Treatment Biological treatment of vegetation could typically employ grazing by cattle, sheep, or goats, but as technology progresses, it may also include insects, but would not include the use of invertebrates or microorganisms. Biomass The dry weight of plants in a unit area. Brush A collective term that refers to stands of vegetation dominated by shrublands, shrubby woody plants, or low-growing trees. Buffer Zones An area of reduced vegetation that separates wildland from vulnerable residential or business developments or other high-value areas. This barrier is similar to a greenbelt in that it is usually used for another purpose such as agriculture, recreation areas, parks, or golf courses. Burning Conditions: The state of the combined factors of the environment – such as winds, temperature, fuel moistures, and humidity – that affect fire behavior in a specified fuel type. Burning Index An estimate of the potential difficulty of fire containment as it relates to the flame length at the most rapidly spreading portion of a fire’s perimeter. Burning Period That part of each 24-hour period when fires spread most rapidly, typically from 10:00 a.m. to sundown. Cabling Same as chaining, except a cable is used instead of an anchor chain (see chaining). Chaining The process of modifying vegetation by pulling an anchor chain between two crawler tractors, thus reducing tall-growing, brittle vegetation and enhancing grasses, forbs, and sprouting shrubs. Chemical Treatment The use of herbicide to control herbaceous and woody species. BLM will use EPA-approved herbicides in accordance with EPA’s Endangered Species Pesticide Program covered in BLM’s Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States FEIS (May 1991). Clean Air Act A federal law enacted to insure that air quality standards are attained and maintained. Initially passed by Congress in 1963, it has been amended several times, the latest being August of 1977. Climax A terminal stage of ecological succession in which the vegetation association remains stable over a relatively long period. Closure Legal restriction – but not necessarily elimination – of specified activities such as smoking, camping, or entry that might cause fires in a given area. Collaboration A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support, for managing public and other lands. Composition The numbers and kinds of plants and animals in an area. Condition Class Associated with Fire Regime in this document. A fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a classification of the amount of departure from the natural regime. The three classes are based on low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2), and high (FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural (historical) regime. See: www.frcc.gov. Criteria Pollutants Air pollutants designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as potentially harmful and for which ambient air standards have been set to protect the

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-12

public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons and lead. Critical Habitat Federally-mandated (under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) designation for threatened or endangered species that is proposed, designated, and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Critical Seasonal Use Area Designation provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for the most important / valuable big game seasonal use areas in the state that they manage. Crown Fire (Crowning) The movement of fire through the crowns (top) of trees or shrubs more or less independently of the surface fire. Cultural Resources Those resources of historical, archaeological, or paleontological significance. Non-renewable elements of the physical and human environment including archaeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and sociocultural values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally used raw materials, etc.). Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects result from the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities combined with the projected direct and indirect effects of each alternative considered. Direct Effects Direct effects are those consequences that are expected to occur following implementation of an alternative. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Disturbance Any relatively discrete event, either natural or human-induced that causes a change in the existing condition of an ecological system. Ecosystem An arrangement of organisms defined by the interactions and processes that occur between them. Ecosystems are often defined by their composition, function, and structure. Ecosystem Sustainability The ability to sustain diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, health, renewability, and/or yields of desired values, resource uses, products, or services from an ecosystem while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem over time. Emergency Stabilization and Restoration Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources after unplanned wildfires. Emission Pollutants released to the atmosphere from any combustion process. Sometimes used synonymously with effluent, but is more applicable to atmospheric discharges. Endangered Species Any animal or plant species in danger of extinction in a portion of its range. This is a federal designation (under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended). Most of these species fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endemic A species restricted to a given geographical location and which is native to that locale. Environment All that surrounds an organism and interacts with it. Environmental Assessment (EA) EAs were authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. They are concise, analytical documents prepared with public participation that determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-13

a particular project or action. If an EA determines an EIS is not needed, the EA becomes the document allowing agency compliance with NEPA requirements. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) EISs were authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Prepared with public participation, they assist decision makers by providing information, analysis, and an array of action alternatives, allowing managers to see the probable effects of decisions on the environment. Generally, EISs are written for large-scale actions or geographical areas. Environmental Justice The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Ephemeral A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel is above the water table at all times. Fine (Light) Fuels Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, which is less than ¼-inch in diameter and has a time lag of one hour or less. These fuels readily ignite and are rapidly consumed by fire when dry. Fire Intensity A general term relating to the heat energy released by a fire. Fire Management Fire management refers to the full spectrum of activities including: fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuels treatment, and emergency stabilization and rehabilitation. Fire Management Area A sub-geographic area within an FMU that represents a predefined acceptable management area for a fire managed for resource benefits. This predefined area can constitute a Maximum Manageable Area (MMA) and is useful for those units having light fuel types conducive to very rapid spread rates. Predefinition of these areas removes the time-lag in defining an MMA after ignition and permits preplanning of the fire area; identification of threats to life and property, resources, and boundaries; and identification of initial actions. Fire Management Plan (FMP) A FMP is a functional activity plan for the fire management program. The FMP is the primary tool for translating programmatic direction developed in the land management plan into on-the-ground action. The FMP synthesizes broad fire management goals and places them into a strategic context. Criteria for making initial action decisions must be a component of the FMP.

Fire Management Unit (FMU) Any land management area definable by objectives, topographic features, access, values-to-be-protected, political boundaries, fuel types, or major fire regimes, etc., that set it apart from management characteristics of an adjacent unit. FMUs are delineated in FMPs. These units have dominant management objectives and preselected strategies assigned to accomplish these objectives. Fire Regime The fire pattern across the landscape, characterized by occurrence interval and relative intensity. Fire regimes result from a unique combination of climate and vegetation. Fire regimes exist on a continuum from short-interval, low-intensity

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-14

fires to long-interval, high-intensity fires. The five natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. These five regimes include: • I – 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); • II – 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); • III – 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); • IV – 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); • V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity. (See www.frcc.gov) Fire Return Interval The number of years between two successive fires in a designated area. Fire Season 1) Period(s) of the year during which wildland fires are likely to occur, spread, and affect resource values sufficient to warrant organized fire management activities. 2) A legally enacted time during which burning activities are regulated by state or local authority. Fire Severity Fire severity is a product of fire intensity and residence time at a site. Severity denotes the effects, from low to high, of fire on the soil and vegetation components of a site. Fire Use The combination of wildland fire use and prescribed fire application to meet resource objectives. Fireline A linear fire barrier that is cleared of fuels and scraped or dug to mineral soil. Also called control line, containment line or line. Forage Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption. Forbs Plants with soft, rather than permanent, woody stems that are not grass or grass-like plants. Forest Products Woodland and timber products, such as posts, poles, firewood, Christmas trees, and sawlogs. Fuel A combustible material, including vegetation such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, and trees that feed a fire. (See Surface Fuels.) Fuel Reduction Manipulation, including combustion and/or or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control. Fuels Management The practice of evaluating, planning, and executing the treatment of wildland fuel to control flammability and reduce the resistance to control through mechanical, chemical, biological, or manual means, or by prescribed and wildland fire, in support of land management objectives. Fuel Type An identifiable association of fuel elements of a distinctive plant species, form, size, arrangement, or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of fire spread or difficulty of control under specified weather conditions. Full Fire Suppression The full suppression of wildfires with whatever combination of manpower, equipment, and judgment is required.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-15

Geographic Area A political boundary designated by the wildland fire protection agencies, where these agencies work together in the coordination and effective utilization of resources. See www.fs.fed.us/fire/reports.shtml for a listing of and links to Geographic Area Coordination Centers. Goal A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms (usually not quantifiable) and is timeless in that it has no specific date by which it is to be completed. Goal statements form the principle basis from which objectives are developed. Grazing Permit An authorization that allows grazing on public lands. Permits specify class of livestock on a designated area during specified seasons each year. Permits are of two types: preference (10 year) and temporary non-renewable (1 year). Ground Fuel All combustible materials below the surface litter (including duff, tree or shrub roots, punchy wood, peat, and sawdust) that normally support a glowing combustion without flame. Guideline Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, sometimes expressed in Best Management Practices (BMPs). Guidelines may be identified during the land use planning process, but they are not considered a land use decision unless the plan specifies that they are mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 CFR 4180.2 Habitat A specific set of physical conditions in geographical area(s) that surround a single species, a group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are: food, water, cover and living space. Historic and Cultural Sites (43 CFR 2071.1) Sites of major historical and cultural significance, national, regional, or local. These are usually small tracts of land containing significant evidence of American history, such as battlegrounds, mining camps, cemeteries, pioneer trails, and trading posts; or lands that contain significant evidence of prehistoric life such as pictographs, petroglyphs, burial grounds, prehistoric structures, middens, fossils, paleontological remains, and any other evidences of prehistoric life forms. Implementation Plan A sub-geographic or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use plan. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans. Incident A human-caused or natural occurrence, such as wildland fire, that requires emergency service action to prevent or reduce the loss of life or damage to property or natural resources. Incident management teams also handle other non-fire emergency response, including tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other disasters or large events. Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those consequences, which are expected to occur following implementation of an alternative. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or farther from the activity. Interdisciplinary Team A team representing several disciplines to ensure coordinated planning of the various resources. Intermittent or seasonal A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous areas.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-16

Ladder Fuels Fuels which provide vertical continuity between strata and allow fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. They help initiate and assure the continuation of crowning. Land Use Plan A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative area. An assimilation of land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs, MMPs, and MFPs. Landscape An area of interacting and interconnected patterns of habitats (ecosystems) that are repeated because of the geology, land form, soil, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. Landscape structure is formed by disturbance events, successional development of landscape structure, and flows of energy and nutrients through the structure of the landscape. A landscape is composed of watersheds and smaller ecosystems. It is the building block of biotic provinces and regions. Large Fire 1) For statistical purposes, a fire burning more than 100 acres. 2) A fire burning with a size and intensity such that its behavior is determined by interaction between its own convection column and weather conditions above the surface. Light (Fine) Fuels Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, which is less than ¼-inch in diameter and has a timelag of one hour or less. These fuels ignite readily and are rapidly consumed by fire when dry. Limited Fire Suppression This is a wildfire suppression action that recognizes that fire in certain areas is: (1) extremely difficult to suppress (hazardous to fire-fighting personnel or suppression operation including aircraft); (2) the resource value threatened does not warrant the expense associated with a full suppression action. Litter Top layer of the forest, scrubland, or grassland floor, directly above the fermentation layer, composed of loose debris of dead sticks, branches, twigs, and recently fallen leaves or needles, little altered in structure by decomposition. Long-term Defined in this document as 10 years or more. This applies to any long-term use. Management Concern An issue, problem, or condition that constrains the range of management practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process. Management Direction A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, associated management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them. Management Framework Plan A land use plan for public lands administered by BLM that provides a set of goals, objectives, and constraints for a specific planning unit or area; a guide to the development of detailed plans for the management of each resource. This form of plan is now being replaced with Resource Management Plans. Management Practice A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment. Mechanical Treatment Mechanical treatments of vegetation employ several different types of equipment to suppress, inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody vegetation. For the purposes of this plan, mechanical treatments may include employing the following: cabling, chaining, disking (or disk plowing), bulldozing, mowing, beating, crushing, chopping or shredding vegetation using a variety of mechanized equipment.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-17

Monitoring (Plan Monitoring) The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions and collecting and assessing data and/or information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Standards for maximum acceptable concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and to protect public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of such pollutants (e.g., visibility impairment, soiling, materials damage, etc.) in the ambient air. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NEPA is the basic national law for protection of the environment, passed by Congress in 1969. It sets policy and procedures for environmental protection, and authorizes Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments to be used as analytical tools to help federal managers make decisions on management of federal lands. Native Range Those rangelands that support natural vegetation as opposed to reseeded ranges which usually contain introduced vegetation. Natural Ignition A wildland fire ignited by a natural event, such as lightning. Naturalness An area which “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable”. (Section 2[c], Wilderness Act). Nonattainment Area An area which is shown by monitored data or which is calculated by air quality modeling (or other methods determined by the Administrator, EPA to be reliable) to exceed any National Ambient Air Quality Standard for such pollutant and includes any area designated as nonattainment under 42 USC 7407. Non-fire fuel treatments Includes manual, mechanical, biological, chemical, and seeding actions. Objective A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals. Off-road Vehicle Any motorized vehicle designated for or capable of cross-country travel over lands, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other terrain excluding: (1) any nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle used in national defense. Old Growth A wooded area, usually greater than 200 years of age, which has never been altered or harvested by humans. An old-growth forest often has large individual trees, a multi-layered crown canopy, and a significant accumulation of coarse woody debris including snags and fallen logs. Utah BLM will adopt the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) old-growth definitions and identification standards per the USFS document “Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region” (April 1993). In instances where the area of application in the previous document does not apply to specific species (e.g., Pinus edulis), use the document, “Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Descriptions, UDSA Forest Service Southwestern Region” (Sept.1992). Particulate Matter (PM) Any airborne finely divided material, except uncombined water, which exists as a solid or liquid at standard conditions (e.g., dust, smoke mist, fumes, or smog).

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-18

Perennial A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow. Permitted Use The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease; expressed in animal unit months (AUMs) (43 CFR 4100.0-5). Planning Analysis A process using appropriate resource data and NEPA analysis to provide a basis for decisions in areas not yet covered by an RMP. Planning Area One or more planning units for which Management Framework Plans were prepared under previous BLM planning procedures. Planning Unit As used in previous BLM planning, a geographical unit within a BLM district. It included related lands, resources, and use pressure problems that were considered together for resource inventory and planning. Plant Composition The mixture of plants found in a vegetation type or study area usually expressed in percents as related to all other plants. PM 10 Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (including PM 2.5). PM 2.5 Particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers. Prescribed Fire Any fire ignited by management actions under certain predetermined conditions to meet specific objectives related to hazardous fuels or habitat improvement. A written prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met prior to ignition. Prescription Measurable criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited, guide selection of appropriate management responses, and indicate other required actions. Prescription criteria may include a combination of safety, economic, public health, environmental, geographic, administrative, social, or legal considerations. Prevention Activities directed at reducing the incidence of fires, including public education, law enforcement, personal contact, and reduction of fuel hazards. Proper Functioning Condition Riparian-wetland areas are functioning property when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. The functioning condition of riparian- wetland areas is influenced by geomorphic features, soil, water, and vegetation. Uplands function property when the existing vegetation and ground cover maintain soil conditions capable of sustaining natural biotic communities. The functioning condition of uplands is influenced by geographic features, soil, water, and vegetation. Public Lands Any lands or interest in lands outside of Alaska owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, except located on the Outer Continental Shelf and lands held for the benefit of Indians.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-19

Public Participation The process of attaining citizen input into each planning document development stage. It is required as a major input into the BLM’s planning system. Range Improvements (Structural / Nonstructural) Any activity or program on or relating to rangelands designed to improve forage production, change vegetation composition, control patterns of use, provide water, stabilize soil and water conditions, and enhance habitat for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses and burros. Rangeland improvements include non-structural land treatments (such as chaining, seeding, and burning), and structural (such as stockwater developments, fences, and trails). Rangeland Land dominated by vegetation that is useful for grazing and browsing by animals. “Range” and “rangeland” are used interchangeably. Raptors Birds of prey, such as the eagle, falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture. Recreation Opportunities Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure activity to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value- added beneficial outcomes. Region May be any geographical area larger than a planning area (Socio-Economic Profile Area, sub-State, State, Multi-State, or National), appropriate for comparative area analysis and for which information is available. Regions may be different for different resources or subject matter analysis. Regional Haze Generally, concentrations of fine particles in the atmosphere extending up to hundreds of miles across a region and promoting noticeably hazy conditions; wide-spread visibility impairment, especially in mandatory Class I Federal areas where visibility is an important value. Rehabilitation The activities necessary to repair damage or disturbance caused by wildland fires or the fire suppression activity.

