Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project

Ranch Creek Watershed

United States Department of and Riparian Improvement Agriculture

Forest Service Project

Intermountain Region Environmental Assessment

Dixie National Forest

Escalante Ranger District

January 2017

Environmental Assessment

Title Page Photo Description:

For More Information Contact: Terry DeLay Escalante Ranger District P.O. Box 246 Escalante, UT 84726 Phone: (435) 826-5401 Email: [email protected] Fax: (435) 826-5491

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 4 1.1 Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Background ...... 4 1.3 Existing and Desired Conditions ...... 10 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 31 1.5 Proposed Action ...... 32 1.6 Decision Framework ...... 33 1.7 Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policy ...... 33 1.8 Public Involvement ...... 34 1.9 Issues ...... 34 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action...... 37 2.1 Introduction ...... 37 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 37 2.3 Transportation Plan ...... 39 2.4 Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 42 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 47 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 55 3.1 Introduction ...... 55 3.2 Cultural Resources ...... 55 3.3 Fire and Fuels ...... 56 3.4 Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat ...... 59 3.5 Hydrology and Soils ...... 70 3.6 Range ...... 73 3.7 Recreation ...... 74 3.8 Scenery ...... 77 3.9 Silviculture and Vegetation ...... 81 3.10 Wildlife and Plants ...... 99 3.11 Other Disclosures ...... 111 Chapter 4. Contributors ...... 119 4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 119 4.2 Tribes ...... 119 4.3 Others: ...... 119 Appendix A - MAPS ...... 120 Bibliography ...... 129

List of Tables

Table 1. Management area and acres within the Ranch Creek project area ...... 5 Table 2. Existing and desired conditions for riparian areas ...... 16 Table 3. Species Composition of Shrublands in Project Area ...... 18 Table 4. Existing and desired condition for shrublands ...... 20 Table 5. Existing and desired conditions for woodlands* ...... 23 Table 6. Existing and desired condition for forests...... 25 Table 7: Current VSS Distribution by Northern Goshawk Home Range ...... 29 Table 8. Existing and desired conditions for the wildland urban interface ...... 30 Table 9. Existing System Roads used by Proposed Action ...... 40 Table 10. Proposed Temporary Road System ...... 41

Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Project design features for all action alternatives ...... 42 Table 12. Effects comparison for Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 48 Table 13. Aquatic biota that are Dixie National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) and/or Intermountain Sensitive Species, whether they have suitable habitat within the project area, and if not why...... 61 Table 14. Riparian Level III monitoring study sites within the CEA ...... 63 Table 15. Stream, location and bank stability and bank cover measurements collected using Multiple Indicator Monitoring methodology (Burton and others 2011) ...... 63 Table 16. The percent of fine sediments (< 3.2 mm) covering larger substrates (percent fines) found during pebble counts in streams potentially affected by the proposed project area since 2000...... 64 Table 17. Hydrologic Variables, Factors, and Thresholds Likely for a Vegetation Management Project That Were Used For Analysis ...... 71 Table 18. Effects of Alternative 1 and 2 on Hydrology and Soils ...... 72 Table 19. Proposed Silviculture Treatments and acres for Ranch Creek PFA/NA ...... 89 Table 20. Proposed Silviculture Treatments Hurricane Hollow PFA/NA ...... 90 Table 21. Action 7 Silviculture Treatments and Acres ...... 92 Table 22. Economic Return of Proposed Action ...... 113 Table 23. Economic Return of No Action ...... 114 Table 24. Total stand carbon, in kilotons, in harvested carbon (carbon emission from smoke and forest product removal) and sequestered carbon (long-term carbon storage from removed forest products) as well as a result of the proposed action and no action in 2025 as forecasted by the Forest Vegetation Simulator ...... 117

List of Figures

Figure 1. Junipers and other coniferous species underlying and growing into the crowns of legacy cottonwoods and other deciduous riparian species on Horse Creek...... 12 Figure 2. Junipers and other coniferous species underlying and growing into the crowns of legacy cottonwoods and other deciduous riparian species on Birch Creek...... 12 Figure 3. Junipers and other coniferous species underlying and growing into the crowns of aspen and other deciduous riparian species on Ranch Creek...... 12 Figure 4. Close up view of Ranch Creek stream channel showing the trampling of the stream bank during October...... 13 Figure 5. Looking downstream on Ranch Creek stream channel showing the trampling of the stream bank during October...... 13 Figure 6. Extended view of Ranch Creek stream channel showing the trampling of the stream bank during October...... 13 Figure 7. Close up view of the Horse Creek GDE showing the hoof sheer and vegetative damage...... 15 Figure 8. Extended view of the Horse Creek GDE showing the hoof sheer, vegetative damage, and fecal matter that is impacting the water quality...... 15 Southern leatherside chub ...... 62 Figure 9. Management Areas and Vicinity Map ...... 121 Figure 10. Vegetation Cover Types Map ...... 122 Figure 11. Vegetation Treatments Map ...... 123 Figure 12. Other Treatments Map ...... 124 Figure 13. Cumulative Effects Area for aquatic habitat, boreal toad and MIS nonnative trout...... 125 Figure 14. Project Area Transportation Map ...... 127

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The environmental assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found project website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47201; or in the project planning record located at the Escalante Ranger District Office in Escalante, Utah.

1.2 Background The Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project is designed to maintain and improve riparian areas and stream and watershed function, as well as to benefit Bonneville cutthroat trout and other wildlife species. Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) (BCT) are the only native sport fish found in southwestern Utah’s Bonneville basin. As with other subspecies of cutthroat trout throughout the Intermountain West, habitat alterations and introductions of non-native trout from the late 1880s until the 1970s caused large-scale losses of this native fish (Hadley and Golden 2016). Active management of BCT began in southern Utah after the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 (Hepworth and others 2003). By the 1990s, interagency commitment to conserving, protecting, and expanding populations of BCT led to the development of a formal management strategy for the state of Utah (Lentsch and others 1997), which was followed by a strategy and agreement for range- wide conservation (Lentsch and others 2000). BCT are on the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List and BCT conservation has also been identified as a primary objective for the East Fork Sevier River drainage (8th-level Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 16030002) by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) (Hepworth and others 2003). The BCT population in Ranch Creek was first identified in 1995 and has had a relatively stable distribution and standing crop since the 1990s (Hadley and Golden 2016). Individuals from this population have only been reintroduced into one other stream (Cottonwood Creek) in 2013 and the success of that reintroduction is still being evaluated (Hadley and Golden 2016). Disease certification samples in 2015 showed that Ranch Creek has recently become infected with whirling disease which could jeopardize this core, conservation population. Birch Creek and Horse Creek both contain populations of nonnative brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Nonnative trout are a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Forest. MIS is a concept used by the Forest Service to serve as a barometer for species viability at the Forest level. Standing crop of brook trout in both Birch Creek and Horse Creek would be considered below average when compared to other trout populations across southern Utah (Golden 2013). Birch Creek and Horse Creek have been

Environmental Assessment

identified as candidates for future BCT restoration by the Bonneville cutthroat Southern Geographic Management Unit planning team of the Utah Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Cutthroat Trout. Project Location The Ranch Creek project is located within Garfield County, Utah on the Escalante Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest approximately 15 miles south of Antimony, Utah and encompasses approximately 14,082 acres. The project area is located within Township 33S Range 1W Sections 20-21, and 27-34, Township 33S Range 2W Sections 25 and 36, Township 34S Range 1W Sections 2-11, 15-18, and 20- 22, and Township 34S Range 2W Section 1 and 12 (see Management Areas and Vicinity Map, Figure 9). The project area is within the Ranch Creek- Sevier River and Sweetwater Creek sub-watersheds which includes the headwaters of Ranch Creek, Birch Creek, and Horse Creek. Access is by County Road 1660 (Johns Valley Highway, CR 1660), and FR 30234. There is approximately 191 acres of private land within the project area. There are no designated wilderness areas or inventoried roadless areas (IRA) within the project boundary. Relationship to the Forest Plan This analysis incorporates by reference the direction provided in the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan) (USDA 1986, as amended). All administrative activities affecting the National Forest must be based on the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and provides the overall guidance for management activities by specifying goals and objectives, desired future conditions, management direction, and standards and guidelines. The management areas (MA) within the Ranch Creek project area include MA 1 (General Direction), MA 2B (Roaded Natural Recreation), MA 5A (Big-Game Winter Range), MA 6A (Livestock Grazing), MA 7A (Wood Production and Utilization) and MA 9A (Riparian Management) (see Management Areas and Vicinity Map, Figure 9 and Table 1).

Table 1. Management area and acres within the Ranch Creek project area

Management Area Description Management Area Code Acres General Direction 1 2,125 Roaded Natural Recreation 2B 1,119 Big-Game Winter Range 5A 4,960 Livestock Grazing 6A 4,609 Wood Production and Utilization 7A 856 Riparian Management 9A 222 (Private Land) 191 Total 14,082

Guidance for development of the purpose and need for action came from the Forest Plan, as amended (USDA 1986, as amended), specifically the following goals and direction related to the management of soil, water, sensitive species, wildlife, fish, riparian areas, silviculture, fire, and fuels.

General Direction (1) (applies to all management areas) Soil and Water Goal No. 29: Provide water and soil guidance to other resource activities to protect or improve water quality and quantity and soil productivity (IV-8). Goal No. 32: Design and implement practices on the ground that will reestablish acceptable soil, hydrologic, and vegetative conditions that are sufficient to secure and maintain favorable water flow (IV-9). Goal No. 33: Increase water yields where possible through timber harvest program when consistent with other multiple-use goals (IV-9). Desired Future Condition: Water quality and soil will be maintained. Condition of riparian areas will be maintained, or if necessary improved (IV-22). Wildlife and Fish Goal No. 14: Improve the quantity and quality of aquatic habitats through direct habitat improvement and increased coordination with other land use programs (IV-5). Goal No. 15: Maintain or enhance the terrestrial habitat for all wildlife species that presently occur on the forest (IV-5). Goal No. 16: Maintain or improve the current capacity of big game winter ranges on National Forest lands (IV-6). Goal No. 17: Manage classified species (bald eagle (E), peregrine falcon (E), Utah prairie dog (T), Astragalus perianus (E), Bonneville cutthroat trout (S) and Colorado River cutthroat trout (S); (E = Endangered, T = Threatened, S = Sensitive)) habitat to maintain or enhance their status through direct habitat improvement and agency cooperation (IV -6). Goal No. 17A: Restore or maintain forested landscapes in a properly functioning condition (PFC). Functioning forested landscapes provide habitat for the northern goshawk and its prey to support a viable population of goshawks in Utah (IV-6). Desired Future Condition: Habitat will be improved for sensitive species, including aquatic species (IV-20). Improve riparian ecosystems that are currently in an unacceptable condition (IV-20). Standards and Guidelines: Maintain aquatic habitat capable of supporting self-sustaining trout populations to provide for those populations. Where natural geologic and biologic conditions will allow, maintain the following stream habitat conditions: A) Maintain 40% or more of overhanging grasses, forbs, sedges and shrubs along banks of streams; B) Maintain 50% or more of total stream bank length in stable condition; C) No more than 25% of stream substrate should be covered by inorganic sediment less than 3.2 mm in size; D) Maintain or improve overall aquatic habitat to support existing self-sustaining trout populations. (IV-33) Maintain fish passage during all flow levels except peak flow events. Follow guidelines in Evans and Johnston, 1980. (IV-42)

Environmental Assessment

Riparian General Direction: Prescribe management activities to achieve riparian area objectives. (IV-42) Locate and construct arterial and collector roads to maintain basic natural condition and character of riparian areas (IV-42). Timber /Silviculture Goal No. 24: Emphasize harvesting productive sawtimber stands that are highly or moderately susceptible to attack by the mountain pine beetle and other forest pests (IV-7). Goal No. 25: Harvest timber in coordination with other resources (IV-7). Goal No. 26: Improve the growth rate in timber stands through silvicultural treatment (IV-7). Goal No. 27: Promote the utilization of insect killed trees, forest debris, slash and Unmerchantable green trees through an aggressive, coordinated firewood sales program (IV-8). Goal No. 28: Required short-term and intermittent timber sale roads will be constructed to the minimum standard necessary to accommodate logging traffic (IV-8). Desired Future Condition: A combination of silvicultural harvest methods that maximize present net value will be used in conjunction with meeting multiple use objectives and associated constraints on timber management. Intensive practices such as pre-commercial thinning will be used in all timber working groups except aspen. Future silvicultural condition of timber stands will be improved over current conditions. Future silvicultural condition of timber stands will be improved over current conditions. Conversion of slow growing over mature stands to younger, more vigorous stands will provide the benefits of increased timber growth and reduced susceptibility to insects and disease. Emphasis on harvesting mature stands, stands of poor quality and low value species and stands with insect and disease problems will reduce mortality and growth loss (IV-21). Fire and Fuels Goal No. 48: Ecosystems are restored and maintained, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes, through wildland fire use and prescribed fire (IV-13). Standards and Guidelines: Reduce hazardous fuels. The full range of fuel reduction methods is authorized, consistent with forest and management area emphasis and direction (IV-33). Prescribed fire is appropriate forest wide (IV-33). Recreation Goal No. 5: Provide a trail system adequate to disperse recreation users and prevent overuse in popular areas, and provide safety for the user (IV-3). Roaded Natural Recreation (2B) Desired Future Condition: This area is characterized by a modified natural environment. Resource modification and utilization practices usually harmonize with the natural environment. In some of the modified zones within this area, utilization practices enhance recreation activities, maintain vegetative

cover, and soil. The opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment and to face challenges associated with more primitive forms of recreation will not be important. Both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible in this area. The natural features of the landscape will dominate (IV-68). Big-Game Winter Range (5A) Desired Future Condition: Acreage of these areas will remain essentially the same as currently exists. Forage production will be improved and increased. Various browse species; sagebrush, bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, oak, etc., provide the majority of winter forage in these areas. The most palatable browse and other forage species will be favored. Thermal cover will be retained and improved. Vehicle traffic and public access will be restricted to prevent stress on wintering animals (IV-97). Livestock Grazing (6A) Desired Future Condition: Acreage of areas receiving this emphasis will remain essentially the same as presently. Production and range condition will be improved. Areas where vegetation manipulation practices have been accomplished will be maintained for optimum forage production. Numbers of livestock improvements (water developments, fences) will increase (IV- 109). Wood Production and Utilization (7A) Desired Future Condition: This management area contains most of the commercial timber on the forest and is the most highly productive for growing timber. The basic long-range objectives of timber management for this area are: 1. Create and maintain nearly equal areas in seedlings and saplings, pole timber, immature saw timber and mature saw timber. 2. Create and maintain stand conditions that will minimize growth loss and mortality from insects and diseases. 3. Convert slow growing stands of mature saw timber (beyond culmination of mean annual increment for the product size objective) to young, thrifty stands of desirable species (IV- 114). Riparian Management (9A) Desired Future Condition: Riparian ecosystem remains healthy and viable. Sufficient habitat remains to support at least minimum viable populations of riparian dependent wildlife species. Water quality is not impaired below existing levels and is improved in some areas. Stream channel stability is maintained or, in areas where it is severely degraded, is improved to at least minimally acceptable standards. Area provides multiple resource outputs while providing protection to riparian dependent values (IV-135). Direction: The goals of management are to provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant communities, meet water quality standards, provide habitats for viable populations of wildlife and fish, and provide stable stream channels and still water body shorelines. The aquatic ecosystem may contain fisheries habitat improvement and channel stabilizing facilities that harmonize with the visual setting and maintain and improve wildlife or fish habitat (IV-135). Provide habitat to meet or exceed the needs of estimated existing populations for all aquatic MIS (IV- 147; Aquatic Monitoring Amendment 2010, p. 23).