Research Natural Areas (43 CFR 8223) This is an area that is established and maintained for the primary purpose of research and education because the land has one or more of the following characteristics: (1) A typical representation of a common plant or animal association; (2) an unusual plant or animal association; (3) a threatened or endangered plant or animal species; (4) a typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water features; or (5) outstanding or unusual geologic, soil, or water features. Resource Area A geographic portion of a BLM district: An administrative subdivision whose manager has primary responsibility for day-to-day resource management activities and resource use allocations. In most instances it is the area for which Resource Management Plans are prepared and maintained. Resource Management Plan (RMP) A document prepared by field office staff with public participation and approved by field office managers that provides general guidance and direction for land management activities at a field office. The RMP identifies the need for fire in a particular area and for a specific benefit. Resources 1) Personnel, equipment, services, and supplies available or potentially available for assignment to incidents. 2) The natural resources of an area, such as timber, grass, watershed values, recreation values, and wildlife habitat.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-20

Retardant A substance or chemical agent which reduces the flammability of combustibles. Riparian Habitat A native environment growing near streams, reservoirs, ponds, etc. that provides food, cover, water, and living space (permanent or intermittent). It is usually unique or limited in arid regions and is, therefore, of great importance to a wide variety of wildlife. Seeding (and Planting) Involves the introduction of seeds and plants to a site that alters existing plant communities and influences successional processes. Sensitive Species Species not yet officially listed but that are undergoing status review for listing on the Fish and Wildlife Service official threatened and endangered list; species whose populations are small and widely dispersed or restricted to a few localities; and species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that official listing may be necessary. Severity Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; loosely, a product of fire intensity and residence time (duration) of the fire. Severity denotes the effects, from low to high, of fire on the soil and vegetation components of a site. Short-term Defined in this document as 1 to 5 years. This applies to any “short-term” use. Slash Debris left after logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting; includes logs, chips, bark, branches, stumps, and broken understory trees or brush. Smoke Management Conducting a prescribed fire under fuel moisture and meteorological conditions, and with firing techniques that keep the smoke's impact on the environment within acceptable limits. Smoke Management Program (SMP) Establishes a basic framework of procedures and requirements for managing smoke from fires that are managed fore resource benefits. The purposes of SMPs are to mitigate the nuisance and public safety hazards (e.g., on roadways and at airports) posed by smoke intrusions into populated area; to prevent deterioration of air quality and NAAQs violations; and to address visibility impacts in mandatory Class I Federal areas in accordance with the regional haze rules. Soil Compaction Increasing the soil bulk density, and concomitantly decreasing the soil porosity, by the application of mechanical forces to the soil. Soil Disturbance Physical disturbance of the vegetation or soil surface by any action, usually via mechanical or manual tools. Includes all activities except casual use, wildland fire and prescribed fire treatments. See “surface disturbance.” Special Recreation Management Areas Recreation management areas that receive emphasis and priority in BLM’s recreation planning and management efforts. The recreation resources in these areas require explicit management to provide specified recreation setting, activity, and experience opportunities. Recreation management objectives will provide explicit guidelines with respect to the existing opportunities and problems in these areas. Recreation Management Plans will subsequently be prepared for special recreation management areas using RMP objectives for guidance. Special Status Species Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act; state-listed species; and BLM state director-designated sensitive species (see BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy).

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-21

Standard Forest plan standards describe a condition of land, normally a maximum or minimum condition, which is measurable. A standard can also be expressed as a constraint on management activities or practices. Deviation from compliance with a standard requires a forest plan amendment. State Implementation Plan A Clean Air Act required document in which States adopt emission reduction measures necessary to attain and maintain NAAQS, and meet other requirements of the Act. State Lands Lands controlled or administered by the State of Utah. Strategy The science and art of command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of an incident. Structure The sizes, shapes, and/or ages of the plants and animals in an area. Succession Observed process of change in the species structure (and composition) of an ecological community over time. Suppression A management action intended to extinguish a fire or alter its direction of spread. Subsoiling Any treatment to non-invasively loosen soil below the Ap horizon with a minimum of vertical mixing of the soil. Any treatment to fracture and/or shatter soil with narrow tools below the depth of normal tillage without inversion and with a minimum mixing of the soil. This loosening is usually performed by lifting action or other displacement of soil dry enough so that shattering occurs. Surface Disturbance Any surface disturbing activity (does not include fire).Disturbance of the vegetative or soil surface by any action. Includes all activities but casual use and wildland fire or fire treatments. See “soil disturbance.” Surface Fuels Loose surface litter on the soil surface, normally consisting of fallen leaves or needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small branches that have not yet decayed enough to lose their identity; also grasses, forbs, low and medium shrubs, tree seedlings, heavier branchwood, downed logs, and stumps interspersed with or partially replacing the litter. Sustainability The ability to maintain a desired condition or flow of benefits over time. Tactics Deploying and directing resources on an incident to accomplish the objectives designated by strategy. Total Maximum Daily Load An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding applicable water quality criteria. Values At Risk To rate according to a relative estimate of worth when exposed to a chance of loss or damage. Vegetation Treatment Changing the characteristics of an established vegetation type to improve rangeland forage or wildlife habitat resources. Treatments are designed for specific areas and differ according to the area’s suitability and potential. The most common land treatment methods alter the vegetation by chaining, spraying with herbicides, burning, and plowing, followed by seeding with well adapted desirable plant species. Vegetation Plants in general or the sum total of the plant life above and below ground in an area.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-22

Visibility The greatest distance in a given direction where it is possible to see and identify with the unaided eye a prominent dark object against the sky at the horizon. Visual Resource Management Management classes are determined on the basis of overall scenic quality, distance from travel routes, and sensitivity to change. Class l: Provides primarily for natural ecological changes only. It is applied to wilderness areas, some natural areas, and similar situations where management activities are to be restricted. Class ll: Changes in the basic elements caused by a management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. A contrast may be seen but should not attract attention. Class lll: Changes in the basic elements caused by a management activity may be evident in the characteristic landscape, but the changes should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the character. Class lV: Changes may subordinate the original composition and character but must reflect what could be a natural occurrence within the characteristic landscape. Class V: Change is needed. This class applies to areas where the naturalistic character has been disturbed to a point where rehabilitation is needed to bring it back into character with the surrounding landscape. Wetlands Lands including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, such as wet meadows. They also include River overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. Wilderness Area An area officially designated as wilderness by Congress. Wilderness areas will be managed to preserve wilderness characteristics and shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. Wilderness Study Area Areas under study for possible inclusion as a Wilderness Area in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness An area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitations. Wildfire A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response. Wildland Any area under fire management jurisdiction of a land management agency. Wildland Fire Management Program The full range of activities and functions necessary for planning, preparedness, emergency suppression operations, and emergency rehabilitation of wildland fires, and prescribed fire operations, including natural fuels management to reduce risks to public safety and to restore and sustain ecosystem health. Wildland Fire Situation Analysis A decision making process that evaluates alternative management strategies against selected criteria (e.g., safety, environmental, social, political, economic), and resource management objectives.

Wildland Fire Suppression An appropriate management response to wildland fire that results in curtailment of fire spread and eliminates all identified threats from the particular fire. All wildland fire suppression activities provide for firefighter and public safety as the highest consideration, but minimize loss of resource values, economic expenditures, and/or the use of critical firefighting resources. Wildland Fire Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland.

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-23

Wildland Fire Use The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific pre- stated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in an FMP. Operational management is described in the WFIP. Wildland fire use is not to be confused with "fire use,", a broader term encompassing more than just wildland fires. 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. In applying Title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003), WUI means: • An area within or adjacent to an at-risk community identified in recommendations to the Secretary in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan OR • In the case of any area for which a Community Wildfire Protection Plan is not in effect: o An area extending 1/2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community o An area within 1 1/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community, including any land that: ƒ Has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildland fire behavior endangering the at-risk community ƒ Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective firebreak, such as a road or ridgetop OR ƒ Is in Condition Class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific environmental analysis AND

o An area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community that the Secretary determines—in cooperation with the at-risk community—requires hazardous-fuel reduction to provide safer evacuation.

Woodland Forest lands stocked with other than timber species (i.e. pinyon, juniper, mountain mahogany, etc.). A plant community in which, in contrast to a typical forest, the trees are often small, and relatively short compared to their crown (i.e., pinyon, juniper). Uses of the woodland products are generally limited to firewood, posts, and harvest of fruit (pinyon nuts).

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-24

September 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-25

Appendices

March 2005 Chapter 6: References and Glossary 6-26

APPENDIX A: INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ANALYSIS RECORD CHECKLIST

Project Title: State-wide Land Use Plan Amendment EA for Fire and Fuels Management

NEPA Log Number: File/Serial Number:

Project Leader: Jolie Pollet Date Proposal Received: August 5, 2004

Plan Decision/Objective: Fire, Fuels Management Date of Public Notification: NOI 04/02/04, ENBB June 2004

FOR EA: NP: not present; NI: resource/use present but not impacted; PI: potentially impacted

STAFF REVIEW OF PROPOSAL: NP/NI/PI Date Resource Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require further analysis.) NC Reviewed

CRITICAL ELEMENTS Issues: PI Air Quality 8/9/04 /s/ Greg Zschaechner 1. Impacts on Class 1 visibility; 2. impacts on human health from particulate matter. Areas of Critical Issue: PI 8/9/04 /s/ Dave Mermejo Environmental Concern 1. Impact on the relevant and important resource value at issue per ACEC Issue: PI Cultural Resources 8/9/04 /s/Lori Hunsaker 1. Impacts on sites of cultural and archaeological value Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 (“Environmental Justice”) require federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low- income populations.” In accordance with CEQ Environmental Justice Guidelines, minority populations should be identified and effects to them analyzed, if either of the following two conditions apply: (1) of those likely to be affected by the Proposed Action, 50 percent or more would be part of the minority population, and (2) within the project area, the minority NI Environmental Justice 8/9/04 /s/ Matthew Higdon population percentage is greater than the minority population percentage outside the project area or in the general population. Neither of these conditions applies to the Planning Area for this effort. (Minority populations make up 13.5% of the population of the Planning Area; low- income individuals make up 9.4%). Further, given that the Planning Area for this Proposed Action includes most of the State of Utah, and that the Proposed Action would be implemented consistently across the state, it is unlikely that any one portion of the population would be disproportionately affected by the implementation of the Proposed Action. The BLM manages land in the planning area that would qualify as prime, unique, and/or NI Farmlands (Prime or Unique) 8/9/04 /s/ Lisa Bryant important farmland. However, there is nothing in the Proposed Action that would irreversibly convert any BLM lands to non-agricultural use or result in the potential loss of prime farmlands,

September 2005 Appendix A A-1

NP/NI/PI Date Resource Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require further analysis.) NC Reviewed as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act.

Issues: 1. Impacts to floodplain resources from suppression activities. (ex: firelines) PI Floodplains 8/9/04 /s/ George Cruz, Lisa Bryant 2. Impacts to floodplain resources from fuel treatments and wildland fire. (ex: flooding, increased sedimentation, soil erosion) Issue: 1. Indirect/direct impacts to biodiversity of plant communities, with analysis based on (a) Increase or spread of invasive species due to fire mgmt. activities; (b) Increase susceptibility of PI Invasive, Non-native Species 8/9/04 /s/ Lisa Bryant invaded communities to wildfire; (c) Conversion of shrubland communities to annual grasses resulting in shorter fire return interval and self-perpetuating grassland communities and the lack of successful methods for treating/restoring these areas. Native American Religious Issue: PI 8/9/04 /s/ Lori Hunsaker Concerns 1. Impacts to traditional use of vegetation and cultural or religious sites. Threatened, Endangered or Issue: PI 8/9/04 /s/ Ron Bolander Candidate Species 1. Impacts to listed/candidate species and their habitats and ‘designated critical habitat’ Concerns of potential impacts from fire management decisions on hazardous materials have NI Wastes (hazardous or solid) 8/11/04 /s/ Lowell Jeffcoat been resolved by including into the Proposed Action Resource Protection Measures to be followed. Water Quality Issue: PI 8/9/04 /s/ George Cruz (drinking/ground) 1. Direct/indirect impacts to water quality (including beneficial use). Issue: 1. Impact on wetlands and riparian zones, with analysis based on (a) sediment delivery; (b) PI Wetlands/Riparian Zones 8/9/04 /s/ Tom Mendenhall shade retention; (c) woody debris delivery; (d) stream-bank stability; (e) litter fall; (f) nutrient input

Issue: PI Wild and Scenic Rivers 8/9/04 /s/ Dave Mermejo 1. Impacts to outstanding remarkable values, tentative classification, and free flowing nature.

Issue: 1. Direct / indirect impacts on Wilderness and suitability of WSAs. PI Wilderness / WSAs 8/9/04 /s/ Dave Mermejo 2. Impacts to naturalness resulting from the infestation of noxious weeds and other plants (cheatgrass) after suppression activities.

OTHER RESOURCES / CONCERNS*

Potential for impacts related to Rangeland Health Standards from fire management decisions have been addressed in the Proposed Action, as Resource Protection Measures related to Rangeland Health Standards NI 8/9/04 /s/ Larry Lichthardt vegetation and livestock grazing, and therefore, will not be brought forward for analysis. Such and Guidelines inclusion would provide for Proposed Action consistency with the BLM’s Rangeland Health Standards.

September 2005 Appendix A A-2

NP/NI/PI Date Resource Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require further analysis.) NC Reviewed Issue: PI Livestock Grazing 8/9/04 /s/ Larry Lichthardt 1. Impact to allotment use. Issue: 1. Impact upon biomass availability (including firewood collection) and healthy forest PI Woodland / Forestry 9/1/04 /s/ Kathy Radigan conditions (including old growth).

Vegetation including Special Issue: PI 8/9/04 /s/ Larry Lichthardt (Veg.), /s/ Status plant species 1. Impacts on vegetation condition goals and objectives. Ron Bolander (SSS)

/s/ Steve Madsen and /s/ Ron Issue: Fish and Wildlife including PI 8/9/04 Bolander (wildlife), /s/ Tom 1. Loss or modification of crucial habitats, and disturbance/displacement of fish and wildlife Special Status Species Mendenhall (fish) species, as a result of vegetation alterations. Issue: PI Soils 8/9/04 /s/ Lisa Bryant 1. Impacts to soils, with analysis based on (a) nutrient cycling; (b) infiltration/ runoff (compaction); and (c) erosion/sedimentation. Issue: 1. Impacts on developed recreation sites/facilities. Any impacts on OHV recreation is addressed and resolved in the Proposed Action, as a PI Recreation 8/9/04 /s/ Dave Mermejo Resource Protection Measure that states that vehicle tracks created off of established routes would be obliterated after fire management actions in order to reduce unauthorized OHV travel. Issue: PI Visual Resources 8/9/04 /s/ Dave Mermejo 1. Impact on Visual Resources Concerns regarding potential conflicts with geology / mineral resources have been incorporated into the Proposed Action as ‘Resource Protection Measures.’ Further, identified locations where wildland fire use is not appropriate include facilities related to mineral resources. Because safety NI Geology / Mineral Resources 9/9/04 /s/ George Diwachek buffers are to be provided around mineral resource facilities, and with such Resource Protection Measures, the issue of fire and fuels management impacts on geology and mineral resources is resolved and not necessary for further analysis in the EA. Included in the Proposed Action is Resource Protection Measures that resolve concerns regarding fire management’s impacts on paleontological resources. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered in the course of ground-disturbing suppression NI Paleontology 9/9/04 /s/ Laurie Bryant activities, efforts should be made to protect these resources. Further, BLM Manual and Handbook H-8270-1, Chapter III (A) and III (B) will be used in planning and implementation of projects. Concerns relating to lands and access are addressed as Resource Protection Measures in the NI Lands / Access 9/9/04 /s/ Michael Dekeyrel Proposed Action. See Table 2.3. These statements resolve the potential for impacts and therefore, lands/access will not be brought forward for analysis in the EA. Issues related to Fuels and Fire Management makes up the Proposed Action, and is the purpose PI Fuels / Fire Management 8/9/04 /s/ Brad Washa and need of EA. The EA analyzes a land use plan amendment addressing all issues related to

September 2005 Appendix A A-3

NP/NI/PI Date Resource Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require further analysis.) NC Reviewed Fire and Fuels Management and therefore, analysis of this issue and impacts will be fully discussed. Issue: PI Socio-economics 8/9/04 /s/ Keith Rigtrup 1. Impacts to socio-economics. Issues related to impacts of fire and fuels management decisions on Wild Horse and Burros would be resolved by inclusion of Resource Protection Measures in the Proposed Action. The NI Wild Horses and Burros 8/11/04 /s/ Gus Warr Proposed Action includes avoidance of fencing that would restrict access to water. Therefore, it is not necessary to bring forward as an issue for analysis in the EA. Issue: 1. Surface disturbing impacts from fire management activities (including rehabilitation actions) PI Wilderness characteristics 8/30/04 /s/ Dave Mermejo to the natural character of the landscape, outstanding opportunity for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation, and to any supplemental values.

FINAL REVIEW:

Reviewer Title Date Signature Comments

9/9/04 /s/ Matthew Higdon NEPA/ Environmental Coordinator These elements have been reviewed by ID Team members. 9/27/04 /s/ Katherine P. Kitchell Issues have been identified and carried forward for analysis Deputy State Director, Natural Resources in the EA. Where no issues are identified, rationale has been provided for this finding.

September 2005 Appendix A A-4

APPENDIX B: CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN FIRE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The table below compares the fire management direction from the No Action and the Proposed Action. Because the land use plans varied greatly in their scope and content, often direct comparison of ideas could not be made. Each of the land use plans from the No Action Alternative is referenced by number. The reference codes are as follows: 1. House Range Resource Area RMP 1987 8. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 2. Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP 1986 Management Plan 1999 3. Grand RMP 1985 9. San Juan RMP 1991 4. Salt Lake District Proposed Fire Management Plan 10. St. George RMP 1999 Amendment UT-020-98-08 1998 (Amends five land use plans: Box Elder RMP 1986; Iso-Tract MFP 1985; *The remaining seven LUPs—Vermilion MFP 1981; Zion Park City MFP 1975; Pony Express RMP 1990; MFP 1981; Paria 1981; Parker Mountain MFP 1982; Randolph MFP 1980) Mountain Valley MFP 1982; Forest MFP 1977; Escalante 5. Pinyon MFP 1983 MFP 1981—either do not have goals, objectives, and 6. Henry Mountains MFP 1982 direction specifically related to fire management, or 7. Warm Springs RMP 1987 describe fire within the context of other resource management needs.

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action Fire Management Goals and Objectives Safely reintroduce fire into ecosystems to meet desired Firefighter and public safety is the primary goal in all fire resource management objectives by utilizing the best management decisions and actions. science (4). Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain and The objective of the fire management program will be to enhance resources and, when possible, be allowed to allow fire to play its natural role in the ecosystem (8). function in its natural ecological role Reduce human and ecological losses; complement Hazardous fuels would be reduced to restore resource management objectives, and sustain productivity ecosystems; protect human, natural and cultural of biological systems through fire management (1, 2, 3, 4, resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to 7, 10, 5). communities Fires would be suppressed at minimum cost, taking into account firefighter and public safety and benefits and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives BLM would provide a consistent, safe and cost-effective fire management program through appropriate planning, staffing, training, equipment and management Every area with burnable vegetation would have an FMP based on a foundation of sound science Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation and restoration efforts would be undertaken to protect and sustain resources, public health and safety and community infrastructure BLM would work together with their partners and other affected groups and individuals to reduce risks to

September 2005 Appendix B B-1

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action communities and restore ecosystems Fire Management Strategies and Actions Specific zoned areas and policies have been established to The appropriate management response would be indicate how suppression activities will be managed in provided to all wildland fires, emphasizing firefighter and specific areas of the Monument. Changes in specific zone public safety and considering suppression costs, benefits strategies may be updated annually (8). and values to be protected. The appropriate management response would be consistent with resource objectives, Complete a Beaver River Fire Plan (including Pinyon, standards and guidelines. Response to wildland fire would Cedar, and Beaver Planning Units) based on the existing be based on ecological and social costs and benefits of plan for Pinyon Planning Unit (2). the fire. The circumstances under which the fire occurs Fuel management areas are identified by acre per polygon and the likely consequences to firefighter and public (4). safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources and values to be protected, would dictate the appropriate Vegetation restoration methods fall into four broad management response to the fire. Fire Management Unit categories: mechanical, chemical, biological, and objectives, (as included in the FMPs), would further guide management ignited fires. Each method will be used with the appropriate management response. vegetation objectives and have certain restrictions (8). Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain and BLM will collaborate with local, state, and federal agencies enhance resources and, when possible, would be allowed in promoting public education and awareness on fire to function in its natural ecological role. Areas where prevention, protection of rural properties, and the proper wildland fire use is appropriate and not appropriate are role of fire in natural systems (10). identified in Table 2.1. The FMPs would provide further Protection of other resources is fully integrated into the operational guidance for wildland fire use. fire management strategies for all of the zones in southern To reduce risks and to restore ecosystems, the following Utah and northern Arizona (8). fuels management tools would be allowed throughout For any proposed fire management action, the major Utah: wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and mechanical, resources that should be given careful attention through a chemical, and biological actions. As conditions allow, the site inventory include geology, paleontology, cultural, BLM would employ the least intrusive method over more riparian, soils, fish and wildlife, vegetation, special status intrusive methods. For example, wildland fire use is the animal and plant species, water resources, and air quality preferred method of treatment. Where wildland fire use (8). is not feasible, prescribed burning would be the preferred method. Where prescribed burning is not feasible, non- Fire education that involves reintroduction of fire into fire fuel treatments would become the preferred method ecosystems, along with traditional fire concerns would be of treatment. a high priority (4). Work with partners in the WUI in wildland firefighting, The Fire Management Activity Plan and fire management hazardous fuels reduction, cooperative fire prevention practices will be reviewed at five-year intervals to identify education and technical assistance. Unauthorized wildland need for revision or modification (1, 5, 7). fire ignitions would be prevented through coordination with partners and affected groups and individuals. The full range of prevention and mitigation activities would be used: personal contacts, mass media, education programs and signage. The following Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) actions (after wildfire suppression) and rehabilitation for planned actions may be utilized to reduce potential for soil erosion and invasive species spread: seeding or planting native and/or non-native species; applying approved herbicides; implementing soil stabilization measures (e.g., stabilization structures, mulches); protecting cultural resources; repairing or replacing facilities; fencing, herding or removing livestock and/or horses; and resting allotments. Specific actions could include brush/tree chopping; contour tree felling;

September 2005 Appendix B B-2

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action silt catchments; waddles, straw or fabric silt traps; mulching; drill seeding; aerial seeding; aerial seeding followed by mechanical seed covering (chaining, harrowing or other mechanical means); planting seedlings; fence construction or rebuilding; road/trail maintenance or closures; cattle guards; road culvert installation or cleaning; water bars; sign installation and maintenance; herbicidal or mechanical weed treatments; weather station installation and maintenance; repairing or rebuilding of minor facilities (cross fencing, wildlife structures, recreational facilities). Monitoring actions would be undertaken to determine results from fire management decisions and actions. Monitoring results would be used in determining the need for further LUP amendment or revisions. Wildland Fire Suppression Objectives and Management Actions Reduce or minimize present fire suppression costs (3, 4, Fires would be suppressed at minimum cost, considering 5). firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives. Costs can be reduced by implementing less than full suppression on appropriate areas where access by ground The BLM would provide a consistent, safe, and cost- fire fighting equipment is limited; and, during periods of effective fire management program through appropriate multiple fire occurrences, work load can be reduced by planning, staffing, training, equipment, and management. freeing personnel and equipment to report to areas of The following are 15-Year Cumulative Maximum Burned higher resource values (5). Acres for wildfires (used for analysis purposes only): During multiple fire situations with very high to extreme • fire danger rating and multiple geographic areas, Box Elder RMP: 100,000 acres management response to wildland fires could change to • Iso-Tract MFP: 1,000 acres “Full Suppression” strategy (4). • Park City MFP: 100 acres • Pony Express RMP: 300,000 acres The decision on whether wildland fires might be • Randolph MFP: 15,000 acres monitored, minimally suppressed, or aggressively attacked • Forest MFP: 10,000 acres and the types of tactics used to suppress the fires would • Henry Mountain MFP: 50,000 acres be based on decision criteria that would include resource • Mountain Valley MFP: 90,000 acres management objectives, resource values, other values at risk, fire season severity, predicted weather and fire • Parker Mountain MFP: 30,000 acres behavior, suppression costs, and other criteria specific to • House Range RMP: 100,000 acres the fire site and time of occurrence. Refer to Table 2.2a-c • Warm Springs RMP: 100,000 acres of this plan for a listing of strategy and suppression • Grand RMP: 100,000 acres techniques that would be used (4). • San Juan RMP: 100,000 acres • Escalante MFP: 4,000 acres Full fire suppression will be implemented in areas where • Paria MFP: 6,000 acres risk of wildfire may harm or threaten: • Vermilion MFP: 4,000 acres • Life or human-made facilities/property (4, 5, 7, 8) • Zion MFP: 25,000 acres • Important high resource values (4, 2, 5) • Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP: 130,000 • State lands (2, 5) acres • Soil stability (5) • Pinyon MFP: 85,000 acres • Predetermined boundary lines identifying a full • St. George RMP: 50,000 acres suppression area (5) • GSENM MP: 160,000 acres • Wilderness study areas (in accordance with TOTAL: 1,460,100 acres (If these acres are exceeded, it wilderness guidelines) (5) may trigger re-analysis.) • Air quality (5) Full suppression will continue on all public lands within

September 2005 Appendix B B-3

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action planning units. The Pinyon Fire Plan will be combined with the Cedar and Beaver Planning Units to form the Beaver River Fire Plan. The Beaver River Fire Plan will establish the constraints and standards for fire management and establish the conditions for preparing an “Escaped Fire Analysis” within a full fire suppression area. (2). Initial attack and subsequent actions may include use of specialized crews, heavy equipment, retardant aircraft, and other means. A qualified boss should be present (5).

Wildland Fire Suppression Objectives and Management Actions Wildfires will be suppressed in areas where the resources are identified as not capable of being improved or not capable of being successfully rehabilitated following fires or where a vegetative composition change is not desirable (5). The plan will address fire attack strategies throughout the resource area with special attention to high potential, high risk areas (1, 7). Full suppression will continue on up to 2,015,555 acres (7). Develop a workable alternative to full fire suppression in areas within the planning unit where resource values are low or where fire may be a positive factor in vegetation change. Control, but not necessarily suppress, all wildfire. Provide adequate suppression where and when required. Carry out effective pre-suppression activities. Three levels of suppression will be applied—observation, modified suppression, and full suppression (5). Fire suppression will continue on 266,060 acres of the planning area to protect high resource values, developed recreation sites, and riparian/aquatic habitat (9). Limited Suppression and Wildland Fire Use Objectives and Management Actions Suppression strategies and tactics in the juniper/mountain Though specific areas for wildland fire use would be shrub types (Fire Management Zone 3) would be modified identified in the FMPs, wildland fire use may be to allow a greater use of “Resource Suppression” and authorized for all areas, except when the following “Natural Suppression” strategies and/or “indirect attack” resources and values may be negatively impacted and methods when appropriate to meet resource management there are no reasonable Resource Protection Measures objectives while protecting values at risk and minimizing to protect such resources and values: costs. Mechanized equipment would not be considered a viable suppression tool (4). • WUI areas • Areas that are known to be highly susceptible to Provide initial attack. If unsuccessful, fires may be post-fire cheatgrass or invasive weed invasion permitted to burn with assurance that fire will stay within • Important terrestrial and aquatic habitats constraints and the results will be consistent with • Non-fire adapted vegetation communities resource objectives (5). • Sensitive cultural resources Limited suppression on up to 211,200 acres of pinyon and • Areas of soil with high or very high erosion juniper woodland and possibly other areas (7). hazard • Class I areas and PM10 non-attainment areas Fire will burn only on public land and state land in

September 2005 Appendix B B-4

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action accordance with terms set forth in a Memorandum of • Administrative sites Understanding or Cooperative Agreement. Written • Developed recreation sites agreements will provide means to mitigate claims by • Communication sites private landowners pertaining to encroachment of fire on • Oil, gas and mining facilities private or state land (5). • Above-ground utility corridors A Fire Management Activity Plan will specifically identify • High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, and locate areas of limited suppression. Limited railroads and/or highways suppression will be conducted up to 89,000 acres of The following are 15-Year Cumulative Maximum Acres pinyon and juniper woodland and possibly other areas (1). for Wildland Fire Use: Conditional suppression up to 1,450,940 acres will • Box Elder RMP: 0 acres continue in special resource areas (ACECs, ROS P-Class • Iso-tract MFP: 0 acres areas, resource values) (9). • Park City MFP: 0 acres Modified suppression will take place if there is (5): • Pony Express RMP: 0 acres • Randolph MFP: 0 acres • No threat to full suppression area, private land, • Forest MFP: 4,500 acres or wilderness study area. • Henry Mountain MFP: 50,000 acres • A favorable burning index (<80). • Mountain Valley MFP: 36,000 acres • A favorable smoke dispersal clearing index (> or • Parker Mountain MFP: 15,000 acres equal to 500). • House Range RMP: 10,000 acres • There is a qualified fire boss present, qualified • Warm Springs RMP: 10,000 acres resource advisor present • Grand RMP: 20,000 acres • San Juan RMP: 20,000 acres Most of the Monument is included in zones that have little • Escalante MFP: 100 acres fire suppression activity (8). • Paria MFP: 100 acres Use Observation-Level Fire Management when (5): • Vermilion MFP: 0 acres • Resource values are low and extinguishing costs • Zion MFP: 100 acres are high. • Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP: 0 acres • No threat to full suppression area. • Pinyon MFP: 6,000 acres • Favorable burning index (<80). • St. George RMP: 500 acres • Favorable smoke dispersal clearing index (> or • GSENM MP: 8,000 acres equal to 500). TOTAL 180,300 • Fire not a threat to private land. • Qualified observer present. Wildfire will be used to increase and maintain desirable vegetation types except on as noted above for “Full Suppression” (5). General Fuel Treatment Goals Vegetation restoration methods fall into four broad The general DWFC is to have ecosystems that are at a categories: mechanical, chemical, biological, and low risk of losing ecosystem components following management ignited fires. Each method will be used with wildfire and that function within their historical range. In vegetation objectives and have certain restrictions (8). terms of FRCC, the DWFC outside the WUI is to trend Vegetation management would include a wide variety of to a lower FRCC using the least intrusive method management activities including prescribed fire, possible. In other words, the DWFC is to move lands in mechanical manipulation, seeding of less flammable and FRCC 3 to FRCC 2 and lands in FRCC 2 to FRCC 1 more desirable species, fuel break establishment, and through fire and non-fire treatments where wildland fire other strategies. These activities would be used to reduce use is the preferred method of treatment, when feasible. fire severity and occurrence and reduce hazardous fuel Inside the WUI, the general DWFC is to have less accumulation. The relative level of fuels management potential for values to be threatened by wildland fire, would be “Moderate.” (Refer to Table 2.2d for a listing of usually through some modification of fuels. vegetation management techniques that would be used.