Environmental Assessment

Forest riparian ecosystems are treated to improve wildlife and fish habitat diversity through specified silvicultural objectives. Timber harvest and other vegetation treatments are used to achieve multi- resource benefits emphasizing riparian values. (IV-135) Prevent stream channel instability, loss of channel cross-sectional areas, and loss of water quality resulting from activities that alter vegetative cover (IV-141). Standards and Guidelines: Maintain at least 80% of potential ground cover within 100 feet from the edges of all perennial streams, lakes and other water bodies, or to the outer margin of the riparian ecosystem, where wider than 100 feet. (IV-141). Other Direction Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 provides management direction for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals (FSM 2670). Forest Service policies for designated sensitive species (FSM 2670.32) states: • Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species. Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout The Forest Service is a partner in implementing the Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) (Lentsch and others 2000). The Forest Service has committed to cooperate and assist in range-wide habitat enhancement, reintroduction, non-indigenous species control and monitoring projects on National Forest System (NFS) lands where appropriate. The Conservation Strategy directs signatories to: a) Protect the genetic integrity of Bonneville cutthroat trout populations. b) Expand Bonneville cutthroat trout populations and distribution through introduction and reintroduction from either transplanted or brood stock Bonneville cutthroat trout. Objectives: Maintain or restore water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems; Maintain or restore stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed; Maintain or restore riparian vegetation to: a) provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristics of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems; b) provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and aquatic zones; c) help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristic of those under which the communities developed. Actions:

Enhance and maintain habitat • Restore altered channel and habitat features to historic conditions. Actions may include stream bank stabilization, large woody debris introduction, and vegetation planting for improved riparian areas. • Restore natural hydraulic and sediment regimes, restore floodplain and riparian function, and expand available spawning and rearing habitat. This action includes securing instream flow needs through water acquisition or regulation. Control and prevent the spread of whirling disease. Utah Wildlife Action Plan (Utah Wildlife Action Plan Joint Team 2015) This plan lists inappropriate fire frequency and intensity as a high level threat for BCT and aspen- conifer ecosystems with the following as potential conservation actions. 2.3.14 Conduct upland vegetation treatments to restore characteristic upland vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings. 2.3.15 Conduct riparian vegetation treatments to restore characteristic riparian vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings. 2.3.17 Apply or allow more fire in habitats/locations where fire was historically more frequent or intense. The plan also lists channel downcutting as a high level threat to BCT, aquatic forested habitat, aquatic scrub/shrub habitat and riverine habitat with the following as potential conservation actions. 2.3.6 Restore aquatic habitat complexity. 2.3.8 Restore floodplain connectivity. 2.3.15 Conduct riparian vegetation treatments to restore characteristic riparian vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings.

1.3 Existing and Desired Conditions The proposed project’s purpose and need derive from an analysis of existing and desired conditions. This section provides a description of the existing and desired conditions within the project area aimed at determining the gap, or need for change, between these conditions. The existing condition is the current status of the resource, while the desired condition is the condition that we wish to achieve. The gap is the difference between existing and desired conditions, and the Proposed Action defines how the gap can be closed. The descriptions of the existing and desired condition for the vegetation resources are organized under the four criteria determined to be part of a properly functioning condition (PFC) (Amundson 1996; USDA 2000b, 2006). The four ecosystem characteristics discussed and compared throughout the analysis are vegetative structure, composition, disturbance regime, and patterns. PFC operates within the range of a natural range of variation (NRV) where extreme events are not desired. An ecosystem that is properly functioning is thought to be resilient to disturbances in structure, composition, and biological or physical processes (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2020.5). Ecosystems at risk are those that may be degraded beyond the range of resiliency and sustainability. The ecosystem characteristics

Environmental Assessment

serve as the measure to compare the existing condition to the desired future conditions defined by the Forest Plan. The channel geometry or shape is important for the proper functioning of streams in dissipating energy and being resilient to watershed disturbances. It also provides proper depths and shading capable of better supporting aquatic species by leading to cooler temperatures and more instream habitat. Fine sediment levels are important for proper functioning of the stream in sustaining aquatic biota. Suspended and deposited sediment can directly and indirectly impact aquatic organisms through clogging gills, smothering fish eggs and invertebrates, reducing water and oxygen flow through interstitial spaces (the space between sand grains), and reducing habitat (covering spawning gravels, reducing pool depth, etc.) (Waters 1995). Riparian Areas Existing Condition The riparian area includes approximately 222 acres within the project area. The elevation ranges from 7,990 to 9,200 ft. The dominant overstory is blue spruce (Picea pungens) and cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) with a poorly developed mid-story of blue spruce. Understory composition is mainly juniper (Juniperus spp.) with scattered Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and cottonwood. Most of the commercial overstory was harvested during 1960 and 1970. The lower portions of the main stem of Horse Creek, Birch Creek, and Ranch Creek have much of the overstory being juniper or spruce with some older cottonwood and water birch (Betula occidentalis) trees. Ranch Creek also has a noticeable amount of aspen (Populus tremuloides). Willow (Salix spp.) is noticeably browsed, especially in Horse Creek, and there is a lack of young cottonwood and water birch. Under the juniper and spruce there is a lack of sedges and other riparian dependent species. The lack of riparian understory is contributing to increased fine sediment delivery in some places in the stream. Pebble counts in Ranch Creek and Birch Creek have shown that 25-50% of the substrate consists of fine sediments less than 3 mm. Visual observations throughout portions of Horse Creek would indicate similar issues. Level III Riparian Inventory sites are present at two locations on Ranch Creek and Birch Creek, as well as one location on Horse Creek. Level III sites are intensive field inventory designed specifically to answer a particular question. In this case the inventory was designed to specifically assess riparian vegetation condition and trend over time. With the exception of the Ranch Creek site within the exclosure downstream from FR 30234, none of the Level III inventory sites were meeting Forest Plan objectives for riparian vegetation at their last reading. Both sites on Birch Creek and the site on Horse Creek rated as mid-seral vegetation communities with anywhere from 14-39% of the woody species regeneration comprised of coniferous species and 8-22% Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) or Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum). The vegetation community at the Ranch Creek site upstream from FR 30234 rated as very early seral at its last reading with more than 25% of the woody species regeneration measured being Rocky Mountain juniper. Visual observations along these streams show that conifers, particularly Rocky Mountain juniper, have grown into the historic floodplain on the first terrace as well as the active floodplain, completely underlying and growing into the canopies of legacy cottonwood galleries, as well as other riparian deciduous woody species in some cases (see

Figures 1-3). The conifers are increasing fuel loading and ladder fuels that could contribute to crown and stand replacing fires within riparian areas. This type of fire behavior has been observed in areas with similar vegetation on Mount Dutton on the Powell Ranger District during the 2002 Sanford Fire and along Corn Creek and Birch Creek on the Escalante Ranger District during the 2008 Corn Creek Fire. Elevated fuel loads and ladder fuels from coniferous species succeeding into riparian areas and Figure 1. Junipers and other coniferous species legacy cottonwood galleries resulted in stand replacing underlying and growing into the crowns of legacy cottonwoods and other deciduous fires within riparian areas on the east side of Mount riparian species on Horse Creek. Dutton. Impacts to hydrology, sediment transport and stream bank stability from the upland and riparian fire impacts resulted in undesirable impacts to stream channel morphology and the complete extirpation of remnant BCT, MIS nonnative trout and other fish populations in those streams (Hepworth and others 2003; Rodriguez 2012). Visual observations and geomorphic surveys along a headwater portion of Ranch Creek stream show that the stream bank receives noticeable amounts of trampling and has an uncharacteristically high width to depth ratio resulting in poor fish habitat (see Figures 4-6). Repeated geomorphic surveys conducted since 2002 in a livestock Figure 2. Junipers and other coniferous species underlying and growing into the crowns of legacy exclosure further downstream on Ranch Creek have cottonwoods and other deciduous riparian shown that the stream channel is capable of narrowing species on Birch Creek. and deepening (which improves fish habitat) when excessive ungulate pressure is removed. Additionally, there is a spring or groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE), along Horse Creek that incurs excessive trampling from ungulates. Riparian plant vigor is likely negatively impacted as excessive utilization and trampling occurs here (see Figures 7- 8). Additionally, fecal matter deposition on the GDE is negatively impacting water quality with excessive nutrient loading and fecal coliforms. This is a concern because the ecology of the GDE is affected by the quality of the water supporting the site. Figure 3. Junipers and other coniferous species underlying and growing into the crowns of aspen and other deciduous riparian species on Ranch Creek.

Environmental Assessment

Changes in water quality can have detrimental effects on flora and fauna. For example, fecal matter and increased sediment from damaged vegetation increases nutrients which will increase aquatic vegetation growth and bacterial abundance while decreasing dissolved oxygen concentrations. Lowered dissolved oxygen concentrations can alter macroinvertebrate communities by replacing intolerant clean water taxa with taxa associated with impaired aquatic systems. This GDE is less than an acre in size and due to its proximity to the road and being in the bottom of the Figure 4. Close up view of Ranch Creek stream channel showing the trampling of the stream drainage, there is no effective way to keep cattle from bank during October. damaging the wetland in a very short amount of time (USDA 2012). Forest Service administrative road FR 34047 (which also doubles as OHV trail route number FR 30235) is in or near the bottom of the Birch Creek drainage for most of its distance. One section in particular, approximately 1,100 feet in length, is close to being undercut by the stream channel and there is no opportunity to redirect or prevent sediment and runoff from the road from entering the stream. Desired Condition Desired conditions for riparian areas are for them to be healthy and viable, having mostly riparian dependent Figure 5. Looking downstream on Ranch Creek species that are healthy and vigorous. Riparian areas stream channel showing the trampling of the should be, at a minimum, meeting Forest Plan objectives stream bank during October. for late seral vegetation communities, bank stability effective ground cover and trend. No more than 25% of stream substrate should be covered by inorganic sediment less than 3.2 mm in size. Desired condition for BCT across the Forest is to maintain and improve the amount of existing occupied habitat for conservation populations, as well as maintaining recruitment and population size structure. Within the Southern Geographic Management Unit the desire is to maintain the representation of unique genetic lineages and to provide redundancy and resiliency for those lineages (Haak and others 2011; Lentsch and others 2000). Desired Figure 6. Extended view of Ranch Creek condition for MIS nonnative trout is to maintain standing stream channel showing the trampling of the crop greater than or equal to average when compared to stream bank during October. other southern Utah trout streams.

Environmental Assessment

Desired condition for Birch Creek, which is management area 9A, is for the stream to have water quality that is improved or at least not impaired beyond the levels that existed in 1986. Stream channel stability is maintained or improved to the least minimally acceptable standards. Table 2 summarizes existing and desired conditions for riparian areas.

Figure 7. Close up view of the Horse Creek Figure 8. Extended view of the Horse Creek GDE showing the hoof sheer and vegetative GDE showing the hoof sheer, vegetative damage. damage, and fecal matter that is impacting the water quality.

Table 2. Existing and desired conditions for riparian areas

Existing Condition Desired Condition Structure: Hardwood component (cottonwood and Structure: Amount and type of vegetation willow) is declining. Composition of juniper is community types present that maintain riparian increasing. Total canopy cover is 21% and all hardwood dependent resources and provide a high rate of canopy cover percentage is 4%. recovery following disturbance. Juniper composition is 226 trees per acre (TPA) and 30% Juniper less than 5% stocking. of total stocking.

Composition: Cottonwood composition is 61% with an Composition: A minimum hardwood composition of average of 454 TPA. 75%. Cottonwood regeneration is minimal. Species The plant community type composition emphasizes composition and distribution is trending toward conifer hydrophytic vegetation. dominance. Disturbance Regime: Fire regime condition class Disturbance Regime: Fire regime condition class of 1. (FRCC)1 of 2 to 3. Minimal carryover of disturbance features into the Cottonwood sp. are represented by older age classes with following years. Although dynamic, plant few seedling/saplings present. Abundance and communities and hydrologic functions persist or distribution of regeneration indicates a lack of historic recover rapidly. disturbance regimes. Competition from juniper is reducing grass/forb and shrub composition.

Patterns: Total percent vegetation cover over stream Patterns: Total percent vegetation cover over stream channel is less than 50%. Distribution of cottonwood, channel is over 50%. Plant community type willow and shrub spp. is discontinuous along stream. composition and accompanying riparian ecosystem functions maintain proper ground water recharge, storage, delivery, water tables, channel morphology and bank stability. Fine Sediments: Substrate covered by fine sediment Fine Sediments: Substrate covered by fine sediment less than 3mm is estimated to be between 23-50%. less than 3mm should be less than 20%.

1 The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Standard Landscape Worksheet Method and Mapping Method provide tools for fire, vegetation, and fuels assessment and management at both the landscape and stand levels. These methods are used to describe general landscape fire regime and vegetation-fuel characteristics. Estimates of these characteristics are calculated for comparison with estimates of natural fire regime reference values and reference condition vegetation-fuel characteristics to index fire regime condition class (a classification of the amount current conditions have departed from those of historical reference conditions) Barrett, S., Havlina, D., Jones, J., Hann, W., Frame, C., Hamilton, D., Schon, K., Demeo, T., Hutter, L., and Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. https://www.frames.gov/partner-sites/frcc/frcc-guidebook-and- forms/.

Environmental Assessment

Sediment and Water Delivery to Stream from Sediment and Water Delivery to Stream from Roads and Trails: The Birch Creek ATV) trail (FR Roads and Trails: The number of roads and 304047) is hydrologically connected to Birch Creek at motorized trails that are hydrologically connected more than 10 locations. Approximately 1,100 ft. of FR to the stream is minimal, preferably zero. 304047 is close to being undercut by the stream. FR 30135 is hydrologically connected to Horse Creek at more than 5 locations. Sediment and overland flow is being routed to the stream at both of these locations.

Stream Crossings: The Birch Creek ATV trail (FR Stream Crossings: Stream crossings that are 304047) have locations where streams are crossed and functional, single, and have minimal impacts to the due to the crossings not being functional users have channel and minimal amounts of sediment contribution. created additional crossings.

Stream Channel Geometry: The headwaters of Ranch Stream Channel Geometry: A stream channel that Creek near the confluence with the two southernmost has healthy vigorous riparian species and has a well- tributaries are heavily trampled and browsed to the point defined channel with a width/depth ratio appropriate where the stream channel is undefined in the lowest for an E channel type. Desired value is 100%. gradient portion. Only ~10% of this stream channel is Improved fish habitat capability and enhanced status of meeting desired condition. Bonneville cutthroat trout in Ranch Creek through creating a stream channel that has healthy vigorous riparian species and has a well-defined channel with a width/depth ratio appropriate for an E channel type.

Aquatic Organism Passage: FS Road 30135 has a Aquatic Organism Passage: Habitat connectivity for culvert that appears to be an impediment to fish passage aquatic organisms. approximately 0.13 miles to the northwest of the FR30135/FR31453. Stream miles accessible to aquatic organisms is 3.6 Stream miles accessible to aquatic organisms is 4.4.

Shrublands Existing condition The shrublands cover approximately 1,065 acres of the project area. Shrublands are areas where the predominant vegetation includes shrubs, forbs and grasses with a minimal representation of conifer species. The shrublands cover type occurs within an ecotone extending from the edges of riparian corridors upland and adjacent to pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine stands. The shrublands complex is a mosaic of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) and herbaceous plant communities. Co- dominant shrubs may include antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) and Green ephedra (Ephedra viridis var. viridis). Dominant grasses include introduced crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and natives such as Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), needlegrasses (Stipa spp.) and bluegrasses (Poa spp.). Juniper spp. are the dominant conifer at lower elevations.

Shrublands occurring at higher elevations may contain scattered juniper spp. (Juniperus osteosperma and Juniperus scopulorum) in association with pinyon pine or ponderosa pine were favorable microsites exist. Table 3 shows the shrublands species composition in the project area.