September 2005 Appendix B B-5

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action Table 2.4 contains a listing by management polygon of the target acreage figures) (4). Reduce hazardous fuels buildup (5). Prescribed fires and mechanical/chemical treatments in desert shrub and semi-desert shrub communities will generally be limited to black stripping, as a hazardous fuel reduction method, or as site preparation for green stripping projects in said polygons (4). Prescribed Fire Objectives and Actions General application of prescribed fire will only be allowed All prescribed fire acres would be for a primary purpose in the upland, mountain, and wetland areas of certain of hazardous fuels reduction or community protection polygons (4). Prescribed fires will be located in areas from fires. While these acres would likely also accomplish where the treatments will reduce the threat of large other resource objectives, this plan aims to directly uncontrolled fires, create small mosaics of impacted areas analyze effects from fire management decisions. to increase the “edge effect” and improve wildlife and The following are 15-Year Cumulative Maximum Acres plant diversity, and be spaced at proper distances so as to for Prescribed Fire: not cause impacts to local wildlife (4). • Consultation with permittees, local and state agencies, Box Elder RMP: 6,000 acres adjacent land managers, Indian Tribes, and nearby private • Iso-Tract MFP: 500 acres landowners will be required for all prescribed burns • Park City MFP: 100 acres during the planning phase to ensure such burns minimize • Pony Express RMP: 15,000 acres disruption to existing land uses and that affected publics • Randolph MFP: 7,000 acres are notified (10). • Forest MFP: 4,500 acres • Henry Mountain MFP: 50,000 acres Prescribed fire use will be defined in a Fire Management • Mountain Valley MFP: 36,000 acres Activity Plan covering the entire resource area (1, 7). • Parker Mountain MFP: 15,000 acres Prescribed fire will be used to maintain prior seedings, • House Range RMP: 20,000 acres where feasible, for 53,300 acres and new seedings, where • Warm Springs RMP: 20,000 acres feasible, for 6,300 acres (9). • Grand RMP: 40,000 acres Support from all resource programs will be required in • San Juan RMP: 40,000 acres the development of the management and prescribed fire • Escalante MFP: 4,000 acres plans (1, 2). • Paria MFP: 6,000 acres • Vermilion MFP: 15,000 acres Initiate prescribed fire and seeding on approximately • Zion MFP: 25,000 acres 14,149 acres (in 11 allotments), thereby increasing AUMs by approximately 1,770 for livestock and wildlife (3). • Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP: 80,000 acres Prescribed fire may be used in selected areas to convert • Pinyon MFP: 50,000 acres vegetation types or meet other management objectives (1, • St. George RMP: 30,000 acres 7). • GSENM MP: 160,000 acres Prescribed burning will be in compliance with BLM Manual TOTAL 624,100 Section 7723, “Air Quality Maintenance Requirements” (1, 2, 7, 8). Prescribed fire plans will be required by other programs to achieve resource objectives (2). Prescribed fire will be conducted on 500 acres of wildlife habitat at Potters Peak. Prescribed fire will be considered for use on up to ten vegetation treatment areas listed in Livestock Grazing when necessary to maintain desired vegetation communities in those areas. Fire rehabilitation areas may also be maintained through prescribed fire to

September 2005 Appendix B B-6

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action achieve these same objectives (10). In accordance with the Dixie Fire Management Plan, the BLM will conduct prescribed burns and manage prescribed natural fires to achieve vegetation management objectives, improve wildlife habitat, reduce hazardous fuels, and achieve long-term objectives for soil stabilization and water quality (10). Management ignited fire is the vegetation restoration method most likely to be used in the Monument. This method will be used when fire has been documented to historically occur in an area, and where various factors have prevented natural fire cycles from occurring. In these circumstances, management ignited fires may be used, and will attempt to simulate natural fire intensity and timing. Specific objectives for all management ignited fires will be developed prior to its use in the Monument with recommendations from the GSENM Advisory Committee. Fire activities will be conducted and with appropriate fire management personnel, as provided in the Color Country Interagency Fire Management Area annual operating plan (8). Prescribed fires and mechanical/chemical treatments in desert shrub and semi-desert shrub communities will generally be limited to black stripping, as a hazardous fuel reduction method, or as site preparation for green stripping projects in said polygons (4--see also Non-Fire Objectives). Non-Fire Fuels Objectives and Actions Vegetation management would include a wide variety of All non-fire treatment acres would be for a primary management activities including prescribed fire, purpose of hazardous fuels reduction or community mechanical manipulation, seeding of less flammable and protection from fires. While these acres would likely also more desirable species, fuel break establishment, and accomplish other resource objectives, this plan aims to other strategies. These activities would be used to reduce directly analyze effects from fire management decisions. fire severity and occurrence and reduce hazardous fuel The following are 15-Year Cumulative Maximum Acres accumulation. The relative level of fuels management for Non-Fire Fuel Treatments: would be “Moderate.” (Refer to Table 2.2d for a listing of vegetation management techniques that would be used. • Box Elder RMP: 14,000 acres Table 2.4 contains a listing by management polygon of the • Iso-Tract MFP: 1,000 acres target acreage figures) (4—see also Prescribed Fire). • Park City MFP: 100 acres Mechanical/chemical treatments will be located in areas • Pony Express RMP: 55,000 acres where the they will reduce the threat of large • Randolph MFP: 14,000 acres uncontrolled fires, create small mosaics of impacted areas • Forest MFP: 4,500 acres to increase “edge effect” and improve wildlife and plant • Henry Mountain MFP: 50,000 acres diversity, and be spaced so as to not cause impacts to • Mountain Valley MFP: 36,000 acres local wildlife (4). • Parker Mountain MFP: 15,000 acres • House Range RMP: 20,000 acres • Warm Springs RMP: 10,000 acres • Grand RMP: 40,000 acres • San Juan RMP: 40,000 acres • Escalante MFP: 4,000 acres • Paria MFP: 6,000 acres

September 2005 Appendix B B-7

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action • Vermilion MFP: 20,000 acres • Zion MFP: 30,000 acres • Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP: 100,000 acres • Pinyon MFP: 35,000 acres • St. George RMP: 10,000 acres • GSENM MP: 160,000 acres TOTAL 664,600 Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Objectives and Actions Rehabilitation in wildfire areas will be assessed and The following are 15-Year Cumulative Maximum Acres accomplished in accordance with emergency fire for Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation: rehabilitation plans, which will be developed as required

(1). • Box Elder RMP: 100,000 acres • Iso-tract MFP: 1,000 acres Following wildfire in normal wildfire areas, rehabilitation • Park City MFP: 100 acres (chaining and seeding, drilling seed, etc.) will be conducted in accordance with the Richfield District Normal Year Fire • Pony Express RMP: 300,000 acres Rehabilitation Plan. Rehabilitation in other wildfire areas • Randolph MFP: 15,000 acres will be assessed and accomplished in accordance with • Forest MFP: 10,000 acres emergency fire rehabilitation plans which will be • Henry Mountains: 50,000 acres developed as required (7, 1). • Mountain Valley MFP: 90,000 acres BLM will conduct rehabilitation of lands affected by • Parker Mountain MFP: 30,000 acres wildfire in accordance with provisions of the approved • House Range RMP: 100,000 acres Dixie Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan (1997). Any • Warm Springs RMP: 100,000 acres rehabilitation will require site-specific analysis including full • Grand RMP: 100,000 acres cultural resource inventories on lands to be disturbed and • San Juan RMP: 100,000 acres appropriate consultation. In all cases, BLM will apply • Paria MFP: 6,000 acres standards and guidelines approved for various resources • Vermillion MFP: 4,000 acres included in Utah BLM’s Standards for Rangeland Health • Zion MFP: 25,000 acres and Guidelines for Grazing Management (10). • Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony RMP: 130,000 When reseeding is determined to be necessary, areas acres impacted by natural or prescribed fires, as well as • Pinyon MFP: 85,000 acres mechanical and chemical treatments, will generally be • St. George RMP: 50,000 acres reseeded using a diverse seed mix with emphasis on • Escalante MFP: 4,000 acres native species, and the seeding will occur the fall following • GSENM Management Plan: 160,000 acres the particular treatment or fire. The technique of two- TOTAL 1,460,100 way chaining and seeding will be the usual treatment to remove portions of juniper skeletons and decadent brush, prepare the seed bed, and then cover the seeds to improve germination and seeding success (4). When determining whether to reseed after fire, the overriding consideration is the vegetation management objective and priority to use native plants. Other considerations are the structure and diversity of vegetation in the area before it burned and the presence of noxious weeds (8). Native plants will be selected/considered for rehabilitation first. Introduced species used in the reseeding/rehabilitation efforts will be used according to developed policy. Introduced species may be included if they assist in short-term soil stabilization and do not outcompete native species in the longer term. Other land use activities will be restricted one to two years for

September 2005 Appendix B B-8

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action habitat recovery purposes. After a wildland fire, livestock grazing would not be allowed on burned areas for a minimum of one growing season. It is anticipated that livestock will be restricted from the rehabilitated area for two years. However, it is recognized that there may be some circumstances which may require a longer period of rest. Examples of such circumstances include drought and poor establishment of the seeded area (4). Onsite BLM resource advisors will be assigned to extended attack fires where needed to integrate resource concerns into the development of tactical plans and to evaluate potential for post-fire rehabilitation (16). Fire Management Resource Protection Measures Air: In conducting prescribed burns, BLM will design and Resource Protection Measures included in the Proposed time the projects so as to maximize smoke dispersal and Action are presented in the main body of the text in this protect the high-quality air shed within Zion National document as Table 2.3. Park and other Class I areas in the region. For effective smoke management, ignition will be approved only when the burning index is 500 or greater (10). Air: Management ignited fires must comply with State of Utah Interagency Memorandum of Understanding to minimize air quality impacts from resulting particulates. This procedure requires obtaining an open burning permit from the State prior to conducting a management ignited fire (8). Soil and Water: Rehabilitation of disturbed sites, fire, chaining, dozing, etc., will use the best methodologies available that will increase rehabilitation success and minimize impacts to sensitive resources. Rehabilitation projects following vegetation treatments, prescribed fires, or wildland fires will utilize species that would establish the desired plant community, stabilize soils, reduce risk of a severe erosion event, and enhance soil productivity (4). Fish and Wildlife: BLM will manage fire suppression activities in desert tortoise habitat in accordance with applicable biological opinions of the FWS, provisions in the desert tortoise recovery plan, and guidelines in Fighting Wildfire in Desert Tortoise Habitat: Considerations for Land Managers, (T. Duck et al, 1995 Desert Tortoise Council Symposium—International Symposium of Wildland Fire) (10). Fish and Wildlife: Special attention will be given to crucial mule deer winter range (10). Cultural Resources: Surface-disturbing suppression activities will avoid known cultural sites to the extent avoidance is feasible (10). Cultural Resources: Native American groups will be notified prior to any vegetation/fuel management projects. Their concerns will be taken into account in the overall design of individual projects. Identified areas of cultural

September 2005 Appendix B B-9

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action concern will be excluded from the project by avoidance and/or buffering. If cultural sites can not be avoided, BLM will work with affected parties to design culturally sensitive and appropriate mitigation strategies. This may include eliminating those locations from the project. As part of the project specific process, the District archaeologist would ensure that the Section 106 process is complete prior to any ground disturbing activity (4). Cultural Resources: All vegetation treatment projects will be reviewed to determine the need for a cultural resource inventory. If sites are located, they will be marked for avoidance. Sites that could not be avoided will be evaluated for listing on the National Register. Eligible sites that could not be avoided would be mitigated (4). Visual Resources: Site specific planning for prescribed fires and other vegetation/fuel treatments in VRM Class II areas would include completion of BLM Form 8400-4, Contrast Rating Form, to insure that the objectives of Class II are met (4). Livestock Grazing: Fences could continue to be used in the long-term to control livestock (4). Administrative Designations: Wildfires in designated wilderness areas will be managed in accordance with applicable wilderness management plans (10). Administrative Designations: Wildfires in Wilderness Study Areas will be managed in accordance with guidelines in BLM's Interim Management Policy (BLM handbook H- 8550-1) (10). Administrative Designations: A designated fire resource advisor will be consulted on all fires within the Monument that involve WSAs (8). Administrative Designations: Mechanical treatments will not be allowed in WSAs or lands where wilderness characteristics may need to be protected because of potential for future designation. Rehabilitation of these areas will be limited to the use of native plant species. Cross-country vehicle travel will not be allowed in these same areas if such travel may impact wilderness values (4). General: Although exempt from OHV use designations by regulation, fire suppression activities will be directed so as to give appropriate deference to resources and conditions intended to be protected by such designations (10). General: Major resources that should be given careful attention through a site inventory include: geology, paleontology, cultural, riparian, soils, fish and wildlife, vegetation, special status animal and plant species, water resources, and air quality(8). General: Deference will be given to the use of the least disruptive practices in areas managed primarily for their

September 2005 Appendix B B-10

Alternative B: No Action Alternative A: Proposed Action natural values, including primitive recreation areas, designated wilderness areas, riparian zones, areas of critical environmental concern and rivers recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (10). General: Cumulative impacts from natural fires, habitat conversion, or treatments on BLM, and adjacent state and private lands, will be considered prior to any treatment being implemented (4).

September 2005 Appendix B B-11

September 2005 Appendix B B-12

APPENDIX C: WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY

Wildland Fire Management Policy Authority: The statutes cited herein authorize and provide the means for managing wildland fires. Organic Administration Act, This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make provisions for the protection Act of June 4, 1897 (16 USC of national forests against destruction by fire. 551) Protection Act of September Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to protect and preserve, from fire, disease, 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 857; 16 or the ravages of beetles, or other insects, timber owned by the United States upon USC 594) the public lands, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, or other lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior owned by the United States. Clark-McNary Act of 1928 Authorized technical and financial assistance to the states for forest fire control and (45 Stat. 221; 16 USC 487) for production and distribution of forest tree seedlings. (Sections 1 through 4 were repealed by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.) Federal Property and Provides the government an economical and efficient system for procurement and Administrative Service Act of supply of personal property and nonpersonal services. 1949 (40 USC 471 et seq.) Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Authorizes management of acquired farm tenant lands, and construction and Act, Act of July 22, 1937 (7 maintenance of range improvements. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to USC 1010, 1011) develop a program of land conservation and utilization to adjust land use to help control soil erosion, conduct reforestation, preserve natural resources, develop and protect recreational facilities, protect watersheds, and protect public health and safety. National Park Service Acts, Established the National Park Service, and management policies and guidelines for the as amended (67 Stat. 495; 16 National Park System. The Service must preserve the scenery, natural and historic USC 1b) objects, and wildlife within the parks. Reciprocal Fire Protection Authorizes agencies that provide fire protection for any property of the United States Act, Act of May 27, 1955 (69 to enter into reciprocal agreements with other fire organizations to provide mutual Stat. 66; 42 USC 1856a, 42 aid for fire protection. USC 1856) Clean Air Act, Act of July 14, This act provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources 1955, as amended (42 USC and applies to the application and management of prescribed fire. 7401 et seq.) Wilderness Act, Act of Provides for the designation and preservation of wilderness. September 3, 1964 (16 USC 1131, 1132) National Wildlife Refuge Provides guidelines and directives for administration and management of all areas in System Administration Act the National Wildlife Refuge System, including “wildlife refuges, areas for the of 1966, as amended (80 protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, Stat. 927; 16 USC 668dd wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production through 668ee) areas.” National Environmental Requires the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for federal projects Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC which may have a significant effect on the environment. It requires systematic, 4321) interdisciplinary planning to ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in making decisions about major federal actions that may have a significant effect on the environment. Endangered Species Act of Provides for the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered fish, 1973 (16 USC 1531) wildlife, and plant species. Directs all federal agencies to utilize their authorities and programs to further the purpose of the Act. Disaster Relief Act, Act of Provides the authority for the federal government to respond to disasters and May 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 143; emergencies. Established the Presidential declaration process and authorized disaster

September 2005 Appendix C C-1

Wildland Fire Management Policy 42 USC 5121) assistance programs. Federal Fire Prevention and Authorizes reimbursement to state and local fire services for costs incurred in Control Act, Act of October firefighting on federal property. 29, 1974 (88 Stat. 1535; 15 USC 2201) Federal Land Policy and Outlines functions of the BLM Directorate, provides for administration of public land Management Act of 1976 (90 through the BLM, provides for management of the public lands on a multiple use basis, Stat. 2743) and requires land-use planning including public involvement and continuing inventory of resources. The Act establishes as public policy that, in general, the public lands will remain in federal ownership, and also authorizes: • Acquisition of land or interests in lands consistent with the mission of the Department and land use plans. • Permanent appropriation of road use fees collected from commercial road users to be used for road maintenance. Collection of service charges, damages, and contributions and use of funds for specified purposes. • Protection of resource values. • Preservation of certain lands in their natural condition. • Compliance with pollution control laws. • Delineation of boundaries in which the federal government has right, title, or interest. • Review of land classifications in land use planning and modification or termination of land classifications when consistent with land use plans. • Sale of lands if the sale meets certain disposal criteria. • Issuance, modification, or revocation of withdrawals; review of certain withdrawals by October 1991. • Exchange or conveyance of public lands if in the public interest. • Outdoor recreation and human occupancy use. • Management of the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands through leases and permits. • Designation of federal personnel to carry out law enforcement responsibilities. • Determination of the suitability of public lands for rights-of-way purposes (other than oil and gas pipelines) and specification of the boundaries of each right-of-way. • Recordation of mining claims and reception of evidence of annual assessment work. National Forest Management This act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to specify guidelines for land management Act, Act of October 22, plans to ensure protection of forest resources. Implementing regulations at Title 36, 1976 (16 USC 1600 et seq.) Part 219 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219.27) specify that consistent with the relative resource values involved, management prescriptions in forest plans must minimize serious or long-lasting hazards from wildfire. Federal Grant and Established criteria for a federal agency to use to determine whether a transaction is Cooperative Agreement Act procurement or financial assistance. Established guidelines to bring about uniformity in of 1977 (PL 950224, as the selection and use of procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. amended by PL 97-258, September 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1003; 31 USC 6301 thru 6308) Supplemental Appropriation Authorized both Secretaries to enter into contracts with state and local governmental Act, Act of September 10, entities, including local fire districts, for procurement of services in the preparedness, 1982 (96 Stat. 837) detection, and suppression of fires on any units within their jurisdiction. Wildfire Suppression This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with fire

September 2005 Appendix C C-2

Wildland Fire Management Policy Assistance Act, Act of April organizations of foreign countries for assistance in wildfire protection. 7, 1989 (PL 100-428, as amended by PL 101-11, April 7, 1989; 42 USC 1856). Indian Self-Determination Provide for the full participation of Indian tribes in programs and services conducted and Education Assistance Act by the federal government for Indians and encouraged the development of human (PL 93-638), as amended resources of the Indian people; established a program of assistance to upgrade Indian education. National Indian Forest Required the Secretary of the Interior to undertake management activities on Indian Resources Management Act forestlands, in furtherance of the U.S. trust responsibility for these lands. Activities (PL 101-630, must incorporate the principles of sustained yield and multiple use, and include tribal November 28, 1990) participation. Tribal Self-Governance Act Provided for native tribes to enter into annual funding agreements with Department of 1994 (PL 103-413) of the Interior “to plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, functions, and activities” administered by the DOI that are of special geographic, historical, or cultural significance. Clean Water Act of 1987, as Establishes objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological amended (33 USC 1251) integrity of the nation’s water. Executive Order 12898, Requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse Environmental Justice, human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on February 11, 1994 (59 FR minority and low-income populations. 7629) Executive Order 13112, Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for Invasive Species, February 3, their control, and minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 1999 (64 FR 6183) invasive species cause. Migratory Bird Conservation Provides for habitat protection and enhancement of protected migratory birds. Act of 1929, as amended (16 USC 715) and treaties pertaining thereto Executive Order 13186, Directs agencies within the executive branch to take certain actions to further Responsibilities of Federal implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, with the goal of promoting the Agencies to Protect conservation of migratory bird populations. Migratory Birds, January 10, 2001 (66 FR 3853) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Provides a national policy and program to preserve and protect selected rivers (PL 90-542) because of their outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. Archaeological Resource Expands the protections provided by the Antiquities Act of 1906 in protecting Protection Act archaeological resources and sites located on public and Indian lands. Executive Order 11514, Directs federal agencies to provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality Protection and Enhancement of the nation’s environment to sustain and enrich human life and to initiate measures of Environmental Quality to meet national environmental goals. Executive Order 11593, Requires federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and Protection and Enhancement maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the nation by administering and of the Cultural Environment initiating measures necessary to preserve, restore, and maintain federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or archaeological significance. Executive Order 11988, Requires federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize Floodplain Management the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11990, Directs federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the

September 2005 Appendix C C-3

Wildland Fire Management Policy Protection of Wetlands destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Executive Order 12866, The objectives of this executive order are to enhance planning and coordination with Regulatory Planning and respect to both new and existing regulations; to reaffirm the primacy of federal Review agencies in the regulatory decision-making process; to restore the integrity and legitimacy of regulatory review and oversight; and to make the process more accessible and open to the public. Colorado River Basin Salinity Authorized the construction, operation, and maintenance of works in the Colorado Control Act River Basin to control the salinity levels of the Colorado River. National Historic Expands protection of historic and archaeological properties to include those of Preservation Act of 1966, as national, state, and local significance. It also directs federal agencies to consider the amended (16 USC 470) effects of proposed actions on properties eligible for, or included in, the National Register of Historic Places. Healthy Forest Restoration Crafted to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental Act of 2003 standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Provide for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. of 1968 (PL 90-542, as amended) (16 USC 1271- 1287) These acts are codified (as referenced) in the United States Code which can be accessed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode Policy Documents Federal Wildland Fire The principles and policies in this plan, and subsequent reviews and amendments, Management Policy and provide a common approach to wildland fire by the Department of the Interior and Program Review, December the Department of Agriculture. The plan encourages agencies to move the emphasis 18, 1995, USDI and USDA from fire suppression to integrating fire into the management of lands and resources Final Report. Federal consistent with public health and environmental quality considerations. Managers are Wildland Fire Management encouraged to use fire as one of the basic tools for accomplishing resource Policy and Program Review, management objectives March 23, 1996, USDI and USDA Implementation Action Plan Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, January, 2001, USDI, USDA, DoE, DoD, DoC, EPA, FEMA, and NASF. Restoring Fire-Adapted Coordinated fuel treatments must be across federal and adjacent state, tribal, and Ecosystems on Federal private forest and rangelands ownerships to effectively protect communities and Lands: A Cohesive Fuel restore and maintain ecosystems. Established a standardized process to identify and Treatment Strategy for coordinate fuels treatment projects in high-risk areas. Encouraged the development of Protecting People and multiyear landscape level fuel treatment plans across ownership boundaries. Sustaining Natural Resources. USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

September 2005 Appendix C C-4

Wildland Fire Management Policy Geological Survey, August 2, 2002. Utah BLM Rangeland Health BLM generated standards that spell out conditions to be achieved on BLM lands in Standards and Guidelines, Utah and guidelines that will be applied to achieve the standards. 1997. Western Governor’s Association (http://www.westgov.org/) A Collaborative Approach This plan outlined a comprehensive approach to the management of wildland fire, for Reducing Wildland Fire hazardous fuels, and ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation on federal and adjacent risks to Communities and state, tribal, and private forest and rangelands in the United States, emphasizing the Environment: 10-Year measures to reduce the risk to communities and the environment Comprehensive Strategy, August 2001. A Collaborative Approach A set of core principles was developed to guide the identification of goals for this for Reducing Wildland Fire strategy. These principles include such concepts as priority setting, accountability, and Risks to Communities and an open, collaborative process among multiple levels of government and a range of the Environment: 10-Year interests. The end results sought by all stakeholders are healthier watersheds, enhanced Comprehensive Strategy community protection, and diminished risk and consequences of severe wildland fires. Implementation Plan, May This community-based approach to wildland fire issues combines cost-effective fire 2002, 27p. preparedness and suppression to protect communities and the environment with a proactive approach that recognizes fire as part of a healthy, sustainable ecosystem. National Academy of Public Administration (http://www.napawash.org/) Managing Wildland Fire: Recommended an organizational structure and other management tools for enhancing Enhancing Capacity to the federal land management agencies’ capacity for managing wildland fire. Recognized Implement the Federal that strong leadership and coordination already exist for operational firefighting Interagency Policy, activities, but that ecosystem health, fire hazard reduction, and community safety goals December 2001, 150p. contained in agencies’ fire management policy must be addressed immediately in a more consistent and accountable manner by all of such agencies. Otherwise, the threat of unnaturally severe wildfires would continue to grow, putting both communities and ecosystems at increasing risk. Wildfire Suppression: Analyzed three aspects of fire management: Strategies for Containing • Enhancing hazard mitigation capacity Costs. A Report by a Panel • Utilizing local firefighting forces of the National Academy of • Improving equipment and services acquisition Public Administration for the U.S. Congress and the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, September 2002, 65p. Federal Fire Management: The report reiterated that fire is beneficial and even necessary to wildlands. Where fire Limited Progress in has been a historic component of the environment it is essential to continue that Restarting the Prescribed influence, and that attempts to exclude fire from such lands could result in unnatural Fire Program (GAO/RCED- ecological changes and increased risks created by accumulation of fuels on the forest 91-42), December 5, 1990. floor. Supported the use of prescribed burn to achieve management objectives, when the risks of such a burn have been analyzed. State of Utah Regulations and Local Government Plans Utah Administrative Code Utah’s regulations concerning water quality R317 Utah Administrative Code Utah’s regulations concerning air quality R307 Six County Association of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Utah’s Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Government 2004 Counties Southeastern Association Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for southeastern Utah’s Carbon, Emery, of Government 2004 Grand, and San Juan Counties

September 2005 Appendix C C-5

Wildland Fire Management Policy Bear River Association of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for northern Utah’s Bear River District (Box Elder, Cache, Government 2004 and Rich Counties) Five County Association of Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for southwestern Utah’s Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Government 2004 and Washington Counties Mountainland Association Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan for Utah’s Summit, Utah, and Wasatch Counties of Government 2004 Wasatch Front Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan comprising Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties Council 2004 Uintah Basin Association of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for Utah’s Wasatch Front: Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Government 2004 Tooele, and Weber Counties

September 2005 Appendix C C-6

APPENDIX D: FIRE REGIME AND CONDITION CLASS ANALYSIS AND HISTORIC FIRE RETURN INTERVALS

1.1 FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS

Following are the specific criteria used to develop the Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) characterizations for Utah on BLM-administered lands. The criteria were developed from (Schmidt et al. 2002). Determinations were made based upon local expertise contained in a team comprised of Utah and Nevada BLM fire and fuels personnel and in consultation with FEIS (2004) and Effects of Fire on Flora (Brown and Smith 2000). See Table D.1 for vegetation category assignments to fire regimes and condition classes. These FRCC determinations were made for broad analysis purposes and to comply with BLM policy direction. There is limited applicability in applying these coarse FRCC determinations to site-specific planning and decision-making.

1.1.1 Fire Regime

Fire Regime I describes an area that: • historically has had low-severity fires with a frequency of 0-35 years; and • is located primarily in low elevation forests of pine, oak, or pinyon and juniper woodland. Cover types in this fire regime for Utah include wet and dry meadows, grasslands, ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine/mountain shrub, oak, and desert grassland. The team determined that pinyon and juniper woodland occurred in low to middle elevations and belonged in Fire Regime II (see below). Fire Regime II describes an area that: • historically had stand replacement severity fires with a frequency of 0-35 years; and • is located primarily in low- to mid-elevation rangeland, grassland, or shrubland. Cover types determined to be in this fire regime for Utah include juniper, pinyon, pinyon and juniper woodland, maple, mountain shrub, sagebrush, and sagebrush/perennial grass. The low to mid-elevation range for pinyon and juniper woodland is defined as occurring between 3,500 and 7,000 feet of elevation. Most pinyon and juniper woodlands in Utah occur within these elevations; therefore, the team decided that pinyon and juniper cover types should be assigned to FR II instead of FR I. Fire Regime III describes an area that: • historically has had mixed severity fires with a frequency of 35 through 100 years; and • is located primarily in forests of mixed conifer, dry Douglas-fir, or wet ponderosa pine. Cover types determined to be in this fire regime for Utah include: spruce-fir/mountain shrub and mountain fir/mountain shrub.

Fire Regime IV describes an area that: • historically has had stand replacement severity fires with a frequency of 35-100+ years; and • is located primarily in cover types dominated by mixed conifer, aspen, lodgepole pine, salt desert scrub, mountain mahogany, and mountain riparian.

September 2005 Appendix D D-1

Cover types determined to be in this fire regime for Utah include: spruce-fir, lodgepole, mountain fir, mountain mahogany, aspen, lodgepole/aspen, aspen/conifer, mountain riparian, and lowland riparian. Fire Regime V describes an area that: • historically has had stand replacement/or mixed severity fires with a frequency of 200+ years; and • is located primarily in cover types dominated by spruce fir, alpine tundra, creosote/bursage, greasewood, hopsage, mesquite, Mojave mixed scrub, and blackbrush. Cover types determined to be in this fire regime for Utah include alpine, salt desert scrub, blackbrush, creosote-bursage, and greasewood.

1.1.2 Condition Class

Condition Class 1 describes plant communities where, generally: • fire regimes are within an historical range; • the risk of loosing key ecosystem components is low; and • vegetation attributes are intact and function within an historical range.

Condition Class 2 describes plant communities where, generally: • fire regimes have been moderately altered from historical ranges; • there exists a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire; • fire frequencies have increased or decreased from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals, resulting in moderate changes to the size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires or landscape patterns; and • vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from the historical range of the attributes.

Condition Class 3 describes plant communities where, generally: • fire regimes have been significantly altered from historical ranges; • there exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire; • fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to the size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; or landscape patterns; and • vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from the historical range of the attributes.

Table D.1 Fire Regime and Condition Class Assignments Based on GAP Vegetation Categories

GAP Vegetation Fire Condition Rational for Condition Class Characterization Code Regime Class 1. Water n/a n/a Not burnable 2. Spruce-fir IV 1 There are few missed fire regimes and few invasive concerns due to high elevations where these forests occur. 3. Ponderosa pine I 3 There have been many missed fire regimes and high potential for invasive species due to lower elevations where these forests occur. Fire intervals have greatly decreased leading to higher potential for severe fires.

September 2005 Appendix D D-2

GAP Vegetation Fire Condition Rational for Condition Class Characterization Code Regime Class 4. Lodgepole IV 1 There are few missed fire regimes and few invasive concerns due to high elevations where these forests occur. 5. Mountain fir IV 1 There are few missed fire regimes and few invasive concerns due to high elevations where these forests occur. 6. Juniper II 3 There are many missed fire cycles and high risk of invasive species. This vegetation type has overtaken sagebrush and grassland vegetation types and out-competes native understory vegetation leading to high risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire. This vegetation type has expanded dramatically from pre- settlement times due to fire suppression in shrublands and grasslands. 7. Pinyon II 2 There are several missed fire cycles in higher-elevation pinyon pine >7,000 feet woodland. There is some risk of invasive species, but less risk than at elevations below 7,000 feet. Pinyon pine has increased its range considerably in the past 100 years, and exists at higher densities and over larger areas than in pre-settlement times. 3 In lower elevations, there are more missed fire cycles and higher <7,000 feet potential for cheatgrass invasion. Pinyon pine has increased its range considerably in the past 100 years, and exists at higher densities and over larger areas than in pre-settlement times. 8. Pinyon and II 2 There are several missed fire cycles in higher-elevation pinyon and juniper >7,000 feet juniper woodland. There is some risk of invasive species, but less woodland risk than at elevations below 7,000 feet. Pinyon and juniper woodland has increased its range considerably in the past 100 years, and exists at higher densities and over larger areas than in pre-settlement times. 3 In lower elevations, there are more missed fire cycles and higher <7,000 feet potential for cheatgrass invasion. Pinyon and juniper woodland has increased its range considerably in the past 100 years, and exists at higher densities and over larger areas than in pre-settlement times. 9. Mountain IV 2 Mountain mahogany is at a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem mahogany components. Fire frequencies have somewhat decreased resulting in higher potential for severe fires. 10. Aspen IV 2 Aspen is declining throughout Utah due to decreased fire frequencies. There is only a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components since it often successfully sprouts following fire. 11. Oak I 2 Oak communities have been moderately altered (through more >6,500 feet homogeneous stands, fewer young stands of shrubs) from the historical vegetation attributes. At higher elevations, there is less risk of invasive species. 3 At lower elevations, oak communities have been more significantly <6,500 feet altered by lack of fire. Further, these communities are at much higher risk of invasive species following fire. 12. Maple II 2 Maple has been moderately altered due to lengthened fire intervals. Maple usually grows on moist sites, and is at less risk for invasive species. 13. Mountain II 2 Mountain shrub communities have been moderately altered from shrub the historical due to lengthened fire intervals. Mountain shrub usually grows on more moist sites at higher elevations, and is at less risk for invasive species potential.