Table 3. Species Composition of Shrublands in Project Area

Shrubland Component Species Percent Cover (Per Acre Basis) Mountain Big Sagebrush Tall Shrub 11 Green Ephedra Rabbitbrush Bitterbrush Medium Shrub 12 Black Sagebrush Mountain Snowberry Low Sagebrush Short Shrub 18 Juniper spp. Conifer 4 Crested Wheatgrass Grass 4 Idaho Fescue Bluebunch Wheatgrass Needlegrass Milkvetch Forb 5 Opuntia spp.

Litter Layer 9 Bare Ground 37

Total 100

Currently, juniper spp., pinyon pine and ponderosa pine occur within the shrubland community. Conifer density in terms of trees per acre varies with elevation. At the lowest elevation point within the project area, juniper spp. dominates as the primary conifer species. Juniper density in association with other conifers increases as elevation increases. Historical disturbance regimes affecting the shrubland community are stand replacing firs with a mean fire interval of 30-50 years. Mixed severity disturbances result from insect and disease outbreaks and drought cycles. The severity of disturbance regimes is influenced by a host of factors including: the density of the vegetative communities, distribution or percentage of area covered by vegetation, age class distribution of vegetative groups, time since the last disturbance, as well as cultural practices and topographic and climatic factors. The typical disturbance of wildland fire tends to reduce the composition of conifers within the shrubland community and promote the development of grasses ad forbs. Mixed severity fires promote the creation of different age classes within the shrubland community. Fire adapted shrub species such as sage and bitterbrush typically exhibit variable age classes representing the occurrence of disturbance events. The current density of juniper spp. is an indication of the lack of disturbance along with a lack of age classes of shrub species.

Environmental Assessment

Juniper spp. density is represented by a few scattered mature trees and many seedlings and saplings distributed across the shrubland community. The presence of seedlings and saplings indicate a lack of disturbance and an encroachment of juniper. Without disturbances, conifers will continue to encroach in the shrublands increasing the fuel loading and changing the composition of the vegetation to one that is more likely to support stand replacing fires instead of mixed severity fires. Stand replacing fires tend to be larger in scale and more likely to have higher severity which often results in damages to soils, aquatic and wildlife habitat, range forage, and watershed function. These large scale and high severity fires also create areas in which invasive species such as cheatgrass can spread more rapidly. Monitoring of the shrublands show that conifer encroachment currently represents 4 percent of the shrubland community. Without a disturbance regime of any scale or magnitude the percentage of area occupied by juniper spp. will continue to increase. Desired Condition Shrubland areas are healthy and viable, having a variety of age classes of grasses and shrubs that are healthy and vigorous. Native late seral species should dominate the herbaceous layer. Conifer encroachment is less than 10% of the total vegetative cover. Young conifers on the edges of the shrublands that act as ladder fuels are reduced limiting the potential for a fire burning in the shrublands to transition to the crowns of nearby stands of trees. The brush and grasses in the shrublands have a variety of age classes which break up the continuity of mature brush stands that readily carry fire. Table 4 summarizes existing and desired conditions for shrublands.

Table 4. Existing and desired condition for shrublands

Existing Condition of Shrublands Desired Condition of Shrublands Structure: Structure: Sagebrush/grassland Complex: The landscape Sagebrush/grassland Complex: Existing proportions proportions of structural stages, described in terms of of structural stages. shrub canopy, should be within the following ranges: • 13% of the area with 0-10% shrub cover • 20-40% of the area with 0-10% shrub canopy • 40% of the area with 11-30% shrub cover • 35-55% of the area with 11-30% shrub canopy • 47% of the area with 31-50% shrub cover • 15-35% of the area with 31-50% shrub canopy Bare soil averages 37% Bare soil should average less than 20%. Composition: Native, late seral sagebrush dominates Composition: Native, late-seral species should dominate the shrub canopy layer with a lack of younger age the herbaceous layer. Invasive plants should be less than classes present. Grass species are distributed mainly in 10 percent of relative frequency. openings with little representation within shrub A mosaic of age classes should be present. communities. Conifer species are reproducing and expanding across the shrublands. Invasive species are minimally represented across the area. Disturbance Regime: Evidence of recent fire history Disturbance Regime: Lethal fire regime on an or insect and disease outbreaks not observed. The approximately 20 to 40 year return interval. primary disturbance regime is cultural practices consisting of mowing and excavation for the development of irrigation projects. A fire return condition class (FRCC) of 2 to 3. A fire return condition class (FRCC) of 1. Patterns: Conifers of various ages encroaching on the Patterns- Conifers should be absent or limited by shrublands. Sagebrush communities are becoming periodic fire to a few scattered seedlings. Vegetation homogeneous with little variation of age classes. patterns are usually patchy with several age classes represented in a given area.

*Referenced from (Hood and Miller 2007; Stebleton and Bunting 2009; USDA 2000d, 2006, 2009).

Woodlands The pinyon-juniper forest cover types within the project area are diverse in age class distribution and species composition. Romme and colleagues defined three general kinds of pinyon-juniper vegetation based primarily on canopy structure, understory characteristics, and historical disturbance regimes. The three types of woodlands include: persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands, pinyon-juniper savannas, and wooded shrublands (Romme 2009). Dominant species within woodlands consist of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis). There are different plant associations relative to each woodland type. Persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands are characterized as occurring on poor sites with shallow rocky soils and having variable overstory densities. The understory is generally sparse and consists of low densities of shrubs, grasses, and forbs. The disturbance regime is infrequent and generally stand replacing. Pinyon-juniper savannas are characterized as occurring on moderately productive sites capable of supporting grass cover. Pinyon-juniper overstory components within the savanna structure are typically low density with trees distributed singly or in small groups. Savanna understory composition is dominated by

Environmental Assessment

grasses with scattered shrub species. Disturbance regime for the pinyon-juniper savanna structure is typically infrequent and generally stand replacing. Wooded shrublands occur on moderate to moderately- high sites which favor the development of shrub species. Overstory density is variable ranging from low to high density depending on site conditions and disturbance frequency. On more mesic sites, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and aspen (Populus tremuloides) may be present as a minor overstory species component. Understory species composition within the wooded shrublands is dominated by shrub species such as sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), cliffrose (Purshia stansburiana) and Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii). Disturbance regimes for the wooded shrublands tends to be mixed severity occurring at a mean return interval of 50-70 years. Disturbance events are typically fire but also include insect and disease agents, episodic drought, and cultural practices. Existing Condition The pinyon-juniper forest cover type includes approximately 2,254 acres of the project area. Elevation ranges from 7,800 to 8,800 ft. The most common pinyon-juniper forest cover type occurs as wooded shrublands. Persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands occur along steep, rocky outcrops. The stand structure of the wooded shrublands is predominantly even-aged with scattered uneven-aged pockets. The dominant overstory is juniper with a developed mid-story of pinyon and juniper. The understory composition is developed and dominated by juniper in association with shrub species consisting of mountain mahogany, cliffrose, and Gambel oak. Approximately 5% the woodland cover type was chained during the 1960 and 1970 entries. Stand maintenance occurred in late 2000s. Desired Condition Desired conditions in the pinyon-juniper forest cover type are a variety of age classes throughout the stands. A grass shrub understory is present in some of the younger age classes. The stand is resilient when disturbed by fire and is not conducive to large scale fire spread. Table 5 summarizes existing and desired conditions for woodlands.

Environmental Assessment

Table 5. Existing and desired conditions for woodlands*

Existing Condition of Woodlands Desired Condition of Woodlands Structure: Existing Overstory Structure: Balanced Overstory Range:

• Grass/forb: ~5% • Grass/forb: ~10% • Seedling/sapling: ~22% • Seedling/sapling: ~10% • Young forest: ~57% • Young forest: ~20% • Mid aged forest: ~13% • Mid aged forest: ~20% • Mature forest: ~4% • Mature forest: ~20% • Old forest: ~ 0% • Old forest: ~20% Juniper cover percent exceeds 50%. Not more than 25% of stands composition in juniper species. Composition: VSS2 Class 1 is less than 10%. Composition: Shrub, forb and grass composition make up 20% or more of total vegetation.

Disturbance Regime: Endemic insect and disease Disturbance Regime: Endemic insect and disease populations. Juniper regeneration is expanding into populations. Fires burning every 10 to 30 years adjacent grassland/shrubland areas. prevent pinyon-juniper stands from spreading into neighboring grasslands/shrublands. Fire regime is FRCC is 2 trending toward 3. mixed severity. Patterns: Current understory development is trending Patterns: Patterns are within historical ranges. (Pattern toward late seral stage. Species composition is trending sizes, shapes and corridors are maintaining processes.) toward climax with juniper dominant. Percent canopy Periodic fires created uneven-aged stands composed of openings is less than 20%. various even-aged groups. Old Growth PJ: Horse Cr. Old Growth PJ – 7% , Birch Old Growth PJ: 7-10 percent of each drainage Cr. Old Growth 16% and Ranch Cr. Old Growth PJ managed for old growth retention. 23%.

Fuels and Fire Danger: Pinyon-juniper stands that are Fuels and Fire Danger: A mosaic of age classes and largely made up of mature trees with little variation in crown distribution in the pinyon-juniper stands. age classes. Continuous crown distribution Fuel loading: 5-7 tons/ac. Fuel loading: 10-12 tons/ac. *Referenced from (Hood and Miller 2007, Stebleton and Bunting 2009, USDA 2000b, 2006, 2009).

2 Vegetation structural stage (VSS) is a method of describing the growth stages of a stand of living trees. It is based on tree size (DBH) and total canopy cover. Overall, the VSS is dependent on the time it takes seedlings to become established and subsequent growth rates. Life expectancy of trees determines how long the oldest VSS can be. There are six VSS classes defined by Reynolds et al.1992: grass-forbs/seedlings (class 1) – Few trees greater than 1 inch DBH present. seedling/sapling (class 2) – Saplings, 1inch up to less than 5 inches in DBH, young forest (class 3) – Trees 5 inches DBH up to less than 12 inches DBH. mid-aged forest (class 4) – Trees 12 inches DBH up to less than 18 inches DBH, mature-forest (class 5) – Trees 18 inches DBH up to less than 24 inches DBH, old-forest (class 6) – Trees 24 inches DBH and greater

Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, Aspen, and Spruce Fir Forested vegetation covers the middle and higher elevation portion of the Ranch Creek project area. At middle elevations are stands of ponderosa pine. Higher elevation stands are a mixed conifer complex including Douglas-fir, blue spruce, white fir (Abies concolor), and aspen. The desired representation of size classes within the forest cover types in the project area is outlined in the Northern Goshawk Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2000e) which describes studies by Reynolds et al. (1992) as a standard for the Dixie National Forest. Reynolds recommends a distribution of 10 percent grass-forb/shrub (DBH 0-1”), 10 percent seedling-sapling (DBH 1-5”), 20 percent young forest (DBH 5-12”), 20 percent mid-aged forest (DBH 12-18”), 20 percent mature forest (DBH 18-24”), and 20 percent old forest (DBH 24” +). This is displayed as 10-10- 20-20-20-20 where each percentage equates to a vegetation structural stage (VSS) of 1 through 6. Existing Condition The ponderosa pine cover type includes approximately 3,903 acres within the project area. Elevation ranges from 8,000 to 8,600 ft. The dominant overstory is ponderosa pine with a developed mid-story of aspen and Douglas fir. The seral aspen component is in decline. The understory composition is poorly developed and dominated by juniper spp. Stand structure is predominantly even-aged with scattered uneven-aged pockets. Even-aged stands are VSS 3 and uneven-aged stands are VSS 4. Most of the ponderosa pine timber type was harvested during the 1960 and 1970 entries. The previous stand entries created a predominance of even-aged stand structures. The mixed conifer cover type includes approximately 2,553 acres within the project area. Elevation ranges from 8,200 to 9,200 ft. The stand structure is predominantly even-aged with scattered uneven-aged pockets. Even-aged stands are VSS 3 and uneven-aged stands are VSS 4. The dominant overstory is Douglas fir and blue spruce with a developed mid-story of Douglas fir, white fir and aspen. The aspen component is in decline. The understory composition is developed and dominated by white fir, blue spruce and juniper spp. Approximately 60% of the mixed conifer timber type was harvested during the 1960 and 1970 entries. Previous stand entries created a predominance of even-aged stand structures. The aspen cover type includes approximately 2,294 acres within the project area. Elevation ranges from 9,200 to 10,200 ft. The stand structure is predominantly even-aged. Even-aged stands are VSS 3 (53%) and VSS 4 (47%). The dominant overstory is aspen with a developed understory consisting of alpine fir, juniper, and ponderosa pine. Both climax and seral aspen stands are in decline. The understory aspen composition is poorly developed and dominated by juniper spp. The spruce fir cover type includes approximately 1,220 acres within the project area. Elevation ranges from 9,600 to 10,200 ft. The stand structure is predominantly even-aged with scattered uneven-aged pockets (11%). Predominant stand structure is even-aged and VSS 4. Uneven-aged stands are predominantly VSS 4. The dominant overstory is Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir with a developed mid-story of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. The seral aspen component is in decline. The understory composition is developed and dominated by subalpine fir. Approximately 10% the spruce/fir timber type was harvested during the 1960 and 1970 entries. The previous stand entries promoted diversity of age classes and uneven-aged stand structure.

Environmental Assessment

Desired Condition The desired condition for forest stands as well as habitat condition is evaluated by the vegetative structural stage (VSS) in which the forest stand or habitat is currently expressed. The VSS categorizes the forest successional stage, canopy cover percentage, and the number of canopy layers for each area of analysis. The habitat quality of the northern goshawk is typically evaluated using VSS analysis. Within the proposed treatment area, VSS is currently below the target values defined in the Forest Plan. Table 6 summarizes the existing and desired conditions for forest cover types.

Table 6. Existing and desired condition for forests

Existing Conditions of Forests Desired Condition of Forests Structure Structure Ponderosa Pine: Ponderosa Pine: Balanced Range: • Grass/forb: ~0% • Grass/forb: ~10% • Seedling/sapling: ~2% • Seedling/sapling: ~10% • Young forest: ~44% • Young forest: ~20% • Mid aged forest: ~23% • Mid aged forest: ~20% • Mature forest: ~31% • Mature forest: ~20% • Old forest: ~ 0% • Old forest: ~20% Ponderosa pine canopy structure is 90% even-aged. 75% of multiple canopy structure is ponderosa pine. Stand Density Index3 (SDI) ranges from 52-344. Basal Stand Density Index (SDI) not greater than 216 and Area (BA) ranges from 34-217 sq. ft./acre. Basal Area less than 120 sq. ft./acre. Mixed Conifer: Mixed Conifer: Balanced Range: • Grass/forb: ~1% • Grass/forb: ~10% • Seedling/sapling: ~10% • Seedling/sapling: ~10% • Young forest: ~37% • Young forest: ~20% • Mid aged forest: ~45% • Mid aged forest: ~20% • Mature forest: ~7% • Mature forest: ~20% • Old forest: ~ 0% • Old forest: ~20% Canopy structure 50% even-aged. SDI ranges from Not more than 50% of stands have multiple canopies. 35-399. BA ranges from 20-242 sq. ft./acre. SDI not greater than 300 and BA less than 160 sq. ft./acre.

3 Stand density index (SDI) – An index value based on the relationship between number of trees per acre and their average diameter Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research. 46:627-638.Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research. 46:627-638. It is premised on the characteristic distribution of tree sizes in even-aged stands. The index is the number of trees per acre at an average stand diameter of 10 inches diameter breast height (DBH). The index is not influenced by age and site quality. Although SDI and the maximum size- density relationship were originally described for pure, even-aged stands, Long and Daniel (1990) have proposed extension of its utility to uneven-aged and multi-aged situations. The maximum SDI varies for each tree species and is measured at a given reference diameter. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands Long, J. N. D., T.W. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven- aged stands. 93-96. At 25 percent of maximum SDI, trees begin competing with each other and begin to out-compete understory vegetation. At 35 percent of maximum SDI, trees fully occupy the site. At higher densities, competition between trees either results in reduced growth and vigor on individual trees or may result in competitive stress and tree mortality Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle. 61:23-27.Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle. 61:23-27. density management. Forestry Chronicle. 61:23-27.