September 2005 Appendix D D-3

GAP Vegetation Fire Condition Rational for Condition Class Characterization Code Regime Class 14. Sagebrush II 2 Sagebrush communities have been moderately altered (through >6,500 feet more homogeneous stands, higher shrub densities) from historical vegetation attributes. At higher elevations, there is less risk of invasive species. 3 At lower elevations, sagebrush communities have been more <6,500 feet significantly altered by lack of fire. Further, these communities are at much higher risk of invasive species following fire and are suffering drought-induced mortality. 15. Sagebrush/ II 2 Sage/grass communities have been moderately altered (through perennial grass >6,500 feet more homogeneous stands, dense shrub canopy out-competing native grasses) from the historical vegetation attributes. At higher elevations, there is less risk of invasive species. 3 At lower elevations, sage/grass communities have been more <6,500 feet significantly altered by lack of fire. Further, these communities are at much higher risk of invasive species following fire and sagebrush is suffering drought-induced mortality. 16. Grassland I 2 Grasslands at higher elevations are less susceptible to invasive >6,500 feet species overtaking natives following wildland fire. 3 Grasslands at lower elevations are much more susceptible to <6,500 feet invasive species overtaking natives following wildland fire. 17. Alpine V 1 There are few missed fire regimes and few invasive concerns due to the high elevations where these grasslands occur. 18. Dry meadow I 2 Meadows at higher elevations are less susceptible to invasive >6,500 feet species overtaking natives following wildland fire. 3 Meadows at lower elevations are much more susceptible to <6,500 feet invasive species overtaking natives following wildland fire. 19. Wet meadow I 1 Wet meadows are at low risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire. Their moisture helps native species compete with invasive species. 20. Barren n/a n/a Not burnable 21. Lodgepole/ IV 2 Aspen is declining throughout Utah due to the decreased fire aspen frequencies. There is only a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components since it often successfully sprouts following fire. 22. Ponderosa I 3 There have been many missed fire regimes and high potential for pine/ invasive species due to lower elevations where these forests occur. mountain shrub Fire intervals have greatly decreased leading to higher potential for severe fires. 23. Spruce- III 1 There are few missed fire regimes and few invasive concerns due fir/mountain shrub to the high elevations where this mix of forests and shrublands occur. 24. Mountain III 2 Mountain fir/mountain shrub communities have been moderately fir/mountain shrub altered from the historical due to lengthened fire intervals. These areas are found on more moist sites at higher elevations, and are at less risk for invasive species potential. 25. Aspen/ conifer IV 2 Aspen is declining throughout Utah due to the decreased fire frequencies. There is only a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components since it often successfully sprouts following fire. 26. Mountain IV 2 Mountain riparian typically occurs at higher elevations where riparian invasive species are less problematic and fire intervals are less departed compared to lower elevations. 27. Lowland IV 3 Lowland riparian systems are particularly vulnerable to invasive

September 2005 Appendix D D-4

GAP Vegetation Fire Condition Rational for Condition Class Characterization Code Regime Class riparian species (tamarisk). These systems generally have also had more grazing pressure and vegetation attributes are highly altered from historical patterns. 28. Cloud n/a n/a Not burnable 29. Lava n/a n/a Not burnable 30. Agriculture n/a n/a Not burnable 31. Urban n/a n/a Not burnable 32. Salt desert V 3 Fire intervals have greatly increased due to cheatgrass invasion in scrub these types. Many of these types are at extremely high risk of converting to cheatgrass following fire. 33. Desert I 3 Desert grasslands normally occur at lower elevations where they grassland are much more susceptible to invasive species overtaking natives following wildland fire. 34. Blackbrush V 2 Historically fire did not burn in this community. In some areas, invasive weeds such as cheatgrass and red brome have increased fire risk, and if a fire occurs may take over the site. Blackbrush plants do not resprout. 35. Creosote/ V 2 Historically fire did not burn in this community. In some areas, bursage invasive weeds such as cheatgrass and red brome have increase fire risk, and if a fire occurs may take over the site. Creosote/bursage plants do not resprout. 36. Greasewood V 3 Fire intervals have greatly increased due to cheatgrass invasion in these types. Many of these types are at extremely high risk of converting to cheatgrass following fire. 37. Pickleweed n/a n/a Not burnable barrens 38. Wetland n/a n/a Not burnable

2.1 HISTORIC FIRE RETURN INTERVALS Fire return intervals were estimated based on information in FEIS, Bradley and others (1992) and Paysen and others (2000) to determine the Fire Return Interval (FRI) for all vegetation types that comprise >1% of the planning area. These vegetation types include: salt desert scrub, pinyon and juniper, sagebrush, grassland, blackbrush, and mountain shrub. There are several assumptions made in this analysis that lead to limitations in applying the results. However, the analysis is meant to show an estimate of acres that were naturally burned in pre- settlement/historic times. The goal of determining such an amount is to guide current treatment objectives and determine the sustainability of current and future actions.

The assumptions made in this analysis are described below: • Only one FRI is applied for each vegetation type and this FRI is constant for vegetation types across the state. In reality, the true FRI encompasses a wide range of years that fires historically burned on the landscape. Further, the FRI is often difficult to determine for vegetation types that do not record fire scars, which is the case for most of Utah BLM’s vegetation types. The FRI was determined based on analysis of existing research and one number was selected for the sake of this simple exercise.

September 2005 Appendix D D-5

• GAP vegetation actually maps the existing vegetation, not the historical or pre-settlement condition. It is known that there have been significant vegetation alterations since historical times. However, we do not know the extent or severity of most of these alterations. For the sake of this analysis, we assumed that current vegetation was somewhat similar to historic vegetation. Although we know this is false, the results should be in the approximate range of what occurred historically. For example, sagebrush was “lost” to pinyon and juniper, but they share a similar FRI in this analysis. For further explanation, see the bullet below. • Pinyon and juniper woodland are assumed to be “encroached” rather than old-growth. Old- growth pinyon and juniper woodland has a FRI >200 years (Romme et al. 2002). However, it is estimated that only around 10 percent of the existing pinyon-juniper (Miller and Wigand 1994) is considered old-growth. For the purposes of this analysis, a more frequent FRI is used to approximate the historical FRI where juniper currently resides (in areas historically dominated by sagebrush and/or grasslands). Table D.2 Calculations to Estimate Historic Acreage Burned in Wildfires

Veg. Type FRI BLM Acres in Planning Area Annual Burned Acres Box Elder Salt Desert Scrub 150 389,901 2,599 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 56,815 1,623 Sagebrush 35 194,233 5,550 Grass 35 134,570 3,845 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 4,729 95 Total 780,248 13,712 Cedar, Beaver, Garfield Antimony Salt Desert Scrub 150 71,765 478 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 534,974 15,285 Sagebrush 35 290,655 8,304 Grass 35 70,510 2,015 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 49,449 989 Total 1,017,353 27,071 Dixie/St. George Salt Desert Scrub 150 69,571 464 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 200,455 5,727 Sagebrush 35 17,625 504 Grass 35 30,636 875 Blackbrush 150 162,271 1,082 Mtn. Shrub 50 50,168 1,003 Total 530,726 9,655 Escalante Salt Desert Scrub 150 961 6 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 17,189 491 Sagebrush 35 5,355 153 Grass 35 2,975 85 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 695 14 Total 27,175 749 Forest Salt Desert Scrub 150 1,812 12

September 2005 Appendix D D-6

Veg. Type FRI BLM Acres in Planning Area Annual Burned Acres Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 25,273 722 Sagebrush 35 17,131 489 Grass 35 22,440 641 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 207 4 Total 66,863 1,868 Grand Salt Desert Scrub 150 593,794 3,959 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 546,406 15,615 Sagebrush 35 210,416 6,012 Grass 35 168,696 4,820 Blackbrush 150 205,667 1,371 Mtn. Shrub 50 75,752 1,515 Total 1,800,731 33,292 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Salt Desert Scrub 150 469,431 3,130 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 690,611 19,732 Sagebrush 35 260,655 7,447 Grass 35 269,022 7,686 Blackbrush 150 75,311 502 Mtn. Shrub 50 38,484 770 Total 1,803,514 39,267 Henry Mountain Salt Desert Scrub 150 436,756 2,912 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 159,503 4,557 Sagebrush 35 62,123 1,775 Grass 35 393,862 11,253 Blackbrush 150 275,081 1,834 Mtn. Shrub 50 21,201 424 Total 1,348,526 22,755 House Range Salt Desert Scrub 150 1,777,405 11,849 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 246,789 7,051 Sagebrush 35 447,241 12,778 Grass 35 138,591 3,960 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 7,680 154 Total 2,617,706 35,792 Mountain Valley Salt Desert Scrub 150 18,781 59 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 227,369 6,496

September 2005 Appendix D D-7

Veg. Type FRI BLM Acres in Planning Area Annual Burned Acres Sagebrush 35 101,612 2,903 Grass 35 45,435 1,298 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 10,744 215 Total 403,941 10,971 Paria Salt Desert Scrub 150 4,051 27 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 8,175 234 Sagebrush 35 3,158 90 Grass 35 8,134 232 Blackbrush 150 10,998 73 Mtn. Shrub 50 193 4 Total 34,709 660 Park City Salt Desert Scrub 150 0 0 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 0 0 Sagebrush 35 31 1 Grass 35 34 1 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 14 0 Total 79 2 Parker Mountain Salt Desert Scrub 150 30 0 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 98,356 2,810 Sagebrush 35 20,760 593 Grass 35 3,790 108 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 5,785 116 Total 128,721 3,627 Pinyon Salt Desert Scrub 150 116,148 774 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 668,221 19,092 Sagebrush 35 312,510 8,929 Grass 35 98,018 2,801 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 4,850 97 Total 1,199,747 31,693 Pony Express Salt Desert Scrub 150 636,666 4,244 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 249,834 7,138 Sagebrush 35 362,261 10,350

September 2005 Appendix D D-8

Veg. Type FRI BLM Acres in Planning Area Annual Burned Acres Grass 35 277,722 7,935 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 27,943 559 Total 1,554,426 30,226 Randolph Salt Desert Scrub 150 5 0 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 3,685 105 Sagebrush 35 139,064 3,973 Grass 35 17,049 487 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 2,850 57 Total 162,653 4,622 San Juan Salt Desert Scrub 150 290,913 1,939 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 601,700 17,191 Sagebrush 35 301,236 8,607 Grass 35 225,447 6,441 Blackbrush 150 314,824 2,099 Mtn. Shrub 50 20,306 406 Total 1,754,426 36,683 Vermilion Salt Desert Scrub 150 30,130 201 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 70,544 2,016 Sagebrush 35 32,568 931 Grass 35 53,091 1,517 Blackbrush 150 1,456 10 Mtn. Shrub 50 28,277 566 Total 216,066 5,241 Warm Springs Salt Desert Scrub 150 1,058,962 7,060 Pinyon Juniper 35 261,368 7,468 Sagebrush 35 457,585 13,074 Grass 35 266,644 7,618 Blackbrush 150 0 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 2,837 57 Total 2,047,396 35,277 Zion Salt Desert Scrub 150 383 3 Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 35 62,941 1,798 Sagebrush 35 24,865 710 Grass 35 8,753 250

September 2005 Appendix D D-9

Veg. Type FRI BLM Acres in Planning Area Annual Burned Acres Blackbrush 150 25 0 Mtn. Shrub 50 18,902 378 Total 115,869 3,139

3.1 UTAH STATEWIDE FIRE ASSESSMENT PROJECT

The Utah Statewide Fire Assessment Project (1998b) was developed by the BLM to define and rank hazards, risks and values across Utah (see Figure D below). The results of this project establish a platform for agencies to work together to manage fire in ways that address the needs of communities- at-risk, promote ecosystem health, and promote firefighter and public safety. Further, this assessment has been used to help prioritize fire management actions, and as a public information and communication tool.

The following spatial themes were combined to create the fire assessment map: • Fire Density – point locations of fires from 1986-1996 • Fire Hazard – Utah GAP vegetation classifications • Population Density – 1990 Census data

Although this map is a useful, concise description of Utah’s fire hazards, risks and values, there are some limitations in applying the information. The data in the map uses dated information and the map was developed using coarse-scale vegetation data. As vegetation conditions change, or as vegetation data is refined, the results from this analysis will vary. However, it is likely that current trends would be similar if current fire locations, vegetation and population data were analyzed.

Figure D. Utah Fire Risk Assessment.

September 2005 Appendix D D-10

September 2005 Appendix D D-11

September 2005 Appendix D D-12

APPENDIX E: PREHISTORIC, HISTORIC, AND TRADITIONAL CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS SITE TYPES IN UTAH

PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Burial Evidence of human burial or interment, usually consisting of human bone or fragments, as well as funeral objects.

Ceramic Scatter A location of scattered broken pottery shards, usually from a single vessel.

Hunting & Gathering Camp A temporary or seasonal habitation area that is associated with hunting and gathering of floral or fauna.

Isolated Artifacts Artifacts, such as lithic tools and ceramic shards that lack association to a site.

Lithic Scatter A location used for the manufacture of stone tools, as evidenced by the presences of lithic flakes, cores, and discarded broken tools.

Midden A refuse area usually associated with occupation sites, such as extended campsites and villages.

Open Camp Site A temporary habitation area usually associated with movement across the landscape.

Petroglyphs Designs that have been pecked, etched, or scratched into a rock face.

Pictographs Designs that have been painted onto a rock face.

Quarry/Lithic Source A geological location, usually an outcrop, which served as a source for raw lithic material used for the manufacture of stone tools, paints, or ceramics.

Rock Alignments A series of stones laid in alignments that are not naturally occurring geological features.

Rock Cairn A trail marker, monument, or possible religious structure consisting of stones placed in a pile or cluster.

Rock Shelter A habitation area located within a rock shelter or cave.

Village A place of habitation for several families or more, who had multiple generations dwelling in the same area over a long period of time.

HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Cemetery Historic burials that are usually located in a formal area of interment that have been laid out and enclosed by a fence. The graves are marked by headstones.

Grave One or more historic burials that are usually located along trails or in isolated areas as opposed to cemeteries that are more formal areas of interment. The graves may or may not be marked with headstones.

September 2005 Appendix E E-1

Historic Campsite Evidence of short-term occupation by one or more persons that may be associated with recreation, travel, mining, ranching/farming, grazing, and hunting.

Homestead A complex of structures that are associated with the exploitation of a new resource area for farming or ranching.

House/Cabin Usually a single dwelling site associated with physical remains and features from a single person or family occupation.

Military Activities Sites that are associated with military training, bombing practices, gunnery ranges, maneuver areas, camps, or air bases. Artifacts vary and may include targets, structures, ordnance, ordnance fragments, missile and aircraft debris, and other military equipment or refuse.

Mining Site Evidence of mining activities, such as mine shafts, addits, tailings/spoil piles, milling equipment, habitation sites, trams, ore cars and tracks, trash dumps, and other mining equipment.

Ranch/Farm A well-established complex of structures devoted to farming and/or ranching activities. Associated features, such as hay derricks, windmills and watering ponds, corrals, fences, and satellite ranch houses, may be scattered across the landscape.

Road or Trail Evidence of historic use for transportation, such as wagon trails, pack trains, cattle drive trails, old signs, abandoned road segments, asphalt, and stone or wooden culverts, as well as abandoned bridges or abutments.

Tin Can Scatter A concentration of tin cans that usually forms a dump that may have been scattered by the elements and is usually associated with a long-term campsite, habitation area, or other human endeavor.

Town Site An amalgamation of structures and other physical remains of occupation by a substantial population.

Trash Dump/Scatter A concentration of various artifacts, such as ceramics, glass, metal, bone, and leather, which usually forms a dump. The material may have been scattered by the elements or human activity and is usually associated with a long-term campsite, habitation area, or other human endeavor.

TRADITIONAL CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS SITES

Ceremonial Site A prehistoric or historic area of sacred character. Physical evidence of ceremonial activities are usually present in the form of dance patterns, vision quest circles, rock cairns, etc.

Sacred Areas A prehistoric or historic area of sacred character. Evidence of physical activities is not always present. Certain mountains, power places, and vision quest locations are examples of sacred areas.

Traditional Use Area An area of traditional use for hunting, gathering of food or medicinal plants, fishing, or traveling.

September 2005 Appendix E E-2

APPENDIX F: ESA-RELATED SPECIES FOUND WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

†† Vegetation Community Field Office with Effects Common Name Scientific Name (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† Determination††† Federal Status flowering plants only)

Flowering Plants (17 species) Dwarf bear-poppy Arctomecon humilis E Blackbrush St. George LAA (sandy, clay, alluvium) Shivwitz milk-vetch Astragalus E Pinyon and Juniper Woodland St. George LAA ampullarioides Blackbrush (clay, gypsiferous) Holmgren milk- Astragalus E Blackbrush St. George LAA vetch holmgreniorum (limestone) Kodachrome Lesquerella E Pinyon and Juniper Woodland GSENM LAA bladderpod tumulosa Grassland (shale) San Rafael cactus Pediocactus E Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Richfield LAA despainii (limestone) Barneby reed- Schoenocrambe E Salt Desert Scrub Richfield NLAA mustard barnebyi (clay) Wright fishhook Sclerocactus E Salt Desert Scrub Richfield NLAA cactus wrightiae Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Sagebrush Grassland (gypsiferous) Welsh’s milkweed* Asclepias welshii T Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Kanab NLAA Sagebrush Ponderosa Pine (sandy) Jones cycladenia Cycladenia jonesii T Salt Desert Scrub Moab, Kanab, NLAA (=humilis) Pinyon and Juniper Woodland GSENM (sandy) Maguire daisy Erigeron maguirei T Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Richfield, Kanab, NLAA Mountain Shrub GSENM Ponderosa Pine

September 2005 Appendix F F-1

†† Vegetation Community Field Office with Effects Common Name Scientific Name (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† Determination††† Federal Status flowering plants only)

Riparian/Wetland (sandstone) Siler pincushion Pediocactus sileri T Salt Desert Scrub St. George, Kanab, LAA cactus Blackbrush GSENM (calcareous, gypsiferous, sandy, shale) Winkler cactus Pediocactus winkleri T Salt Desert Scrub Richfield NLAA Pinyon and Juniper Woodland (clay, sandstone, sandy) Ute ladies’ tresses Spiranthes diluvialis T Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Richfield, LAA (H) (hanging gardens) Fillmore, Kanab, GSENM Last chance Townsendia aprica T Salt Desert Scrub Richfield LAA townsendia Pinyon and Juniper Woodland (clay) Rabbit Valley gilia (= Gilia caespitosa C Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Richfield NCL Wonderland Alice- Mountain Shrub flower) (gypsiferous, sandstone) Goose Creek milk- Astragalus anserinus P Salt Desert Scrub Salt Lake NCL vetch Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Sagebrush (igneous, sandy) Mussentuchit gilia Gilia (=Aliciella) P Salt Desert Scrub Richfield NCL tenuis Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Grassland Mountain Shrub (limestone) Birds (6 species) Southwestern Empidonax traillii E Riparian/Wetland Richfield, Moab, LAA willow flycatcher extimus Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM California condor Gymnogyps E, Salt Desert Scrub Richfield, Moab, LAA (H, Exp) californianus 10(j) Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Monticello, Kanab,

September 2005 Appendix F F-2

†† Vegetation Community Field Office with Effects Common Name Scientific Name (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† Determination††† Federal Status flowering plants only)

Sagebrush Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Bald eagle Haliaeetus T Sagebrush Salt Lake, Richfield, LAA (Br) leucocephalus Mixed Conifer Fillmore, Moab, Riparian/Wetland Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Mexican spotted Strix occidentalis T Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Richfield, Moab, LAA owl* lucida Sagebrush Monticello, Kanab, (Br) Riparian/Wetland Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Western yellow- Coccyzus C Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Richfield, NCL billed cuckoo americanus Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Gunnison sage Centrocercus C, P Sagebrush Moab, Monticello NCL grouse minimus Mammals (6 species) Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E, Sagebrush Salt Lake, Moab, LAA (H, Exp, Un) 10(j) Grassland Monticello Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T Mixed Conifer Salt Lake LAA (H) Utah prairie dog Cynomys parvidens T Sagebrush Richfield, Fillmore, LAA Grassland Kanab, Cedar City, GSENM White-tailed prairie Cynomys leucurus P Sagebrush Salt Lake, Moab NCL dog Gunnison prairie Cynomys gunnisoni P Grassland Moab, Monticello NCL dog Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus P Sagebrush Salt Lake, Richfield, NCL idahoensis Fillmore, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM

September 2005 Appendix F F-3

†† Vegetation Community Field Office with Effects Common Name Scientific Name (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† Determination††† Federal Status flowering plants only)

Fish (8 species) June sucker* Chasmistes liorus E Water Salt Lake NLAA (I) Humpback chub* Gila cypha E Water Richfield, Moab, LAA (H) Monticello, Kanab, GSENM Bonytail* Gila elegans E Water Richfield, Moab, LAA (H) Monticello, Kanab, GSENM Virgin River chub* Gila seminude E Water St. George LAA (=robusta) Woundfin* Plagopterus E Water St. George LAA argentissimus Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius E Water Richfield, Moab, LAA pikeminnow Monticello, Kanab, (=squawfish)* (H) GSENM Razorback sucker* Xyrauchen texanus E Water Richfield, Moab, LAA (H) Monticello, Kanab, GSENM Lahontan cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki T Water Salt Lake LAA trout (I) henshawi Invertebrates (3 species) Kanab ambersnail** Oxyloma haydeni E Riparian/Wetland Kanab NLAA kanabensis Fat-whorled Stagnicola C Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake NCL pondsnail bonnevillensis Coral Pink Sand Cicindela limbata C, P Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Kanab NCL Dunes tiger beetle albissima Sagebrush Ponderosa Pine Reptiles (1 species) Desert Tortoise, Gopherus agassizii T Blackbrush St. George LAA Mojave population*

September 2005 Appendix F F-4

†Suitable habitat may or may not occur on BLM-administered land within the noted field office; the suitable habitat may occur on private, state or other federal land within the boundaries of that field office. Suitable habitat does not denote the actual presence of species.

††E=Endangered; E, 10(j)= Endangered, Experimental Population; T=Threatened; C=Candidate, P=Petitioned

DEFINITIONS FOR SPECIES STATUS: • Endangered species are those species or distinct populations listed by the USFWS that have a probability of worldwide extinction. • Threatened species are those species or distinct populations listed by the USFWS that are threatened with becoming endangered. • Candidate and Petitioned species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. However, the USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to Candidate species that are under active consideration by the USFWS for federal listing. For petitioned species, outside entities have submitted petitions to the USFWS to consider these species for federal listing. Candidate or Petitioned species could be proposed or listed during the life of the Proposed Action for this project. • Species designated as “10(j)” are considered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be “experimental and non-essential populations” within designated use areas in Utah, as provided by Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. This designation provides greater management flexibility. For the BLM, 10(j) populations of federally listed species are equivalent to a “proposed” status.

†††LAA=Likely to Adversely Affect; NLAA=Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NCL=Not Contribute to Federal Listing (see Section 4.2.4) a DEFINITIONS FOR NOTATIONS: • Species with an asterisk (*) have designated critical habitat. Species with a double asterisk (**) have proposed critical habitat. • Br—Species known to nest or breed within the planning area. • H—Species or populations existed in historical locations (i.e., the current range or number of individuals or populations has decreased when compared to historical standards). For extirpated species, all management areas are considered historical. • Exp—Management areas contain designated use areas for experimental, nonessential populations designated under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. • I—Management areas contain introduced, refugia populations of the species. • Un—Management areas contain unconfirmed historical locations of the species.

September 2005 Appendix F F-5

APPENDIX G: BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES FOUND WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) Flowering Plants (83 species) Chatterley's onion Allium geyeri var. SPS Pinyon and Juniper Monticello chatterleyi Woodland Mountain Shrub Ponderosa Pine (sandstone) Lori's columbine Aquilegia loriae SPS Riparian/Wetland Kanab, GSENM (sandstone) Grouse Creek Arabis falcatoria SPS Grassland Salt Lake arabis (chip rock) Gumbo milk-vetch Astragalus SPS Salt Desert Scrub Kanab, St. George, ampullarius Blackbrush GSENM (clay) Cronquist milk- Astragalus SPS Salt Desert Scrub Monticello vetch cronquistii Blackbrush (clay, sandstone, sandy) Pohl’s milk-vetch Astragalus SPS Salt Desert Scrub Salt Lake lentiginosus var. Sagebrush pohlii (sandy) Pink egg milk- Astragalus oophorus SPS Salt Desert Scrub Cedar City vetch var. lonchocalyx Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Sagebrush (sandy) Peabody's milk- Astragalus SPS Salt Desert Scrub Moab vetch pubentissimus var. Pinyon and Juniper peabodianus Woodland (sandstone, shale) Cisco milk-vetch Astragalus sabulosus SPS Salt Desert Scrub (shale) Moab var. sabulosus Escarpment milk- Astragalus SPS Salt Desert Scrub Kanab, St. George, vetch striatiflorus Pinyon and Juniper GSENM Woodland Ponderosa Pine (sandy) Basalt milk-vetch Astragalus SPS Pinyon and Juniper Richfield (Silver milkvetch) subcinereus var. Woodland basalticus Ponderosa Pine (igneous) Current milk- Astragalus uncialis SPS Salt Desert Scrub Fillmore vetch (limestone) Dunes four-wing Atriplex canescens SPS Salt Desert Scrub Fillmore saltbush var. gigantea Pinyon and Juniper Woodland (sandy) Baird's camissonia Camissonia bairdii SPS Pinyon and Juniper St. George

September 2005 Appendix G G-1

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) Woodland Blackbrush (clay) Slender camissonia Camissonia exilis SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, GSENM Woodland Sagebrush Grassland (calcareous, clay, gypsiferous, sandy) Gould's camissonia Camissonia gouldii SPS Pinyon and Juniper St. George Woodland Sagebrush (igneous) Ownbey thistle Cirsium ownbeyi SPS Pinyon and Juniper Fillmore Woodland Sagebrush Riparian/Wetland (sandy) Virgin thistle Cirsium virginensis SPS Riparian/Wetland St. George (hanging gardens) Mound cryptanth Cryptantha SPS Salt Desert Scrub Fillmore, Cedar City compacta (dolomitic, gravelly loam) Creutzfeldt-flower Cryptantha SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield creutzfeldtii (clay, shale) Pipe Springs Cryptantha SPS Salt Desert Scrub St. George cryptanth semiglabra Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Sagebrush (clay) Small spring Cymopterus acaulis SPS Salt Desert Scrub Salt Lake, Fillmore parsley var. parvus Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Sagebrush (sandy) Pinnate spring Cymopterus beckii SPS Pinyon and Juniper Richfield, Monticello, parsley (Beck Woodland Kanab, GSENM biscuitroot) Mountain Shrub Ponderosa Pine (sandy) Hole-in-the-rock Dalea flavescens SPS Blackbrush Monticello, Kanab, prairieclover var. epica (sandstone, sandy) GSENM Kass rockcress Draba kassii SPS Pinyon and Juniper Salt Lake Woodland Mountain Shrub Mixed Conifer (quartzite) Nevada Epilobium SPS Pinyon and Juniper Fillmore, Cedar City, St. willowherb nevadense Woodland George Mountain Shrub (limestone, quartzite) Kachina daisy Erigeron SPS Ponderosa Pine Monticello

September 2005 Appendix G G-2

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) kachinensis Riparian/Wetland Aspen (sandstone) Cronquist Eriogonum SPS Salt Desert Scrub Kanab, GSENM buckwheat corymbosum var. Pinyon and Juniper cronquistii Woodland (granitic) Big Flattop Eriogonum SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield buckwheat (Smith corymbosum var. Grassland wild buckwheat) smithii (sandstone, sandy) Ibex buckwheat Eriogonum SPS Salt Desert Scrub Fillmore (sand-loving nummulare var. Pinyon and Juniper buckwheat) ammophilum Woodland (alluvium, sandy) Scarlet buckwheat Eriogonum SPS Pinyon and Juniper Cedar City phoeniceum Woodland Mountain Shrub (igneous) Bluff buckwheat Eriogonum SPS Salt Desert Scrub Monticello racemosum var. (sandy) nobile Frisco buckwheat Eriogonum SPS Pinyon and Juniper Cedar City soredium Woodland Sagebrush (limestone) Utah spurge Euphorbia SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield, Kanab, nephradenia Blackbrush GSENM (clay, sandy) Cataract gilia Gilia latifolia var. SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield, Monticello, imperialis (sandstone, sandy) Kanab, GSENM Alcove bog-orchid Habenaria SPS Riparian/Wetland Moab, Monticello, zothecina (hanging gardens) Kanab, GSENM Deep Creek Hackelia ibapensis SPS Mountain Shrub Salt Lake, Fillmore stickseed Mixed Conifer (granitic, quartzite) Pine Valley Haplopappus SPS Mountain Shrub Fillmore, St. George goldenbush crispus Mixed Conifer Ponderosa Pine Aspen (gravelly loam, sandy) Greenwood's Haplopappus SPS Riparian/Wetland Richfield goldenbush lignumviridis (sandy) Cedar Breaks Haplopappus zionis SPS Mixed Conifer Kanab, Cedar City, goldenbush Ponderosa Pine GSENM (limestone) Paria iris Iris pariensis SPS Grassland Kanab, GSENM (sandy) Ostler's Ivesia Ivesia shockleyi var. SPS Pinyon and Juniper Cedar City ostleri Woodland Ponderosa Pine (quartzite) Cliff jamesia Jamesia americana SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, St. George,

September 2005 Appendix G G-3

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) var. zionis Woodland GSENM Mountain Shrub Ponderosa Pine (hanging gardens, sandstone) Four-petal jamesia Jamesia tetrapetala SPS Sagebrush Fillmore Mountain Shrub (limestone) Claron Lepidium montanum SPS Pinyon and Juniper Richfield, Kanab, pepperplant var. claronense Woodland GSENM Sagebrush Ponderosa Pine (limestone) Ostler pepperplant Lepidium ostleri SPS Pinyon and Juniper Cedar City Woodland (limestone) Clark's lomatium Lomatium SPS Mountain Shrub St. George graveolens var. Ponderosa Pine clarkii (limestone, sandstone) Canyonlands Lomatium latilobum SPS Salt Desert Scrub Moab, Monticello lomatium (Broad- Pinyon and Juniper leaved biscuitroot) Woodland (sandstone) Cutler's lupine Lupinus caudatus SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, GSENM var. cutleri Woodland (unspecified) Dolores rushpink Lygodesmia SPS Pinyon and Juniper Moab grandiflora var. Woodland doloresensis Sagebrush Blackbrush (alluvium, sandy) Entrada rushpink Lygodesmia SPS Salt Desert Scrub Moab grandiflora var. Pinyon and Juniper entrada Woodland (sandy) Shultz blazing star Mentzelia SPS Salt Desert Scrub Moab shultziorum (clay) Murdock's evening Oenothera SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, GSENM primrose murdockii Woodland (clay) Trotter oreoxis Oreoxis trotteri SPS Salt Desert Scrub Moab Pinyon and Juniper Woodland (sandstone) Barneby's Pediomelum SPS Pinyon and Juniper St. George breadroot aromaticum var. Woodland barnebyi (clay) Tuhy's breadroot Pediomelum SPS Salt Desert Scrub Monticello aromaticum var. Pinyon and Juniper tuhyi Woodland (sandstone, sandy) Kane breadroot Pediomelum SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, GSENM epipsilum Woodland

September 2005 Appendix G G-4

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) (clay) Sandloving Penstemon SPS Mountain Shrub Kanab, St. George, penstemon ammophilus Ponderosa Pine GSENM (sandy) Neese narrowleaf Penstemon SPS Salt Desert Scrub Fillmore penstemon angustifolius var. Pinyon and Juniper dulcis Woodland Sagebrush (sandy) Franklin's Penstemon franklinii SPS Salt Desert Scrub Cedar City penstemon Sagebrush Grassland (sandy) Idaho penstemon Penstemon SPS Pinyon and Juniper Salt Lake idahoensis Woodland Sagebrush (limestone, shale) Pinyon penstemon Penstemon pinorum SPS Salt Desert Scrub Cedar City, St. George (Pine Valley Mtn Pinyon and Juniper penstemon) Woodland Sagebrush Mountain Shrub (limestone) Alcove rock daisy Perityle specuicola SPS Salt Desert Scrub Moab, Monticello (sandstone) Parry's petalonyx Petalonyx parryi SPS Salt Desert Scrub St. George Blackbrush (clay, gypsiferous) Cronquist's Phacelia SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, GSENM phacelia cronquistiana Woodland Sagebrush Ponderosa Pine (clay) Bluff phacelia Phacelia indecora SPS Salt Desert Scrub Monticello Atwood's pretty Phacelia pulchella SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, GSENM var. atwoodii Woodland Sagebrush Mountain Shrub (clay) Utah phacelia Phacelia utahensis SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield (clay, gypsiferous, shale) Cottam cinquefoil Potentilla cottamii SPS Mixed Conifer Salt Lake Fillmore (quartzite) House Range Primula cusickiana SPS Mountain Shrub Fillmore primrose var. domensis (limestone) (Primula domensis) Jones indigo-bush Psorothamnus SPS Salt Desert Scrub Moab (glandular indigo- polydenius var. Grassland bush) jonesii (sandy, shale) Chinle chia Salvia columbariae SPS Pinyon and Juniper Kanab, GSENM var. argillacea Woodland Blackbrush (alluvium, clay, gypsiferous)

September 2005 Appendix G G-5

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) Jones' globemallow Sphaeralcea SPS Salt Desert Scrub Fillmore, Cedar City caespitosa var. Grassland caespitosa (calcareous, dolomitic) Smoky Mountain Sphaeralcea SPS Salt Desert Scrub Kanab, GSENM globemallow grossulariifolia var. Pinyon and Juniper fumariensis Woodland (=Sphaeralcea Grassland fumariensis) Blackbrush (alluvium) Jane's globemallow Sphaeralcea janeae SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield, Fillmore, (sandy) Moab, Monticello Psoralea Sphaeralcea SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield, Moab globemallow psoraloides Pinyon and Juniper Woodland (conglomerate, gypsiferous, limestone, sandstone, shale) White River Swertia gypsicola SPS Salt Desert Scrub Fillmore swertia (gypsiferous) Bicknell Thelesperma SPS Pinyon and Juniper Richfield thelesperma windhamii Woodland (Alpine (= T. subnudum var. Mountain Shrub greenthread) alpinum) Mixed Conifer (clay, limestone, sandstone, sandy) Kanab thelypody Thelypodiopsis SPS Salt Desert Scrub Kanab, GSENM ambigua var. erecta Pinyon and Juniper Woodland (clay, shale) Sevier townsendia Townsendia jonesii SPS Salt Desert Scrub Richfield, Fillmore var. lutea Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Sagebrush (clay, shale) Frisco clover Trifolium SPS Pinyon and Juniper Fillmore, Cedar City friscanum (=T. Woodland andersonii var. (igneous, limestone) friscanum) Tropic goldeneye Viguiera soliceps SPS Salt Desert Scrub Kanab, GSENM (clay, shale) Rock violet Viola lithion SPS Mixed Conifer Salt Lake Aspen (limestone, quartzite) Birds (13 species) Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles CA Mixed Conifer Salt Lake, Richfield, Riparian/Wetland Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Grasshopper Ammodramus WSC Grassland Salt Lake, Richfield sparrow savannarum Short-eared owl Asio flammeus WSC Grassland Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St.