Aspen: Aspen: Balanced Range: • Grass/forb: ~0% • Grass/forb: ~20% • Seedling/sapling: ~34% • Seedling/sapling: ~20% • Young forest: ~35% • Young forest: ~10% • Mid aged forest: ~31% • Mid aged forest: ~10% • Mature forest: ~0% • Mature forest: ~10% • Old forest: ~ 0% • Old forest: ~30% Aspen canopy structure 100% even-aged. SDI ranges SDI not greater than 300 and BA less than 140 sq. from 84-488. BA ranges from 34-266 sq. ft./acre. ft/acre. Spruce Fir: Spruce Fir: Balanced Range: • Grass/forb: ~0% • Grass/forb: ~10% • Seedling/sapling: ~10% • Seedling/sapling: ~10% • Young forest: ~27% • Young forest: ~20% • Mid aged forest: ~44% • Mid aged forest: ~20% • Mature forest: ~19% • Mature forest: ~20% • Old forest: ~ 0% • Old forest: ~20% Spruce / fir canopy structure 89% even-aged. SDI 40% of stands have multiple canopies. SDI not greater ranges from 71-557. BA ranges from 32-265 sq. than 335 an BA less than 150 sq. ft./acre. ft./acre.

Composition Composition Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover ranges from 30%-60% Ponderosa Pine: More than 75% canopy cover is ponderosa pine.

Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover ranges from 5%-25%, Mixed Conifer: White fir composition is less than average 17% 25% of stand stocking. Aspen: Conifer composition approximately 59% Aspen: Mature and old forest less than 150 years old. Conifer composition not more than 15% cover at stand level. Shrub and herbaceous layers well developed. Ground cover at least 85%.

Spruce Fir: Canopy cover ranges from 25%-75% Spruce Fir: Engelmann spruce exceeds 40% of stand composition.

Environmental Assessment

Disturbance Regime Disturbance Regime Ponderosa Pine: PP mistletoe is endemic. Mortality is Ponderosa Pine: Endemic insect and disease minimal. FRCC 2. populations. Pockets of mortality do not exceed 5 trees/acre. Mortality groups of <10 trees. <1% of trees with black stain, <10% with root disease, <20% with dwarf mistletoe or stem rust. Fire regime is non-lethal type with a fire return interval of 5 to 25 years. FRCC of 1. Mixed Conifer: DF mistletoe is widespread and Mixed Conifer: Endemic insect and disease affecting more than 10 TPA in groups > 10 Mortality populations affecting 10% or less of host type. is increasing in DF, average 8 TPA. FRCC 2-3. Defoliation affecting not more than 50% of crowns. Pockets of mortality do not exceed 5 trees/acre and distribution of occurrence at no more than 10 trees per group. Fire regime is mixed severity with a fire return interval of 10 to 40 on dry sites and 30-60 years for mesic sites. FRCC of 1. Aspen: Mortality is increasing as mature seral aspen clones are overtopped by conifer. Climax aspen stands Aspen: Endemic insect and disease populations. Less are declining due to age and stand competition. FRCC than 30% topkill and branch mortality in mature and 2. old age classes. Fire regime is mixed severity with a fire return interval of 20 to 50 years. FRCC of 1. Spruce Fir: Endemic insect and disease levels. Seral Spruce Fir: Endemic insect and disease populations aspen component is declining due to succession. FRCC affecting. Defoliation affecting not more than 50% of 2-3. crowns. Mortality do not exceed 5 trees/acre and less than 5% of aces in root disease centers. Fire regime is either mixed severity with a fire return interval of 50 to 80 or lethal regime with a fire return interval of 100 – 300 years. FRCC of 1.

Patterns Patterns Ponderosa Pine: Current understory development is Ponderosa Pine: Patterns are within historical ranges. trending toward mid and late seral stages. Species (Pattern sizes, shapes and corridors are maintaining composition is trending toward climax with juniper processes.) Periodic fires created uneven-aged stands encroachment. Distribution of AS clones are declining composed of various even-aged groups. due to succession. 7-10 percent of each drainage managed for old growth Total percent PP old growth 2%. Total old growth retention. percentage within Ranch Creek-Sevier River 40%, Sweetwater Creek 17%. Mixed Conifer: Patterns are within historical ranges. Mixed Conifer: Current understory development is (Pattern sizes, shapes and corridors are maintaining trending toward mid and late seral stages. Species processes.) Periodic fires created uneven-aged stands composition is trending toward climax with juniper composed of various even-aged groups. encroachment. AS clones are in decline due to succession. 7-10 percent of each drainage managed for old growth retention. Total percent DF old growth 4%. Total old growth percentage within Ranch Creek-Sevier River 40%, Sweetwater Creek 17%. Aspen: Patterns are within historical ranges. (Pattern Aspen: Current understory development is trending sizes, shapes and corridors are maintaining processes.) toward mid and late seral stages. Species composition The role of fire is to influence the distribution of is trending toward climax with conifer encroachment. structural classes stages across the landscape. Distribution of AS clones are declining due to No old growth retention target for aspen stands. succession. Spruce Fir: Current understory development is Spruce Fir: Patterns are within historical ranges. trending toward late seral stages with AF dominant and (Pattern sizes, shapes and corridors are maintaining seral aspen declining due to succession. processes.) Role of historic disturbance regimes is to maintain heterogeneous pattern of species, structure Total percent SF old growth 2%. Total old growth classes. percentage within Ranch Creek-Sevier River 40%, 7-10 percent of each drainage managed for old growth Sweetwater Creek 17%. retention Fuels and Crown Fire Potential Fuels and Crown Fire Potential Ponderosa Pine: Ponderosa stands with a dead and Ponderosa Pine: Dead and down fuel loading of and down fuel loading of 8-14 tons/acre. Some Ponderosa average of 5 tons/acre in the Ponderosa Pine stands. trees with canopy base height that extends onto the Canopy base height higher than the bottom 1/3rd of the bottom 1/3 of the tree. Tall understory growth of tree in ponderosa pine. invading conifers, and manzanita. Mixed conifer: 15-20 tons / acre of dead and down fuel Mixed conifer: Dead and Down Fuel Loading in loading in mixed conifer stand as measured within 1 Mixed Conifer 50-55 tons per acre average. year post burn. Aspen: Aspen stands with greater than 10% conifer in Aspen: Less than 10% Conifer in Aspen stands. Dead the stand. Dead and down fuel loading at greater than and down fuel loading 3 tons/acre. Increase in stems 15 tons per acre. per acre of aspen shoots post-treatment.

Environmental Assessment

Old Growth Old Growth Ponderosa Pine: Total percent PP old growth 2%. Ponderosa Pine: 7-10 percent of each drainage Total old growth percentage within Ranch Creek-Sevier managed for old growth retention. River 40%, Sweetwater Creek 17%.

Mixed Conifer: Total percent DF old growth 4%. Total Mixed Conifer: 7-10 percent of each drainage managed old growth percentage within Ranch Creek-Sevier for old growth retention. River 40%, Sweetwater Creek 17%. Aspen: No old growth retention target for aspen stands. Aspen: N/A

Spruce/Fir: Total percent SF old growth 2%. Total old Spruce/Fir: 7-10 percent of each drainage managed for old growth percentage within Ranch Creek-Sevier River growth retention 40%, Sweetwater Creek 17%. Referenced from (USDA 2000b, 2006, 2009).

Northern Goshawk Home Range Northern goshawk nesting home ranges consist of three components: a nest area, a post-fledgling area (PFA), and a foraging area (Reynolds and others 1992). The home range averages about 6,000 acres and should consist of forested stands in a wide range of all structure and age classes to meet shelter and foraging needs for both the goshawk and its prey species. Within the Ranch Creek project area there are portions of three northern goshawk home ranges: Horse Lake, Hurricane Hollow, and Ranch Creek. Table 7 describes the desired condition of the distribution of Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS) across the project area.

Table 7: Current VSS Distribution by Northern Goshawk Home Range

Home Range Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS), percent of Total Forested Acres 1 2 3 4 5 6

Grass/Forb/ Saplings 1.0”- Young Mid-Aged Mature Old Seedlings .99” dbh Forest 5”- Forest Forest Forest > 1.0”dbh* 11.9” dbh 12”-17.9” 18”- 23.9” 24” + dbh dbh dbh Desired Condition 10 10 20 20 20 20

Hurricane Hollow 0 19 17 50 11 3

Ranch Creek 0 34 35 31 0 0

*dbh = diameter at breast height (breast height = 4.5 feet)

Wildland Urban Interface The Dixie National Forest identifies Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) as; the area adjacent to an at-risk value (structure, community, critical infrastructure or municipal watershed) where wildland fuels and human development exist, creating a fire environment that poses a threat to life safety and/or property damage. The private land inholding within the Ranch Creek project are is determined to be WUI because there are several cabins and outbuildings at risk to fire. Existing Condition The existing condition in the ponderosa pine stands adjacent to private lands is over desired values for dead and down fuel loading. Additionally, a low canopy base height and understory component composed of ladder fuels could lead to crown fire or independent torching during a wildfire. Pinyon-juniper stands surrounding the private land in the project area are mature with little understory. The exceptions to this are areas near natural openings and shrublands. Canopy spacing in some areas is tight enough to support large scale crown fire growth. Conifers have encroached into the shrublands near private lands. Some areas of shrublands contain overly mature, fire prone brush that would support large fire growth. Desired Condition Lands and vegetation surrounding private land and structures would not support large scale, resource damaging wildfire. Forest Service land adjacent to private lands would not sustain rapid fire growth or large crown runs. The vegetation has a variety of age classes in a mosaic and limited amount of ladder fuels which would impede fire growth and decrease the likelihood of a fire transitioning to a crown fire. All stands around private land would limit rapid fire growth and impede a fire crossing the boundary from Forest Service land onto private land or vice versa. Table 8 summarizes the existing and desired conditions for the wildland urban interface.

Table 8. Existing and desired conditions for the wildland urban interface

Existing Condition of WUI Desired Condition of WUI Fuel Loading: Fuel loading in the ponderosa pine Fuel Loading: Fuel loading in the ponderosa pine stands average 8-14 tons/acre. stands averages 5 tons/acre.

Canopy Base Height: Canopy base height extends Canopy Base Height: Canopy base height higher than onto the bottom 1/3 of the tree in sections of ponderosa the bottom 1/3rd of the tree in ponderosa pine stands. pine stands. Tall understory growth of invading conifers and manzanita. Composition: Pinyon-juniper stands are largely made Composition: Pinyon-juniper stands consist of a up of mature trees with little variation in age classes. mosaic of age classes. Some areas of mature brush with little variety in age. A mosaic of age classes in the shrublands and less than Conifer encroachment is evidenced by multiple age 10% conifer component. classes of conifers distributed throughout the WUI.

Disturbance Regime: FRCC 2 to 3 Disturbance Regime: FRCC 1

Environmental Assessment

Trail System Existing Condition Portions of the non-motorized Great Western Trail follow FR 140, administrative roads FR 31453, 31451 and 31451A. Off highway vehicle intrusions are common on portions of this non- motorized trail which is not designated as shared use. Desired Condition Non-motorized trail tread should be 18- 24” wide. Motorized and non-motorized routes should be separated. Water Availability Existing Condition There is a good habitat area within the Horse Creek drainage for wild turkey nesting and brood rearing, but that specific area lacks an adequate water source. Desired Condition The desired condition for water availability is to continue to improve wildlife habitat capability through direct treatment of water distribution (USDA 1986, as amended: IV-35).

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to maintain and improve riparian areas and stream and watershed function, as well as to benefit Bonneville cutthroat trout and other wildlife species. This purpose translates into the following specific needs: 1. There is a need to increase the proportion and health of riparian dependent species in the riparian zone along Horse Creek, Birch Creek, and Ranch Creek. Improving the density and diversity of riparian hydric species will help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristics to those under which the communities developed. In addition, conifers, especially juniper trees, often outcompete grasses and forbs in upland settings (Bates and others 2011; Ross and others 2012; Roundy and Vernon 1999). The allelopathic nature of juniper can also reduce ground cover which can lead to elevated erosion of soils from juniper uplands (Cline and others 2010; Petersen and Stringham 2008; F.B. Pierson and others 2007; F. B. Pierson and others 2010; Roundy and Vernon 1999). It is reasonable to assume that upland conifers encroaching on riparian areas, such as those found within the project area, are causing reductions in riparian vegetation density and diversity similar to those seen in upland settings. Increased rates of erosion are likely to follow any loss of stabilizing ground cover within the riparian areas and meadows. 2. There is a need to reduce the amount of sediment being introduced into Horse Creek, Birch Creek and Ranch Creek. Decreasing trampling and damage to the riparian plant communities, improving channel habitat, and decreasing bank erosion will improve water quality and maintain and enhance riparian vegetation and the status of BCT. a) In order improve water quality and channel stability there is a need to relocate approximately 1,100 ft. of FR 34047/FR 30235 and provide proper drainage. b) There is a need to improve water quality and channel stability by reducing the

hydrologic impacts of FR 34047 on Birch Creek and FR 30135 on Horse Creek. c) There is a need to improve water quality and riparian vegetation health within the Horse Creek Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) and the Ranch Creek headwaters meadow. 3. There is a need to improve habitat for and increase stream miles accessible to native aquatic organisms. 4. There is a need to restore and enhance ecosystem health while promoting the overall sustainability and diversity of vegetative systems and hydrologic functioning of the watershed. 5. There is a need to restore forest stand resiliency and resistance to insects and disease by reducing competition-induced mortality. 6. There is a need to improve and maintain desirable forested conditions such as stand structure, stand structural stage, species composition, and VSS class distribution for northern goshawk habitat. 7. There is a need to reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe and stand replacing wildfires by reducing fuel loading, raising canopy base height, reducing ladder fuels, and opening canopy. 8. There is a need to decrease the probability of crown fires and reduce surface fire intensity to improve fire management effectiveness and firefighter safety. 9. There is a need to separate non-motorized trail users from motorized vehicles especially in an areas where sharp switchbacks limit visibility. 10. There is a need to improve habitat and disperse wildlife by providing an adequate water source in the Horse Creek drainage.

1.5 Proposed Action The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are as follows (a detailed description of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) can be found in Chapter 2: Action 1: Treat riparian areas to promote riparian dependent vegetation species (see Figure 11). This action responds to purpose and need 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Action 2: Relocate portion of Birch Creek ATV trail away from stream (see Figure 12). This action responds to purpose and need 2, 3, and 4 Action 3: Fence the Horse Creek GDE and upper Ranch Creek meadow with ungulate proof fencing (see Figure 12). This action responds to purpose and need 2 and 4. Action 4: Install grade control structures at the downstream end of the lower section of Horse Creek to raise streambed elevation, and use heavy equipment to establish a wide floodplain (~30 feet wide on each side of the stream) accessible by floods with a recurrence interval of ~1.5 years. Slope back banks between the stream channel and abandoned terrace so that the slope is less than 45 degrees. Fill from the channel widening and bank sloping could be used as fill for an erosion feature found within the drainage where some water conveyance practices from an adjacent landowner have led to a gully that transverses across an inactive alluvial fan. The channel length to be reconstructed is approximately 1.0 miles and the erosion feature to be filled is approximately 0.3 miles (see Figure 12). This action responds to purpose and need 2, 3, and 4.

Environmental Assessment

Action 5: Treat the shrubland community to remove encroaching conifers and improve structure of brush (see Figure 11). This action responds to purpose and need 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Action 6: Treat Goshawk nest areas and PFAs to meet the intent of the Goshawk Amendment. This action responds to purpose and need 6. Action 7: Treat up to 8,550 acres of forest stands to alter species composition and density by using silvicultural treatments, hand and mechanical thinning, and using prescribed fire (see Figures 10 and 11). This action responds to purpose and need 5, 7, and 8. Action 8: Reroute sections of non-motorized Great Western Trail off of FR 140 (see Figure 12). This action responds to purpose and need 9. Action 9: Install a water guzzler in the Horse Creek drainage (see Figure 12). This action responds to purpose and need 10.

1.6 Decision Framework The responsible official for this analysis and decision is the Escalante District Ranger, Dixie National Forest, 700 West Main, Escalante, Utah, 84726. The Environmental Assessment will be made available for administrative review before the final decision is made per Forest Service Objection Regulations at 36 CFR 218 subparts A and B. Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: • The Responsible Official will decide whether to implement the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as described, a modification thereof, an additional Alternative, or No Action (Alternative 1). • Whether further analysis is needed through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1.7 Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policy The following laws, regulations and policy were considered as part of the environmental analysis for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project:

• National Environmental Policy Act • National Forest Management Act • National Historic Preservation Act • Archaeological Resources Protection Act • Clean Water Act • Endangered Species Act • Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management • Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands • Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice • Executive Order 13186 Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species

• Utah Smoke Management Plan • Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 1.8 Public Involvement The Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1, 2015. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping (August 24 to September 16, 2016). A 30-day Notice of Opportunity to Comment (NOC) was published on December 12, 2017 (December 12, 2017 to January 11, 2018). A scoping notice and a NOC letter was mailed to a list of Federal, State and local elected officials, Tribal governments and interested parties. Using the comments from the scoping and NOC period, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address in this analysis.

1.9 Issues During the 2015 scoping period, four letters were received and 13 comments were extracted from the letters. During the 2017-2018 Notice of Opportunity to Comment period, one letter was received and four comments were extracted from the letter. The interdisciplinary team reviewed all comments to identify issues for this proposal. The comment analysis for both comment periods may be found in the project record and on the project website. The Forest Service separated the comments into the following categories: 1) outside the scope of the Proposed Action, does not meet the purpose and need (will not be addressed further in analysis); 2) already decided by law, regulation, or policy; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; 4) conjectural or not supported by scientific evidence (will not be addressed further in analysis); 5) general comment, opinion, or position statement (will not be addressed further in analysis); 6) comment is part of the Proposed Action/Purpose and Need; 7) comment is a component of the Environmental Document and/or Project Record; or 8) analyzed as part of the No Action alternative. Comments identifying a critical concern to be addressed and tracked through the analysis were be designated as: 9. Comment identifies important concern and is designated “Non-Key Issue” to be addressed as Project Design Feature. 10. Comment identifies important concern and is designated “Key Issue” to be addressed as an Alternative or component of a current Alternative. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-key issues and reasons regarding their categorization may be found in the Comment Analysis, included in the project record. There were no key issues identified during the scoping period. The Forest Service identified the following non-key issues: • Concern that riparian areas will be permanently fenced off from grazing. Project design feature

Environmental Assessment

HS-3 with vegetation measurement indicators addresses this issue. • Concern with migratory birds breeding season, bird nests, and raptors. Project design features WL-8 through WL-12 address these issues.

Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service developed two alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public.

2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No vegetation treatments, trail relocations, fencing around groundwater dependent ecosystems, grade control structures, or water guzzler installations would be implemented to accomplish project goals. The existing conditions and processes described in Chapter 1 will continue.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is as follows: Action 1: Treat riparian areas to promote riparian dependent vegetation species (see Figure 11). • Remove Rocky Mountain juniper within 122 acres surrounding Birch Creek, Horse Creek and Ranch Creek. Within the current riparian influence zones trees will be hand thinned. Riparian influence zones will include the area from the edges of the active stream channel to whichever of the following widths is most appropriate:

o To the top of the inner gorge; o To the outer edges of the riparian vegetation; o To a 100 foot slope distance (200 feet, including both sides of the stream channel). • Trees thinned within the riparian influence zone will be piled and burned, chipped, lopped or scattered. Action 2: Relocate a portion of Birch Creek ATV trail away from the stream (see Figure 12). • Relocate approximately 1,100 feet of FR 34047/FR 30235 further upslope and away from the stream by approximately 100 feet. The old section of road bed will be decommissioned by ripping, re-contouring, erosion control matting, and the addition of course woody debris. Action 3: Fence the Horse Creek GDE and upper Ranch Creek meadow with ungulate proof fencing (see

Figure 12). • At the Horse Creek GDE build an exclosure capable of restricting ungulates. The exclosure fence will be built out of either post and wire or wood logs brought on site and will be approximately 700 feet in length and encompass approximately 0.77 acres • At the Ranch Creek headwater meadow and stream build an exclosure capable of restricting domestic ungulates, and if monitoring shows a lack of channel dimension improvement, restrict wild ungulates as well. The exclosure fence will be built out of log materials gathered or cut on site and will be approximately 2290 feet in length and encompass approximately 3.4 acres. Action 4: Install grade control structures at the downstream end of the lower section of Horse Creek to raise streambed elevation, and use heavy equipment to establish a wide floodplain (~30 feet wide on each side of the stream) accessible by floods with a recurrence interval of ~1.5 years. Slope back banks between the stream channel and abandoned terrace so that the slope is less than 45 degrees. Fill from the channel widening and bank sloping could be used as fill for an erosion feature found within the drainage where some water conveyance practices from an adjacent landowner have led to a gully that transverses across an inactive alluvial fan. The channel length to be reconstructed is approximately 1.0 miles and the erosion feature to be filled is approximately 0.3 miles (see Figure 12). Action 5: Treat the shrubland community to remove encroaching conifers and improve the structure of brush (see Figure 11). • Remove up to 90% of pinyon and juniper, as well as all other conifer species less than 9 DBH. This would total 1,065 acres of shrubland improvement. In areas less than 30% slope (not including soil areas with erosive issues) and accessible to heavy equipment, tracked machinery with mastication heads will be used. In all other areas hand cutting will be used to remove conifer species. On the edges of shrubland openings large mature trees will be left and small immature trees will be removed to create a feathered edge. Action 6: Treat Goshawk nest areas and PFAs to meet the intent of the Goshawk Amendment. Action 7: Treat up to 8,550 acres of forest stands to alter species composition and density by using silvicultural treatments, hand and mechanical thinning, and using prescribed fire (see Figures 10 and 11). • Within the aspen cover type implement vegetation treatments including group selection harvest, stand improvement thinning, pre-commercial thinning, mechanical conifer thinning, and prescribed burning. • Within the mixed conifer cover type implement vegetation treatments including group selection harvest, individual tree selection harvest, sanitation-salvage harvest, prescribed burning, and precommercial hand thinning. • Within the ponderosa pine cover type implement vegetation treatments including commercial thinning, improvement thinning, individual tree selection harvest, precommercial hand thinning, sanitation-salvage harvest of which 46 acres will be planted with ponderosa pine, and prescribed burning. • Within the spruce-fir cover type implement vegetation treatments including group

Environmental Assessment

selection harvest, individual tree selection harvest, pre-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning. • Within the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type implement vegetation treatments including group selection cutting utilizing both mastication and hand thinning methods, individual tree selection thinning utilizing both mastication and hand thinning methods, and prescribed burning. Action 8: Reroute sections of non-motorized Great Western Trail off of FR 140 (see Figure 12). • Construct approximately 0.8 miles of non-motorized trail in order to reroute the trail off of FR 140. The current location of the non-motorized Great Western Trail on FR 140 is shared with vehicle traffic including logging trucks Keeping non-motorized trail users off a motorized route not only improves the recreation experience but also user and vehicle safety. Action 9: Install a water guzzler in the Horse Creek drainage (see Figure 12). • A water guzzler is an apparatus that is placed generally in an area with no other water source. It consists of a catchment pad that collects rain and snowmelt and channels it to troughs or another vessel where it is available for wildlife and/or permitted livestock. This drinking area will be fenced from livestock for exclusive use by wildlife. The approximate size of the fenced area is 1/20th of an acre.

2.3 Transportation Plan The Proposed Action will use a combination of designated open roads, administrative use only roads, and temporary roads. Designated open roads and administrative use roads will be used for accessing and hauling within harvesting areas. No new permanent system roads will be constructed. Upon completion of harvest activities, motorized access to administrative use only roads that were used for hauling will be restricted using signs, gates, or barricades. The existing transportation system in the analysis area includes a network of system and non-system roads (see Figure 14, Project Area Transportation Map). There are currently 30.88 miles of system routes in the analysis area and consist primarily of maintenance level one routes. Roads that could be used as haul roads for this project include National Forest System roads 30140, 30135,and all other system roads in the project area. To accommodate hauling, some portions of these roads may require maintenance, which might include adding fill, changing grade, and/or adding or improving drainage structures. The purpose of this maintenance will be to repair areas to haul standards, not to create an upgrade to a higher class of road. To curtail further degradation of the existing road bed, approximately 1,100 feet of Forest Road 30235would be rerouted from the edge of Birch Creek to a more stable location upland from the existing alignment. Table 9 presents a list of all system roads in the project area, along with their status following the completion of the proposed project.

Table 9. Existing System Roads used by Proposed Action Road Road Length Operational Maintenance Level MTP Post Project Number (Miles) Designation Status

30140 3.48 3- SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS. Open to All Maintain Status 30441 2.72 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Open to All Maintain Status 30234 3.35 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Open to All Maintain Status 30135 2.74 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Open to All Maintain Status 31382 0.37 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Open to All Maintain Status 33243 0.39 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33893 0.31 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 31451 1.09 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33895 0.14 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 30135 0.79 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 31452 1.65 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 30271 0.54 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33892 0.31 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33896 0.42 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 30511 2.06 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33894 1.61 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 31453A 0.07 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33891 2.07 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 30235 4.14 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 31453 1.16 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33890 0.84 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33242 0.17 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status 33897 0.46 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Admin Maintain Status Total 30.88

Temporary Roads Construction of 24.36 miles of new low-standard temporary roads is proposed to facilitate implementation of vegetation treatments within the project area. Included in the 24.36 miles of temporary roads are 6.78 miles of roads closed by the 2009 Dixie National Forest’s Motorized Travel Plan. These 6.78 miles would be temporarily re-opened to provide access to the project area. None of the temporary roads would be added to the permanent National Forest System. Following vegetation treatment activities, these roads would be decommissioned, obliterated and/or closed using barricades. Table 10 presents a list of temporary roads that would be used for this project.

Environmental Assessment

Table 10. Proposed Temporary Road System Road Number Road Length (Miles) Construction Type Post Project Status 30135 0.82 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission 30135 1.13 Construction on Trail Non-Motorized Return to Trail Non-Motorized 30235R 0.22 Realignment New Trail Alignment 31381 0.42 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission 31384 0.74 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission T448 1.23 New Construction Decommission T449 0.24 New Construction Decommission T450 1.01 New Construction Decommission T451 0.20 New Construction Decommission T452 0.59 New Construction Decommission T453 0.56 New Construction Decommission T454 0.89 New Construction Decommission T455 0.24 New Construction Decommission T456 1.57 New Construction Decommission T457 1.12 New Construction Decommission T458 1.07 New Construction Decommission T459 0.56 New Construction Decommission T460 0.20 New Construction Decommission T462 0.59 New Construction Decommission T463 2.16 New Construction Decommission T464 0.76 New construction Decommission T468 1.33 New Construction Decommission T470 0.13 New Construction Decommission T471 0.39 New Construction Decommission T472 0.20 New Construction Decommission G4125 0.03 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4067 0.05 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U43031 0.13 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U43033 0.39 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U43034 0.60 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4311 0.61 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4316 0.77 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4322 1.04 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4323 0.39 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4325 0.34 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4328 0.32 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission U4330 0.11 Construction on Existing Roadbed Decommission Trail #34001.3 1.19 Great Western Trail Return to Trail Return to Trail Trail #34047 .02 Birch Creek Trail Total 24.36

2.4 Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives Project design features are project and site specific level measures that are to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts from implementation of proposed project activities. Design features derive from federal laws and regulations, established Forest Service policies, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and best management practices. Design features are prepared by the interdisciplinary team specifically for this project, and are integral components of both action alternatives. Table 9 describes project design features for the Proposed Action.

Table 11. Project design features for all action alternatives

Cultural Resources

CR-1. Project work in areas identified by the Forest Archaeologist need to be conducted when the ground is dry. If vehicles are required for the work, they must use rubber tires. The Dixie NF Archaeologist will be contacted prior to implementation of proposed project activities to ensure the protection of Historic Properties within the project boundary.

CR-2. Should an unexpected discovery occur during the course of project implementation, work would cease within a 100 foot buffer around the resource, as permitted by safety, and the Forest Archaeologist would be contacted immediately for the appropriate course of action.

Fuels and Air Quality

F-1. Prescribed Fire Plans will be developed that are based on the best available science, project objectives and site- specific fuel types and geography. Implementation of prescribed fires will be in accordance with these plans.

F-2. While conducting prescribed fires, Environmental Protection Agency and Utah Department of Environmental Quality air quality standards will be maintained through compliance with the Utah State Smoke Management Plan.

Hydrology and Soils

HS-1. Perennial streams, ponds, and groundwater dependent ecosystems (e.g., springs and wet meadows) will have a buffer of 100 feet from the edge of the water body or to the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, where the following activities will avoided:

• Servicing, refueling or staging of equipment (within 150 feet of all riparian areas) • Broadcast or pile burning • Use of heavy equipment within the inner gorge or where hydric species are present • Skidding • Landings • Activities that would reduce potential groundcover below 80 percent. • Cutting of deciduous vegetation along the edge or within the stream channel

Environmental Assessment

HS-2. Intermittent streams will have the following activities avoided:

• Slash and burn piles within 50 ft. of the channel • Burning large wood found within the channel that acts as a stabilizer • Depositing cut material into the channel except for areas where otherwise identified as a need • Use as turn-around areas • Cutting of deciduous vegetation along the edge or within the stream channel • Non-designated crossings with heavy equipment.

HS-3. Riparian Areas • Temporary fencing to exclude livestock and wild ungulates will be constructed around the section of stream where channel reconstruction occurs. This fence will remain in place for 5 growing seasons or until at least 70% groundcover is within the riparian area (the newly constructed floodplain) and the adjacent upland sloped banks have recovered to at least 80% of original groundcover (USDA 1986, as amended: IV 41, 49), whichever is greater. • Temporary fencing to exclude livestock and wild ungulates from the riparian areas that have had vegetation treatments will be used if average woody browse exceeds 40% of new leaders on willow and cottonwood under browse height or if there are less than 300 stems/acre of aspen trees without the leader being browsed within aspen stands. In non-aspen riparian areas this temporary fence will have designated water gaps where needed and will remain in place until further analysis can be completed on the grazing allotment that contains the treated areas that would allow for a different grazing system that could maintain the intended effectiveness of the vegetation treatments. In riparian areas with aspen stands this fence will remain in place until there are at least 300 stems/acre of aspen trees with the leader above the browse height. • Large wood from riparian vegetation treatments will be added to sections of Birch Creek to reach an average density comparable to reference reaches where currently the density is less than that value. • Where chipping of the cut trees within the riparian occurs the chips will be spread out to no more than 2 inches in depth. Additionally, where lop and scattering occurs the material will be cut such that it will not exceed 12 inches in height. • Juniper trees will be identified for retention as needed to provide shade or bank stability in areas devoid of hydric vegetation capable of providing needed shade and bank stability.