September 2005 Appendix G G-6

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) George, GSENM Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia WSC Grassland Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WSC Sagebrush Grassland Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Black swift Cypseloides niger WSC Mountain Shrub Salt Lake, Richfield, Mixed Conifer Cedar City, St. George Riparian/Wetland Aspen Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Monticello, St. George Lewis’s Melanerpes lewis WSC Pinyon and Juniper Salt Lake, Richfield, woodpecker Woodland Fillmore, Moab, Mountain Shrub Monticello, Kanab, Mixed Conifer Cedar City, St. George, Ponderosa Pine GSENM Riparian/Wetland Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WSC Grassland Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM American white Pelecanus WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Richfield, pelican erythrorhynchos Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, St. George, GSENM Three-toed Picoides tridactylus WSC Mixed Conifer Salt Lake, Richfield, woodpecker Aspen Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Greater sage Centrocercus WSC Sagebrush Salt Lake, Richfield, grouse urophasianus Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Sharp-tailed Tympanuchus WSC Grassland Salt Lake grouse phasianellus Mammals (11 species) Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake Townsend’s big- Corynorhinus WSC Mountain Shrub Salt Lake, Richfield, eared bat townsendii Mixed Conifer Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Spotted bat Euderma maculatum WSC Salt Desert Scrub Salt Lake, Richfield,

September 2005 Appendix G G-7

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) Mountain Shrub Moab, Monticello, Mixed Conifer Kanab, Cedar City, St. Ponderosa Pine George, GSENM Allen’s big-eared Idionycteris phyllotis WSC Mountain Shrub Richfield, Moab, bat Mixed Conifer Monticello, Kanab, St. Ponderosa Pine George, GSENM Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii WSC Mixed Conifer Salt Lake, St. George Riparian/Wetland Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WSC Salt Desert Scrub Salt Lake, Richfield, Pinyon and Juniper Fillmore, Moab, Woodland Monticello, Kanab, Mixed Conifer Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis WSC Mountain Shrub Richfield, Fillmore, Mixed Conifer Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Silky pocket Perognathus flavus WSC Grassland Monticello mouse Dark kangaroo Microdipodops WSC Sagebrush Salt Lake, Fillmore, mouse megacephalus Cedar City Mexican vole Microtus mexicanus WSC Grassland Monticello Kit fox Vulpes macrotis WSC Salt Desert Scrub Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Fish (10 species) Bonneville Oncorhynchus clarki CA Water Salt Lake, Richfield, cutthroat trout utah Fillmore, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Colorado Rvr Oncorhynchus clarki CA Water Salt Lake, Richfield, cutthroat trout pleuriticus Kanab, GSENM Virgin spinedace Lepidomeda CA Water St. George mollispinis mollinspinis Least chub Iotichthys CA Water Salt Lake, Fillmore, phlegethontis Cedar City Leatherside chub Gila copei WSC Water Salt Lake, Richfield, Fillmore, Kanab, GSENM Roundtail chub Gila robusta CA Water Salt Lake, Richfield, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, GSENM Desert sucker Catostomus clarki WSC Water Kanab, St. George, GSENM Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus CA Water Salt Lake, Richfield, Moab, Monticello, Kanab, St. George, GSENM Flannelmouth Catostomus latipinnis CA Water Salt Lake, Richfield,

September 2005 Appendix G G-8

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) sucker Moab, Monticello, Kanab, St. George, GSENM Yellowstone Oncorhynchus clarki WSC Water Salt Lake cutthroat trout bouvieri Invertebrates (16 species) Eureka Oreohelix eurekensis WSC Pinyon and Juniper Salt Lake, Fillmore, mountainsnail Woodland Moab Sagebrush Grassland Mountain Shrub Mixed Conifer Aspen Lyrate Oreohelix haydeni WSC Sagebrush Salt Lake mountainsnail Mountain Shrub Yavapai Oreohelix yavapai WSC Mountain Shrub Monticello mountainsnail Mixed Conifer Aspen Cloaked physa Physa megalochlamys WSC Riparian/Wetland Fillmore Water Utah physa Physella utahensis WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Richfield, Water Fillmore, Kanab, GSENM Longitudinal gland Pyrgulopsis anguina WSC Riparian/Wetland Fillmore pyrg Water Desert springsnail Pyrgulopsis deserta WSC Riparian/Wetland St. George Water Hamlin Valley pyrg Pyrgulopsis WSC Riparian/Wetland Cedar City hamlinensis Water Bifid duct pyrg Pyrgulopsis peculiaris WSC Riparian/Wetland Fillmore Water Bear Lake Pyrgulopsis pilsbryana WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake springsnail Water Black Canyon pyrg Pyrgulopsis plicata WSC Riparian/Wetland Kanab, GSENM Water Sub-globose Snake Pyrgulopsis saxatilis WSC Riparian/Wetland Fillmore pyrg Water Southern Pyrgulopsis transversa WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Richfield Bonneville pyrg Water Northwest Pyrgulopsis variegata WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake Bonneville pyrg Water California floater Anodonta WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Richfield, californiensis Water Fillmore Western pearlshell Margaritifera falcate WSC Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake Water Amphibians (3 species) Boreal Bufo boreas WSC Mixed Conifer Salt Lake, Richfield, (= Western) toad Riparian/Wetland Kanab, GSENM Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus WSC Riparian/Wetland Monticello, Kanab, Cedar City, St. George, GSENM

September 2005 Appendix G G-9

Vegetation Community Field Office with Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status (substrate type identified for Suitable Habitat† flowering plants only) Columbia spotted Rana luteiventris CA Riparian/Wetland Salt Lake, Fillmore. frog Price, Richfield Reptiles (12 species) Zebra-tailed lizard Callisaurus WSC Salt Desert Scrub St. George draconoides Western banded Coleonyx variegates WSC Salt Desert Scrub St. George gecko Pinyon and Juniper Woodland Mountain Shrub Desert iguana Dipsosaurus dorsalis WSC Blackbrush St. George Gila monster Heloderma suspectum WSC Blackbrush St. George Common Sauromalus ater WSC Salt Desert Scrub Monticello, Kanab, chuckwalla Cedar City, St. George, GSENM Desert night lizard Xantusia vigilis WSC Blackbrush Monticello, Kanab, St. George, SENM Sidewinder Crotalus cerastes WSC Salt Desert Scrub St. George Speckled Crotalus mitchellii WSC Salt Desert Scrub St. George rattlesnake Mojave rattlesnake Crotalus scutulatus WSC Salt Desert Scrub St. George Cornsnake Elaphe guttata WSC Riparian/Wetland Moab Smooth Opheodrys vernalis WSC Sagebrush Salt Lake, Moab, greensnake Riparian/Wetland Monticello Western Leptotyphlops humilis WSC Salt Desert Scrub St. George threadsnake

†Suitable habitat may or may not occur on BLM-administered land within the noted field office; the suitable habitat may occur on private, state or other federal land within the boundaries of that field office. Suitable habitat does not denote the actual presence of species. a Species already represented as federally listed, candidate, or petitioned species are not repeated here. Sources of information: Utah Sensitive Species List, December 18, 2003 (State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources); Draft Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Plant Species List for Utah (August 2002). b BLM sensitive species status designations are Conservation Agreement (CA), BLM Wildlife Species of Concern (WSC), and BLM Sensitive Plant Species (SPS). Conservation Agreement species receive special management under a Conservation Agreement in order to preclude the need for listing. Conservation Agreements are voluntary cooperative plans among resource agencies that identify threats to a species and implement conservation measures to proactively conserve and protect species in decline.

September 2005 Appendix G G-10

APPENDIX H: UTAH URBAN WILDLAND INTERFACE COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF FEDERAL LANDS THAT ARE AT HIGH RISK FROM WILDFIRE (DOI, 2001)

FEDERAL REGISTER: AUGUST 17, 2001 VOLUME 66, NUMBER 160 NOTICES PAGE 43383-43435 [WAIS.ACCESS.GPO.GOV]

September 2005 Appendix H H-1

Accord Lakes Boulder Point Adamsville Boulder/Haws Pasture/King Pasture Alpine Bountiful Alta Brianhead Ant Flat Brigham--Collinston Bench Antimony/Antimony Mining Brigham--Willard Bench Apple Valley Brighten Area E. of Fillmore And Holden Brooks Canyon Argyle Ridge/Canyon Brookside/Central Arrowhead Brownie Lakes Aspen Academy Bryants Fork Aspen Highlands Bryce Park Infrastructure Aspen Hills Bryce Woodlands/Long Valley/Canyon Avon--Smithfield Bench Buckeye Resort Baker Canyon Buckhorn Bandanna Ranch Bug Point Bear River Lodge/Christmas Meadow Bull Frog Bear River Nwr Hq/Facilities Burrville Bear Valley Jct. Cainesville Beaver Callao Beaver Dam--Sanpete Cannonville Beaver Mt. Canyon Meadows Beaver Springs/Aspen Meadows Canyon Terrace/Blanding Beryl Castle Valley Best Friends Castle Valley--Grand Big Cottonwood Causey Estates Big Pine Cedar City Big Water/Church Wells/East Clark Bench Cedar Fort Black Hawk Cedar High Lands Black Ridge Interface Cedar Hill Black Ridge Ranches Cedar Hills Blacksmith Fork Cedar Mountain Blue Mountain Ranch Cedar Point Blue Spring Center Creek Blue Springs Center Creek Youth Camp Bluff Centerville Bonanza Chekshani

September 2005 Appendix H H-1

Citation Oil Transfer Elk Meadow Clear Creek--Box Elder Elk Ridge--Sanpete Cloud Rim Elk Ridge--Utah Cougar Canyon Emigration Canyon Cove Fort Ephraim Canyon Experiment Station Covered Bridge Escalante Cove-Richmond Bench Eskdale Currant Ck. Mt. Eureka/Tintic/Mammoth Current Creek Fairview Lakes Daniels Summit Farmington Davis Point/Main Canyon Ferron Canyon Summer Homes Deer Lodge Fillmore Deer Springs Fish Springs Nwr Hq/Facilities Deer Valley Fishlake Summer Homes--Sevier Defas Flaming Gorge Acres, Pines Derffie Creek Forest Gardens Dewey Fort Duchesne Diamond Bar X Garden City/ Bridgerland Diamond Mountain Garden City/ Sweetwater Diamond Valley/Dammeron Garden City/Little Switzerland Dimple Dell Garden City/Swan Creek Docs Beach Garrison Doug Thorley Genola Dove Creek George Town Draper Glendale Dry Fork Gold Hill Duck Creek Area Gooseberry--Sanpete Dugway Gooseberry--Sevier Dutch John Grafton Eagle Estates Grass Valley Eagle Mountain Green Hills East Carbon/Sunnyside Greenville East Fork Bsa Gunlock East Hyrum Hancock Cove/Cedarview East Zion Estates Hanksville Eastside of Sevier Valley Happy Valley Eden Hardware Ranch

September 2005 Appendix H H-2

Harrisburg Kenilworth Hatch Khoosharem Reservoir Haycock Kodachrome Henrieville Kolob Terrace Hideaway Valley Lake Point/Mills Jctn. Highland Lasal High-Low Laverkin Highway 56/Cedar To Pinto Jct. Layton Highway 89 Corridor Lebaron Hilldale Leeds Hobble Creek Lidias Canyon Holiday Lindon Holiday Oaks Little Brush Creek Holiday Park/Alpine Acres Little Cottonwood Home Ranch Little Diamond Fk Horsehead Little Ponderosa Hurricane Little Res. Ibapah Logan Indian Bench Logan Canyon Indian Canyon Long Flat Indian Creek Lund Indian Ridge Mammoth Creek/Tommy Creek/Yellow Pine Indianola Manderfield Inholdings/Park Boundaries Manning Meadows Ireland Meadow Manti Canyon Iron Springs Mantua Iron Town Maple Canyon--Huntsville Island Park Maple Hills Ivins Mapleton Johnson Canyon Meadow Jones Hole Meadow Lake K & J Estates Meadowville Kanab Mia Shalom Kanaraville/Checkshani Milburn Kanosh Milford Kaysville Millers Flat Kelly Canyon Mills

September 2005 Appendix H H-3

Mineral Wash Area Panguitch Minersville Panguitch Lake/Beaver Dam/Clear Creek Modena Panorama Woods Monroe Meadows Parawon Front I-15 Corridor/To Cedar City Monticello Park Admin/Historic District Morgan Park Admin/Park Boundary Motoqua Park City/Deer Valley Mountain Green Park Valley Mountain Meadow Parogonah Mt. Carmel Parowan Mt. Carmel Jct. Partoun Mt. Tabby Springs Pine Canyon Myton Pine Creek Navajo Estates/Summer Homes Pine Hollow Neola/Whiterocks Pine Valley New Castle Pine View New Harmony/New Harmony Heights Pines Ranches/Pine Mt. Nordic Valley Pinto North Creek Pinwillies North Fork Pleasant Grove North Fork Drainage/Cougar Canyon Pleasant View North Ogden Bench Pole Patch North Reservoir Subdivision Ponderosa Estates North Salt Lake Ponderosa Villa Oak City Porterville Oaker Hills Poverty Flat Oaks Park Provo Ogden Canyon Puffer Lake Old Lasal Quitchapah Olympus Cove Rabbit Gulch Ophir Rainbow Meadow/Ireland Estates/Meadow Orderville Ranch Canyon Orem Randlette Ouray Red Canyon Ouray Nwr Hq/Facilities Red Canyon--Daggett Pack Creek Readers Palisade Reese's Flat Subdivision

September 2005 Appendix H H-4

Reservation Ridge South Ogden Bench Reservoir Road South Weber River Forest Spencer Bench Rock Creek Spencer Cliff Estates Rockville Spirit Lake Lodge Rockwood Spring Canyon/Helper Rocky Ridge Spring City Ranchero Ruby's Inn/Bryce Canyon/Pines/Fosters, Springdale UT \1\ Springdell Rush Valley Springville Salt Gulch Ranch St. George Salt Lake City Stillwater Sumac Stockton San Pitch Canyon Storm Haven Sandy Stout Canyon Santa Clara Strawberry Pinnacles Antiquing Strawberry Valley Saratoga Sulpherdale Schofield Reservoir Summit Sevier River Estates Summit Park/Pinebrook Sheep Creek Suncrest Shipways Sundance Silver Lake Swains Creek Silver Reef Swens Canyon Silver Valley Sylvin Canyon Skull Valley Taylor Flat Skull Valley Teasdale/Torrey Sky Haven Terra Skyline Mountain Resort Thousand Peaks Ranch Snow Basin Three Creek Soldier Creek Three Peaks Soldier Hollow Tibble Fk South Canaan Timberlakes South Canyon Todd's Junction South Canyon--Avon Tooele South Fork--Huntsville Toquerville South Fork Chalk Creek Trappers Loop

September 2005 Appendix H H-5

Tridell Tropic Trout Creek Two Bears/Pine Plateau Uintah Bench Uintah Canyon Upper Valley Veyo Virgin Vivian Park Washington Wecco West Hills West Water Whispering Pines White Mesa Whiterocks Wide Hollow Widsoe Jct./Steed Ranch Willow Basin Winchester Hills Wolf Creek Ranch Woodland Hills Woodruff/Chournos Woodruff/Eagle Springs Yellowstone Canyon Yost Zion Lodge Zion View

September 2005 Appendix H H-6