HS-4. Uplands and Roads will have the following restrictions and avoidances:

• Avoid operating soil disturbing equipment when soil moisture levels are greater than 75 percent field capacity or on slopes greater than 40 percent • Reuse old existing landings where their location is compatible with management objectives and water quality protection • Use old roads for new temporary road locations where the old road location is not contributing to adverse effects to water resources • Use suitable surface drainage and roadway stabilization measures to disconnect the road from the waterbody to avoid or minimize water and sediment from being channeled into surface waters and to dissipate concentrated flows • Avoid temporary road construction on or within 50 feet of unstable slopes • Outsloping of temporary roads would be constructed where possible • A minimum of a 15 foot buffer of no vegetation removal along all roads with cut slopes (temporary or system) should be maintained to the edge of aspen treatment units or other even-aged management openings. • For decommissioning roads re-establish stable slope contours and surface and subsurface hydrologic pathways to the extent practicable • In areas identified as having a high erosion potential, effective groundcover values equal to or greater than average values that currently exist will be maintained after treatments in order to prevent excessive erosion. • In order to avoid cumulatively removing more than 15 % of the canopy in project delineated drainages, no more than 260 acres of vegetation treatment (including fire) will occur per delineated drainage per consecutive year. If project implementation requires more than 260 acres of treatment in a delineated drainage in a year the Forest Hydrologist will be consulted to determine how many acres can be treated in that year and future years to avoid cumulatively removing more than 15% of the canopy in that drainage over the life of the project (a model using % recovery of previous treatments will be used in this determination).

Noxious Weeds

NW-1. All ground disturbing equipment will be thoroughly cleaned to remove dirt, mud, and plant materials at an off- forest location prior to being transported to the project area.

NW-2. Disturbed soils will be evaluated to determine whether rehabilitation is needed and, if so, the methods to use. Seed mixes used for rehabilitation purposes will be certified noxious weed free. Seed mixes will include species that germinate rapidly to provide a quick cover of vegetation (the “nurse crop” technique).

NW-3. If used for rehabilitation purposes, only certified noxious weed-free hay, straw, and mulch will be used.

NW-4. Noxious weeds will be controlled on all disturbed areas should they become established in accordance with the Dixie NF Decision Notice for Noxious Weed Management of January 2000 (USDA 2000a).

Range

RG-1. Protect range allotment improvements (fences and water developments) during implementation activities.

Environmental Assessment

RG-2. Livestock grazing will continue to be administered through existing range allotment decisions and annual operating instructions to minimize impacts on regeneration and seeding establishment of vegetation. Measures may include livestock management activities such as herding, salt placement, timing of grazing, fencing, and rest. Rest will follow established DNF guidelines. Normally, the Forest requires that burned or treated areas be rested for two full years. Prior to stocking these areas an evaluation is needed to make sure that the rangelands are within 80% of desired effective ground cover values for the site and desirable plant species are established and producing seed. These timeframes may be modified based on documented consensus from an Interdisciplinary Team. Utilization standards are described in the Forest Plan and apply to this project. Recreation

REC-1. Cut stumps to a height of 6 inches or less where visible from FR 140, and the Non-motorized GWT.

REC-2. Mark trees within 100 feet or sight distance (whichever is appropriate) from Forest Road 30140 and the non- motorized GWT only on the side of the tree facing away from the road.

REC-3. Mark timber sale unit boundaries adjacent to Forest Road 30140 and the non-motorized GWT with signs rather than paint.

REC-4. Public safety along trails and near dispersed campsites will also be emphasized during harvest operations with signage.

REC-5. No log landings will be located adjacent to Forest Road 30140, the non-motorized GWT and the portion of the Grass lake OHV trail which is not open to full size vehicles.

REC-6. Skid trail will not be constructed within 100 ft. of the section of the Grass Lakes OHV trail between Forest Road 30441 and 30235. Maintain stand density to at least 80 square feet of basal area within this 100 foot buffer.

REC-7. Decommission/obliterate all closed roads and skid trails within sight distance of any open route. The purpose of this design feature is to disguise the decommissioned temporary route and prevent any attempted continued use of the route. Timber

TM-1. Unmerchantable material may be made available for fuel wood and biomass opportunities if markets exist.

TM-2. During timber sale layout, live trees with visible wildlife use indicated by the presence of nests and/or tree holes will be identified and retained.

TM-3. All skid trails and landing locations will be preapproved before logging operations occur.

TM-4. All felled timber will be decked and all slash generated from harvest activities will be piled by October 31 of each year in which harvest operations occur.

TM-5. Within conifer treatment units, protect residual trees through the designation of skid trails and landings, directional felling, and limiting off-trail skidding to one to two passes. Over-snow operation may be used. Mechanized fellers/forwarders may also operate off skid trails. Designated skid trails should be located approximately 100 to 150 feet apart, depending on terrain

TM-6. To maintain stand productivity and compliance with forest plan, down logs and coarse woody debris would be retained by aspen and spruce/fir cover type guidelines (Forest Plan, Appendix CC, page CC-22, Section G).

TM-7. In aspen regeneration treatment units, protect aspen root system through the designation of skid trails and landings, directional felling, and limiting skidding equipment to approved skid trails and only one to two passes off trail. If soils are frozen or are covered with 18 inches of snow, skidding equipment may operate off designated trails. To provide sufficient protection to aspen regeneration for excessive browsing, slash and logs not meeting utilization standards or adding to beetle risk shall be left throughout cutting units. If heavy browsing occurs, fences may be installed to restrict large ungulates (deer, elk, and livestock) until stocking averages >1,000 TPA and average seedling height exceeds 6 feet.

TM-8. To prevent spruce beetle spread, all Engelmann spruce and ponderosa pine trees, cut prior to September 1 shall be removed before the end of the same year and all Engelmann spruce and ponderosa pine trees cut after September 1 shall be removed before the end of the following year.

TM-9. To prevent spruce beetle spread, all live or recently killed Engelmann spruce felled or pushed over, which exceed 14 inches diameter and 18 inches in length, shall be skidded to a designated landing for disposal.

TM-10. To reduce fuel loading from harvest operations, ground-based skidding operations will utilize whole-tree harvest techniques.

Wildlife

WL-1. Project activities shall cease which "May Affect" threatened, endangered, or proposed species discovered within or adjacent to the project area during project layout or implementation that has not been addressed within the environmental analysis until the potential affect is removed or until consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concluded. Also, project implementation shall cease if any sensitive species is discovered within or adjacent to the project area that has not been addressed within the environmental analysis until an assessment can be made to determine the impact and potential adverse effects to the species.

WL-2. To maintain hiding cover for big game within forested ecosystems, retain a minimum of 50 percent of the perimeter of natural openings, aspen regeneration treatments, and meadows, and 75 percent of the edge along arterial and collector roads, as described in the Forest Plan, IV-34.

WL-3. To maintain habitat for a variety of wildlife species all forested landscapes shall be managed for no less than 300 snags per 100 acres in the mixed conifer and spruce/fir cover types and 200 snags per 100 acres in the aspen and ponderosa pine cover types. Guidelines in the goshawk amendment to the forest plan guideline F (USDA 2000e: CC-21) are to be followed. WL-4. To provide for the needs of a wide variety of wildlife, an average of 100 tons per 10 acres of coarse woody debris in the mixed-conifer and spruce-fir cover types, 30 tons per 10 acres in the aspen cover type, and 50 tons per 10 acres in the ponderosa pine cover type shall be retained following the guidelines outlined in the goshawk amendment to the forest plan, guideline G (USDA Forest Service, 2000, p. CC-22). WL-5. If new raptor nests are found within or adjacent to the project area, a buffer shall be placed around the nest, and a timing restriction will be established if the nest area is occupied. Buffer size, timing restrictions, and restrictions of harvest activities will be made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration site-specific raptor needs and utilizing raptor protection guidelines from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2002). If goshawk nests are found, the requirements in the forest plan are to be followed to protect the species. WL-6. To avoid impacts to breeding northern goshawks, timing restrictions will be applied to all activities within the designated nest areas and PFAs if nests are active as outlined in the goshawk amendment to the forest plan (USDA Forest Service, 2000, p. CC-23).

Environmental Assessment

WL-7. To provide habitat for the goshawk and its prey the percent of the group acreage covered by clumps of trees with interlocking crowns should typically range from 40-70% in post-fledgling and foraging areas, and 50- 70% in nest areas as described in USDA Forest Service (2000, p. CC-22).

WL-8. To minimize impacts to foraging and nesting wildlife, prohibit burning in bitterbrush openings and avoid burning bitterbrush stands within the interspaces of ponderosa pine that are one acre or greater in size.

WL-9. To minimize impacts to breeding flammulated owls, survey past response sites in an effort to locate nests. If flammulated owl nests are found, a buffer shall be placed around the nest and a timing restriction will be established. Buffer size, timing restrictions, and restrictions of treatment activities will be made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration site-specific needs and utilizing the raptor protection guidelines from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2002a). Recommended buffer size is 0.25 miles with a timing restriction from April 1st to September 30th. Past response locations will be surveyed prior to vegetation treatments. WL-10. To provide protection and avoid or minimize impacts to breeding migratory bird species, a buffer and associated timing restriction will be established for all occupied migratory bird nests found during the design or implementation of proposed activities. Buffer size, timing restriction, and restrictions of treatment activities will be made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration site-specific needs, use, and conditions.

WL-11. To provide protection and avoid impacts to nesting raptors along the cliff habitat within the project area, timing restrictions will be applied to burning activities in the spruce-fir cover type within the designated buffer areas if any of the three known raptor nests are active. Surveys will be conducted for the entire cliff area prior to burning in this cover type to determine occupancy. Buffer size and potential timing restrictions will take into consideration site- specific raptor needs and utilize raptor protection guidelines from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2002a).

WL-12. To provide protection and avoid impacts to nesting migratory bird species, timing restrictions will be applied to riparian treatments within Birch Creek and Horse Creek. This restriction only applies to the removal of Rocky Mountain juniper within these two drainages. The timing restriction will be applied from April 1 through June 15.

WL-13. Riparian vegetation will be actively restored along the banks of the approximately 1 mile of Horse Creek affected by Action 4. Active restoration could include, but will not be limited to, salvaging woody browse and hydric vegetation plugs from the project area and replanting them, erosion control matting, willow cuttings and hydric sod mats from local sources, bare root and containerized stock of appropriate riparian hardwood species and seeding. Riparian restoration would be designed to meet Forest Plan riparian objectives within 5 years following implementation.

WL-14. Equipment that comes in contact with water (including boots/waders) should be cleaned and dried before moving from one water source to another to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). If equipment cannot be completely dried, equipment would be decontaminated following the 2014 Region 4 Fire AIS guidelines (USDA 2014a).

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 12. Effects comparison for Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Resource Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Cultural Resources No adverse effects No adverse effects

Fire Effects on Forest No measureable direct and cumulative Generally the proposed actions make the Resources effects. Indirectly could increase treatment area more resilient and less potential of negative fire effects by likely to be negatively impacted by large increasing the risk of high severity fire. scale fire.

Safety of Firefighting No measureable direct and cumulative By lowering the risk of high severity fire Personnel and Public effects. Indirectly will increase large this alternative will reduce negative fire fire and crown fire potential therefore effects which pose a danger to firefighters increasing firefighter and public and the public. exposure to fire and associated risks.

Smoke and air quality By increasing the risk of high severity Air quality would be impacted by some of fire air quality could be negatively the proposed treatments during affected because of increased smoke implementation but not as negatively or as output from large scale fires. largely as Alternative 1. Treatments would reduce potential for smoke output from large wildfires.

Sensitive and MIS Fish and Boreal Toad Boreal Toad Amphibian Species Boreal toad are not known from the Boreal toad are not know from the project project or Cumulative Effects area so or Cumulative Effects area so direct effects direct effects are not expected. Indirectly are not expected. Indirectly habitat could suitable habitat could be negatively be negatively affected by an increase in impacted by uncharacteristic high sedimentation; however, with severity fire. implementation of project PDFS this is not expected to be significant or long-term. Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Direct effects are not expected. Direct effects from use of machinery are Indirectly core, conservation populations possibly to individuals from the core and suitable habitat could be negatively conservation population in Ranch Creek; impacted by uncharacteristic high however, with implementation of project severity fire. PDFs. BCT habitat may also be affected by the direct and indirect effects of project actions causing short-term decreases in shading and riparian canopy, decreases in stream bank stability and increases in fine sediment deposition and water temperature. Implementation of PDFs should limit the scope of these impacts and the long-term effects should be to increase riparian canopy and stream bank stability, while decreasing fine sediment generation

Environmental Assessment

and maintaining stream water temperatures. Southern Leatherside Chub Southern leatherside chub are not know from the project or Cumulative Effects area so direct effects are not expected. Suitable habitat may also be affected by the direct and indirect effects of project actions causing short-term decreases in shading and riparian canopy, decreases in stream bank stability and increases in fine sediment deposition and water Southern Leatherside Chub temperature. Implementation of PDFs Southern leatherside chub are not known should limit the scope of these impacts and from the project or Cumulative Effects the long-term effects should be to increase area so direct effects are not expected. riparian canopy and stream bank stability, Indirectly suitable habitat could be while decreasing fine sediment generation negatively impacted by uncharacteristic and maintaining stream water high severity fire. temperatures. Aquatic Habitat Riparian Vegetation Riparian Vegetation Continued loss of hydric species from PDFs should limit short-term decreases in upland vegetation invasion and riparian vegetation and removal of competition. Potential for complete loss competing upland species should result in in a large uncharacteristically severe long-term increases in riparian species wildfire. density, diversity and vigor.

Stream Bank Stability Stream Bank Stability Potential decline as hydric species and Potential short term declines in bank road and trial encroachment continue to stability; however, implementation of prevent establishment of deep-rooted PDFs should limit impacts to bank hydric species. Potential for severe stability. Stream channel restoration, ATV degradation following a large trail reroutes and improved density, uncharacteristically severe wildfire. diversity and vigor of hydric species following implementation should result in long-term increases in bank stability. Fine Sediment Fine Sediment Potential increase in fine sediment as Potential short term increases in fine upland vegetation invasion leads to sediment deposition; however, increased bare ground. Potential for implementation of PDFs should limit major inputs of fine sediment following increases. Stream channel restoration, a large uncharacteristically severe ATV trail reroutes and improved density, wildfire. diversity and vigor of hydric species following implementation should result in long-term decreases in fine sediment generation and transport.

Water Temperature Potential short-term increases in water temperature resulting from canopy Water Temperature removal. PDFs should limit impacts from Maintained as current; however, could Actions 5-7. Actions 1,2 and 4 should increase with climate change and result in long-term increases in canopy removal of canopy by a large, cover along with elevating the water table uncharacteristic wildfire. which could help maintain or decrease peak water temperatures

Hydrology (current values) Streamflow Canopy Streamflow Canopy Streamflow Canopy 0.4-0.9% at subwatershed scale .4-0.9% at subwatershed scale 5.8-9.9% at subwatershed scale 13-15% at 7FED scale 0-1% at 7FED scale (threshold 0-1% at 7FED scale unless a large is >15% of a drainage’s canopy wildfire occurs being removed)

Streamflow Roaded

0.3% to 0.7% (threshold is Streamflow Roaded Streamflow Roaded 12%) 0.3% to 0.7% 0.3% to 0.7% Water Quality (Temperature)

0.5% (threshold is >10% Water Quality (Temperature) Water Quality (Temperature) samples >68oF) 0.6% (due to climate change). Could be 1% in short term then 0.5% Water Quality (Sedimentation) >10% if a large wildfire occurs Water Quality (Sedimentation) Water Quality (Sedimentation) Below the threshold unless a large Below the threshold with the use of BMPs Channel Morphology wildfire occurs

Channel Morphology Channel Morphology Below the threshold unless a large Below the threshold with the use of BMPs wildfire occurs

Soils Detrimental Disturbance Current Value: 20-30% for 20-30% for proposed exclosure areas, <5% for proposed exclosure areas, <8% proposed exclosure areas, <4% for all other activity areas Unless a for all other activity areas <4% for all other activity large wildfire occurs areas (threshold is 15% of activity area having detrimentally disturbed soils as define in FSM 2550)

Environmental Assessment

Rangeland No effect Monitoring will need to be done on areas that are treated to determine when areas are ready for grazing.

Noxious Weeds No effect All soil disturbing treatments need to be monitored on an annual basis for the presence of any new noxious weed infestations.

Recreation In the short term, recreational use would Dispersed recreation within the treatment continue at current rates or likely areas could be impacted and use displaced increase as recent trends are indicating. to other areas. This displacement would In the long term, recreational be temporary. After treatments have been opportunities would potentially be implemented, both improved roads and impacted as a result of area closures improved wildlife habitat could increase related to unwanted fire. use of the area. Because recreation use in the project area is light, both the positive In addition, an unwanted fire would and negative impacts on recreation would reduce the attractiveness of the area and be minimal. make the area less desirable for many of the recreation activities.

Scenery Cumulative effects to scenery resources Scenery within the treatment areas would could occur as a result of adding the No be impacted by the proposed action. The Action to past, present, and reasonably proposed action would cause changes to foreseeable actions. Past actions, such as the character, lines, color and texture of the unwanted and prescribed fire have likely landscape. These effects would change created small areas within the CEA that over time and are not expected to reduce might not be meeting the prescribed SIO the SIO’s to unacceptable levels. for the management area. The SIO for the management areas within the CEA could be reduced below the prescribed objective if an unwanted fire occurred as a result of the No Action Alternative. The level of the effect would be dependent upon an unwanted fire occurring within the CEA, the location, intensity and duration. Vegetation (measures) Species Composition Species Composition Species Composition %Seral Species 39% 50% Forest Structure Forest Structure Forest Structure %Uneven-aged 9% 12% Average SDI 36 28 Forest Resiliency Forest Resiliency Forest Resiliency Acres Treated to Desired Fuel 0 3,459 Loading Insect and Disease Insect and Disease Insect and Disease

%Acres Infected <20% <5% Forest Pattern Forest Pattern Forest Pattern %Acres at VSS 1 13% 20% Old Growth Old Growth Old Growth %Watershed Ranch Creek 25% Sweetwater Creek 11% Ranch Creek 25% Sweetwater Creek 11% Wildlife and Plants Flammulated Owl Flammulated Owl Breeding habitat quality and quantity As forested and woodland stands move will continue to decline resulting in towards PFC, including the retention of further reductions in use of the project seral species within the mixed conifer and area by breeding owl pairs. aspen stands, potential breeding habitat will improve and increase use of the project area. Greater Sage-grouse Greater Sage-grouse Juniper encroachment will continue Removing juniper and promoting resulting in a decline of use in the sagebrush spp. in potentially suitable project and CEA. habitat may increase use of these areas as brood-rearing/summer habitat. Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk Carrying capacity of the project area will Treatments within the shrubland cover decrease for deer and elk as understory type will improve crucial winter range. vegetation continues to decrease. Treatments within forested and woodlands that move these areas towards PFC will increase forage. Northern Flicker Northern Flicker The lack of larger VSS classes will Project Design Features will maintain snag continue to occur, thereby limiting numbers for the species. Post treatment recruitment of large snags in forested diameter distributions will move toward stands. VSS Class 5 and 6, which will provide larger snags in the future. Northern Goshawk Northern Goshawk Habitat quality and potential use will The total stocking and density of climax decrease as conditions within cover species will be reduced and seral species types continue to not meet PFC. This composition and structure of the two will result in the decreased suitability of territories will be promoted, thereby the two known territories, and improving suitable breeding habitat for the abandonment by the associated pairs is species. likely. Peregrine Falcon Peregrine Falcon There are no effects. This species would avoid foraging above treatment activities and would disperse to other foraging habitat. Potential effects will not be measurable due to the lack of treatments in preferred foraging habitat.

Environmental Assessment

Spotted Bat Spotted Bat There are no effects. As openings are created by some treatments, available foraging habitat will increase. Three-toed Woodpecker Three-toed Woodpecker The increase in insects and disease will Project Design Features will maintain snag provide a food source for the habitat. Foraging opportunities will woodpecker and occurrences will temporarily increase within the spruce/fir increase in the project area temporarily. cover type because the species prefers to forage in fire-killed trees. Wild Turkey Wild Turkey Old growth within the watersheds will Moving forested and woodland stands continue to meet forest plan toward PFC including the promotion of requirements. riparian dependent and early seral species will increase foraging and brood rearing habitat. Disturbance from treatment activities may disperse individuals to other locations in the area, producing a minor effect. Old growth within the watersheds will continue to meet forest plan requirements. Migratory Birds Migratory Birds As areas continue to not meet PFC, loss Improvements to migratory bird habitat of potential habitat and use will occur will occur and the assortment of cover for migratory birds and their associated types represented in the project area move habitats. towards PFC.

Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Table 12, Comparison of Alternatives in Chapter 2. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found project website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47201; or in the project planning record located at the Escalante Ranger District Office in Escalante, Utah.

3.2 Cultural Resources Introduction This section presents a summary of the Heritage Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, see the Heritage Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section is a combined summary of the affected environment and environmental consequences of the two alternative actions described in Chapter 2. Humans have utilized the lands that are now within the Dixie National Forest for over 10,000 years. Physical remnants of these people are found in the form of artifacts and sites throughout the Escalante Ranger District. Federal Law prohibits adverse effects to Historic Properties which are the result of any ground disturbing activities undertaken by the Federal Government. Each proposed project within the boundaries of the National Forest requires these resources be located and evaluated as to their eligibility for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places prior to implementation of the project activities (36 CFR 800). Those sites which meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register are considered Historic Properties and need to be protected from any impact by proposed projects. There are currently three Historic Properties in the project boundary, the avoidance strategy for these resources is discussed in the paragraphs below in addition to the Heritage Specialist Report. Affected Environment Cultural Resources on the Escalante District are susceptible to natural erosion and to continued use of the land by humans. The desired condition for all known Historic Properties on the Escalante District is that they retain the characteristics which make them eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It is also desired that any newly recorded sites which are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register be avoided by all proposed project activities. Although cultural resources are not directly connected to the purpose and need of this project, consideration of the effects to Cultural Resources in relation to this project is directly linked to 36 CFR 800. Heritage Recommendations to Prevent Adverse Effects to Historic Properties Three Historic Properties were found during the analysis of Alternatives 1 and 2 of the Ranch Creek Watershed Improvement Project. Adverse effects to the three Historic Properties will be avoided by

following Heritage project design features in addition to utilizing hand thinning of vegetation in areas on and around the resources. This strategy will protect the resources while also preventing awkward islands of vegetation being left near the Historic Properties. Hand thinning of vegetation will also be conducted in other areas within the project boundary that are not associated with cultural resources. If inadvertent discoveries occur during project implementation, work would cease within a 100 foot buffer around the resource, as permitted by safety, and the forest archaeologist would be contacted immediately. The resource will be analyzed and if determined to be a Historic Property, will be avoided by all project activities. In light of the mitigation measures outlined in the Heritage Specialist Report in addition to this document, the Dixie National Forest has made the determination of no adverse effect to Historic Properties, as per 36 CFR 800.5(b). Concurrence by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office was received on March 6, 2015.

3.3 Fire and Fuels Introduction This section presents a summary of the Fire and Fuels Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion, analysis and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Fire and Fuels Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the alternative actions. Affected environment This report will document the current conditions related to fire, fuels, and air quality and the potential effects of the proposed management activities in the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project analysis area. The analysis area is all within the Escalante Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest and consists of a total of 14,082 acres. Due to fire suppression and other management practices, the project area has fire and fuels conditions outside of the historical range of variability. Currently, large portions of the project area are made up of continuous areas of tight crown spacing and significant ladder fuels. These conditions are increasing the vulnerability of the area to large, high severity fires that have the potential to harm wildlife, plant communities, fisheries, ecological processes, and watershed health. In addition, any future ignitions in this area that occur during hot, dry, and windy conditions are likely to burn large portions of the watershed. Continuous fuels hamper suppression efforts in this area; and increase risk to firefighting forces and the public. Under ideal circumstances natural fire or human caused fire occurring within the project area would not result in major resource damage or negative impacts to wildlife habitat, streams, livestock range, recreation opportunities and old growth timber. However, currently much of the analysis area would support rapid fire growth with a high probability of damaging and/or negatively impacting those resources under hot and dry and/or windy conditions. In addition, large uncontrolled wildfires can significantly reduce air quality in the area immediately surrounding the fire and downwind for the duration of the fire. It is estimated that historically fires occurred with more frequency and grew larger in the project area than what is currently allowed to occur. Yet, due to the increased frequency, these fires were lower intensity and did not result in as much resource damage as unplanned fires now cause. This is due in part to the practice of full fire suppression over the last 100+ years. By suppressing wildfire the amount of trees per acre has

Environmental Assessment increased and canopy base height has decreased in most areas. Ladder fuels such as mature brush stands and developing understory trees like pinyon and juniper and white fir have increased and some desirable grasses and forbs have decreased in coverage. All of this contributes to a higher probability of large scale resource damaging wildfire. Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct Effects There are no direct effects of choosing No Action alternative. Indirect Effects If no action is taken the vegetation within the project area will become further removed for the healthy fuel loading and fire return intervals and risk of high severity fire will increase. Increasing ladder fuels will increase the likelihood of a sustained crown fire in the forested areas. Risk to firefighters and the public would also increase in the event of a wildfire. If no action is taken smoke from wildfires will be expelled at higher concentration levels and for longer duration than if the area is treated. This could result in increased exposure to smoke particulate matter for residences of the Widtsoe/Sorensen Ranch, surrounding communities and sensitive areas such as Bryce Canyon National Park, Bryce Canyon City, Bryce Canyon Airport and Antimony. In the event of a large wildfire, communities further away from the project area could be effected including the communities of Tropic, Cannonville, Henrieville, Kingston, Junction, Escalante, Main Canyon/Davis Point, and Panguitch. Cumulative Effects If no action is taken fuel loading will continue to increase in all fuel types. Stand density and fuel loading will rise in the spruce-fir and mixed conifer. Pinyon and juniper and other ladder fuel species will continue to invade the ponderosa pine stands and increase the likelihood of large scale crown fire. Furthermore, stands will continue to be largely made up of one age class which further increases the potential of crown fire. In the pinyon and juniper, stand density will increase as well as encroachment into the shrublands which will also increase the potential for large scale high intensity fires that would likely carry fire into the ponderosa stands above. In aspen the continual encroachment of conifer will likely result in further disappearance and all together loss of aspen increasing the probability of large scale high intensity wildfires. In the event of a wildfire, fires will be larger and produce more smoke resulting in a greater degradation of air quality in downwind areas than would be if the area is treated. Under the No Action alternative the potential for large scale resource damaging fire will increase due to increased ladder fuels, higher stand density, increased fuel loads and an even aged stand structure. The potential for large scale crown fire will continue to increase. Smoke output during a wildfire will increase and air quality will decrease downwind and in the immediate area. Threat to public and firefighter safety during a wildfire event will increase and the Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCCs) of the project area will become further removed from within historic ranges of variability.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Direct Effects/Indirect Effects The effects of Alternative 2 are discussed by vegetation type and proposed actions. Action 1: Treat riparian areas to promote riparian dependent vegetation species Removal of juniper in riparian areas will reduce the potential negative effects in the event of a wildfire and help restore native vegetative species. Juniper will be removed from riparian areas with hand tools (chainsaw) and either piled and burned, lop and scatter or chipped. Juniper outside the riparian zone will be removed with tracked machinery with a masticating head. Although conifer removal will reduce some fire effects and make a wildfire more manageable, the makeup of the stand and the fuels that carry the fire will be largely unchanged and predictive models will show little to no change. Action 5 – Treat upland brush dominated areas to remove encroaching conifers and improve structure of brush. Removal of conifers from the shrublands and other areas of encroachment will reduce the potential for negative effects in the event of a wildfire. Historically most coniferous trees would have been removed through reoccurring fire (Hood and Miller 2007). Reduction of these trees through mechanical means will mimic some of the effects of reoccurring fire and bring those treated acres closer to an FRCC 1. This will improve firefighter safety when responding to a wildfire in this treated area in that torching, crown fire, and/or spot fires will be less likely. Although removal of conifer in the shrublands will reduce some fire effects and make a wildfire more manageable, the makeup of the stand and the fuels that carry the fire will be largely unchanged and predictive models will show no change. As stated above some behaviors such as spotting potential and ladder fuels at the edges of shrublands will be reduced making it safer for fire personnel. Action 6: Treat Goshawk nest areas and PFAs to meet the intent of the Goshawk Amendment. Treatments with in Goshawk nest areas and post fledging areas (PFAs) will follow the guidelines set forth in the Goshawk Amendment with little to no change in fire behavior as described in pre and post modeling. Action 7 – Treat forest stands to alter species composition and density by using silvicultural treatments, hand and mechanical thinning, and using prescribed fire. Overstocking and tight crown spacing contribute to crown fires. In addition overstocking of smaller trees creates a ladder fuel to larger trees which also contributes to high severity crown fire. Group selection harvest will increase crown separation and break up the continuity of the crowns which will reduce the likelihood of sustained crown runs in the canopy of the stand. In addition, thinning of the understory will reduce the amount of ladder fuels reducing the ability of a surface fire to transition into the crowns of the stand (Arno and Harrington 1995). Activity fuels from silviculture treatments should not increase ground fuel loading much past existing conditions due to a whole tree harvest method. The modeling below will show post treatments with a decrease in canopy bulk density which allows the sun to dry out available fuels faster and be more exposed to

Environmental Assessment wind. This will show as an increase in spread rates and flame length. In the models that show an increase, the continuity of tree crowns would be broken up and isolated torching of trees would be more likely rather than a sustained crown fire. In areas where activity fuels would increase, fire residence time and intensity in the event of a wildfire during hot and dry conditions would increase tree mortality due to excessive heat on needles and the bole of standing trees even if the crowns don’t actually ignite. However, introducing prescribed fire during favorable weather conditions with higher fuel moistures will alleviate this concern by consuming available fuels at a slower, cooler rate and intensity, thereby reducing tree mortality. In addition a prescribed fire will have the added benefit of pruning the lower branches of trees that have been left in the stand and raising the canopy base height. This will further reduce the likelihood of a wildfire to transition from a surface fire to a crown fire. Crown fire potential as modeled would stay the same; however, the model does not take into account the increase in crown spacing that would occur during treatment. This increase in crown spacing would serve to break up the continuity of available live fuels in a wildfire. This would impede crown fire growth and individual tree torching would be more likely and the potential for crown fire runs burning large areas would be reduced. All of this would result in trending the mixed conifer in this treatment toward an FRCC 1 and bringing the stands closer to the historic range of variability of fire disturbance. Fire personnel responding to a wildfire post treatment would be slowed by increase slash, rates of spread, and flame lengths, but the increase in crown spacing reduces the likelihood for large crown runs and a direct control strategy would be more likely post treatment. Upon completion of the treatments, most of the area will be closer to an FRCC 1 and a properly functioning condition. However, hand thinning methods proposed in Action 7 will increase ground fuel loading and will not bring areas back to FRCC 1. The strategies and tactics available for firefighters responding to wildfires in the project area will be increased and the safest option will more often be available. Smoke impacts to the surrounding area during wildfires will be reduced to more tolerable levels post treatment.

3.4 Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat Introduction This section presents a summary of the Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation of Fish and Amphibian Sensitive Species. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation of Fish and Amphibian Sensitive Species contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the alternative actions described in Chapter 2. Affected environment Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species under the Endangered Species Act No aquatic species listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act are known to occur in the project area or cumulative effects area (CEA). There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for aquatic species in the project area or CEA; therefore, this topic will not be analyzed further.

Intermountain Region Sensitive Species Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 provides management direction for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals (FSM 2670). The potentially affected watersheds contain current and historic habitat for Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT; Oncorhynchus clarki utah) which are Intermountain Region Sensitive species. BCT are managed under a Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Lentsch and others 2000) to which the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service is a signatory, in order to “assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species.” As a partner in implementing the Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy, the Forest Service has committed to cooperate and assist in range- wide habitat enhancement, re-introduction, non-indigenous species control and monitoring projects on National Forest System (NFS) lands where appropriate. The project area contains historic habitat for southern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda aliciae) and suitable habitat for boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas). In addition to being Intermountain Region Sensitive species, southern leatherside is managed under a Conservation Agreement and Strategy to which the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service is a signatory and Boreal toad is managed by the State of Utah under a Conservation Plan (Hogrefe and others 2005; UDWR 2010). Management Indicator Species (MIS) Planning regulations direct Forests to identify MIS. Aquatic species were selected and monitored to indicate change in fisheries habitat resulting from activities on the Forest. Aquatic MIS for the Dixie National Forest (DNF) include BCT (MIS and R4 Forest Service sensitive species), Colorado River cutthroat trout (MIS and R4 Forest Service sensitive species), southern leatherside (MIS and R4 Forest Service sensitive species), Virgin spinedace, and/or nonnative trout (considered in aggregate). The Forest Plan states that “Where present, the native Bonneville cutthroat trout, native Colorado River cutthroat trout, Virgin spinedace, and southern leatherside will each be an MIS, because they are species with special conservation needs.” The Forest Plan also states that nonnative trout “in the absence of the other MIS, will be the MIS and considered as a group.” The following issue indicators will be used: standing crop of nonnative trout, distribution and standing crop of BCT, riparian condition (Level III Riparian inventories), water quality (fine sediment deposition and temperature) and bank stability. Cumulative Effects Area (CEA): The CEA for aquatic habitat, boreal toad and MIS nonnative trout for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project consists of the Ranch Creek-Sevier River and Sweetwater Creek 6th field HUCs from delineated project subwatersheds in the headwaters to the East Fork Sevier River confluence (see Figure 13). The CEA for BCT conservation is the Southern Geographic Management Unit (GMU) as defined in the BCT Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Lentsch and others 2000). This essentially encompasses the entirety of the of the Sevier River Basin, as well as the Escalante Desert and Pine Valley populations of BCT.

Environmental Assessment

Sensitive and MIS Species Potentially Affected Table 13 shows MIS and Sensitive species on the Dixie National Forest and whether suitable habitat exists in the project area or CEA. Boreal toad The potentially affected watersheds contain suitable habitat for boreal toad; however, there are no current or historical records of boreal toad in the project area or CEA. Boreal toad trend on the Forest is mixed between the three known breeding population areas: Baker Springs/Pine Creek, Donkey Creek/Birch Creek and the Paunsaugunt Plateau (Rodriguez 2012). The Paunsaugunt Plateau population has the closest known historic observation of boreal toad to the project area, 25 miles to the southwest on the north end of Tropic Reservoir. The Baker Springs/Pine Creek population has the closest known breeding population to the project area, approximately 27 miles to the northeast at Baker Springs. Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) The potentially affected watersheds contain current and historic habitat for BCT. Fish bearing perennial streams within the project area and CEA include: Ranch Creek, Horse Creek and Birch Creek. Streams within the project area all flow into the East Fork Sevier River which is part of the larger Sevier River Basin. BCT are the native trout to the Sevier River basin which is part of the Southern Geographic Management Unit (GMU) for the species (Lentsch and others 2000; Rodriguez 2012). The current trend for BCT on the Forest and in the Southern GMU is stable to increasing.

Table 13. Aquatic biota that are Dixie National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) and/or Intermountain Sensitive Species, whether they have suitable habitat within the project area, and if not why.

Species MIS Intermountain Suitable Habitat Unsuitable for the following Sensitive Habitat reasons

Nonnative trout Y N Y Southern leatherside Y Y Y . (Lepidomeda aliciae) Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda Y N N Virgin spinedace are endemic to the Virgin mollispinis mollispinis) River Basin and do not occur in the Bonneville Basin, including the East Fork Sevier River drainage.

Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas) Y Y Y

Bonneville cutthroat trout Y Y Y (Oncorhynchus clarki utah)

Colorado River cutthroat trout Y Y N Colorado River cutthroat trout are native to (Oncorhynchus clarki the Upper Colorado River basin and do not pleuriticus) naturally occur in the Bonneville Basin, including the East Fork Sevier River drainage.

Ranch Creek contains a remnant, core population on BCT. Monitoring efforts in 2015 showed that the average standing crop and distribution of the Ranch Creek population has been stable to increasing since it was first identified in the 1990s (Hadley and Golden 2016). Average standing crop of Ranch Creek BCT during 2015 sampling efforts would be considered above average when compared to other southern Utah trout streams (Hepworth and Beckstrom 2004). Individuals form the Ranch Creek population were transferred to Cottonwood Creek on the west side of John’s Valley in 2013 in an effort to protect representation and increase redundancy for that population. Sampling in 2015 indicated that the distribution of the BCT population in Cottonwood Creek remained truncated and that standing crop was slightly below average when compared to other southern Utah trout streams (Hadley and Golden 2016; Hepworth and Beckstrom 2004). Additional disease certification samples from Ranch Creek in 2014 and 2015 indicate that the population has become infected with whirling disease, complicating efforts to continue establishing redundant populations. Southern leatherside chub The potentially affected watersheds contain historic habitat for southern leatherside. No southern leatherside individuals or conservation populations are currently known to occur in the project area; however, southern leatherside are present in the watered portions of the East Fork Sevier River as it flows through John’s Valley (Bennion 2010; Rodriguez 2012). The current distribution of distribution of southern leatherside on the Forest has declined when compared to the historical distribution; however, current populations appear to be stable (Rodriguez 2012). Nonnative trout With the exception of Ranch Creek, fish-bearing stream habitat within the CEA is occupied by nonnative trout, in particular brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Within the project area and CEA, MIS nonnative trout are present in Birch Creek and Horse Creek. Sampling in 2006 and 2012 showed variable nonnative trout standing crop that was below average when compared to other southern Utah trout streams (Hepworth and Beckstrom 2004). Riparian vegetation Through 2016 there were five established Riparian Level III Inventory locations within the CEA (see Table 14). All these Inventories have been read more than once and show a stable or upward trend in riparian vegetation; however, Forest Plan objectives for riparian vegetation are only being met at two of the five, and one of these in within a livestock exclosure. Upland conifer succession into riparian areas is one of the reasons for poor greenline successional ratings at these sites.

Environmental Assessment

Table 14. Riparian Level III monitoring study sites within the CEA

Study Site Years Effective Greenline Greenline Trend Meeting ID Name Sampled Ground Successional Bank Stability Forest Cover (%) Rating Rating Plan objectives

4124 Birch 2010 2015 90.5 mid seral moderate upward No Creeka

5056 Ranch 2005 2010 99.5 PNC (Potential good (high) stable Yes Creek 2015 Natural Exclosure Community)

5057 Ranch 2005 2010 88 very early seral moderate stable No Creek 2015

6066 Horse 2006 2011 67.5 mid seral moderate stable No Creek 2016

6067 Birch 2006 2011 87 mid seral moderate upward Yes Creeka 2016 a Location is within Management Area 9A (Riparian Management)

Stream bank stability

Bank stability and bank cover was measured at four areas containing adjustable channel types in 2013 using the Multiple Indicator Monitoring methodology (Table 15) (Burton and others 2011). Additionally, bank stability was assessed during the Level II Riparian Inventory conducted on Birch Creek in 1995. The inventory showed 50% or more of the banks on the lower end of Birch Creek were unstable. Visual observations and geomorphic surveys along a headwater portion of Ranch Creek stream show that the stream bank receives noticeable amounts of trampling and has an uncharacteristically high width to depth ratio resulting in poor fish habitat.

Table 15. Stream, location and bank stability and bank cover measurements collected using Multiple Indicator Monitoring methodology (Burton and others 2011)

ID Stream Date Bank stability Bank Cover

4124 Birch Creeka 6/5/2013 65% 71%

6066 Horse Creek 6/5/2013 44% 35%

6067 Birch Creeka 6/5/2013 51% 43%

Ranch Creek 6/5/2013 93% 96% (meadow below forks) a Location is within Management Area 9A (Riparian Management)

Fine sediment

In the past 15 years Wolman pebble counts have been conducted on Ranch Creek and Birch Creek within the proposed project area (Table 16). In general these pebble counts showed relatively high levels of fine sediment.

Table 16. The percent of fine sediments (< 3.2 mm) covering larger substrates (percent fines) found during pebble counts in streams potentially affected by the proposed project area since 2000.

Location Year(s) sampled % fines

Ranch Creek 2002/2007 51/25

Birch Creek 2010 23

Water temperature

Continuous temperature was recorded in Ranch Creek for a portion of 2006 and in Birch Creek at two locations in 2013 and one location in 2014. The downstream location on Birch Creek had maximum temperature exceeding 20 ̊C in both years; and both sites on Birch Creek showed relatively wide daily temperature fluctuations. Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Aquatic Habitat Riparian vegetation, stream bank stability, fine sediment and water temperature No direct impacts to riparian vegetation are expected under the No Action Alternative. Riparian vegetation, stream bank stability, fine sediment deposition into aquatic habitat and water temperature will continue to receive direct and indirect impacts from past and current management activities, such as livestock grazing, roads and trails, conifer succession, channel incision and water diversion. The increased fuel loading resulting from the No Action alternative increases the chance that a fire started within the CEA would burn with uncharacteristically high intensity and severity, which could result in future deterioration of aquatic habitat. Boreal toad Boreal toad are not known to occur in the project area or CEA and no historic observations of adult toads are breeding activity have been documented. The nearest known breeding population is 27 miles to the north east near Baker Springs; therefore, no impacts to individual toads or known toad populations are expected from implementation of the No Action alternative. Impacts would be to suitable amphibian habitat, which are described in the aquatic habitat section. BCT Similar to the Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative on Aquatic Habitat, no direct effects are expected to core or conservation populations of BCT from implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Environmental Assessment

The only BCT population within the aquatic habitat CEA is the remnant, core population in Ranch Creek. Despite fine sediment levels, riparian condition and stream channel configuration that are below the threshold for Desired Future Condition in some portions of Ranch Creek, the BCT population appears to be increasing in abundance and standing crop. The increased fuel loading resulting from the No Action alternative increases the chance that a fire started within the proposed project area would burn at a an uncharacteristically high severity and intensity, which could result in future deterioration of aquatic habitat. Moderate to high severity fires on both the Dixie and Fish Lake National Forests, as well as across the western United States, have eliminated native cutthroat trout populations and degraded aquatic habitat (Jason B. Dunham and others 2007; J.B. Dunham and others 2003; Hadley, Ottenbacher, and Golden 2011; Hadley and others 2010; Hadley, Ottenbacher, and Whelan 2011; Hepworth and others 2003; Rinne 1996, 2004; Rodriguez 2012). Southern leatherside chub Since no southern leatherside occupy the project area, no direct or indirect effects are expected to individuals or conservation populations of southern leatherside from implementation of the No Action Alternative. Indirect impacts described to aquatic habitat above would affect historic and potential future southern leatherside habitat.

Nonnative trout

Direct and indirect effects of the No Action Alternative on MIS nonnative trout are similar to those described for BCT. Unlike BCT, in some cases nonnative trout may have the opportunity to naturally recolonize streams where catastrophic events have occurred. Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Effects Area is described above (see Figure 13). Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities potentially effecting aquatic habitat in the CEA include: vegetation management projects, wildfire, grazing, off- road ATV use, roads, trails, dispersed campsites, water diversion, nonnative fish stocking, riparian exclosure construction, Aquatic Organism Passage projects and future BCT restoration activities (including barrier construction and nonnative fish removal. Effects from all these activities will continue under both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. Past and future management actions could impact or have impacted Sensitive and MIS fish and amphibian populations and aquatic habitat through habitat loss and fragmentation, competition with and/or depredation by nonnative fish, riparian and stream channel habitat degradation and impacts to water quality, including fine sediment deposition and increased temperatures. Overall implementation of the No Action alternative would be expected maintain the current condition and trend for aquatic habitat in the CEA. As discussed under direct and indirect effects, the increased potential risk for a wildfire to burn with uncharacteristically high severity and intensity under the No Action alternative could have a substantial cumulative effect on Sensitive and MIS fish, amphibians and aquatic habitat. If future restoration plans are not completed prior to such an event the genetic representation of the Ranch Creek population within the Southern BCT GMU population could be reduced or lost.

Determinations Implementation of the No Action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species for MIS nonnative trout. The No Action alternative should not impact individual boreal toads, southern leatherside chub, or any conservation populations of these species, but it may affect suitable habitat in the project area; however, any potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species. The No Action alternative may impact individual BCT and the Ranch Creek core population; however, potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects Aquatic Habitat Because of the lack of impacts to aquatic species and their habitats posed by Actions 8 and 9, these actions will not be addressed further in the analysis. Riparian vegetation The proposed hand thinning of conifers from riparian influence zones is designed to benefit riparian hydric species. Since the action is hand thinning, no direct impacts to riparian hydric species are expected. Indirect effects to riparian vegetation, include the potential reduction in fire risk and the removal of competitive upland species which should improve the health and vigor or riparian species. Impacts to riparian vegetation from piling and burning should be avoided through implementation of PDFs HS-1 and HS-2 (see Hydrology and Soils Report). Relocating 1,100 feet of road out of the Aquatic Management Zone has no direct impacts to riparian vegetation. After the road is decommissioned and recontoured there is a potential for riparian vegetation improvement. Fencing the small groundwater dependent ecosystem adjacent to Horse Creek, and a large meadow along Ranch Creek, both of which are currently receiving excessive use by livestock excluding livestock in improving the composition and vigor of riparian vegetation is well documented (Batchelor and others 2015; Keller and Burnham 1982; Platts and Nelson 1985; Tucker-Schulz and Leininger 1990). The stream channel reconstruction on Horse Creek will have short-term negative direct impacts to riparian vegetation; however, PDFs HS-3 and WF-13 ensures those impacts will be short-lived and that the indirect effects of the reconstruction will be riparian vegetation improvements to meet Forest Plan Objectives in the long-term. Mastication, hand thinning and mechanical thinning/harvest of trees in different vegetation types, along with the use of prescribed (Rx) fire (pile burning and broadcast burning) can directly affect riparian vegetation if heavy equipment is used in the riparian influence zone. Mechanical treatments will involve the construction of 15.5 miles of temporary roads, the majority of which are in the Horse Creek drainage. With the exception of three stream crossings. Proposed temporary roads are not in riparian influence zones and will not be constructed in Aquatic Management Zones. Two of the stream crossings are in the footprint of an existing unauthorized route; while two will remove riparian vegetation on both banks to facilitate the crossing. Implementation of HS-1, HS-2, HS-3, and HS-4 along with the BMPs in Appendix A to the Hydrology and Soils Report should minimize and remediate impacts to riparian vegetation.

Environmental Assessment

Stream bank stability Relocating 1,100 feet of road out of the Aquatic Management Zone and fencing the small groundwater dependent ecosystem adjacent to Horse Creek, and a large meadow along Ranch Creek should improve stream bank stability at those locations. Hand thinning could have short-term indirect effects to stream bank stability by removing trees contributing to bank stability, but long-term positive indirect effects to bank stability through improved riparian vegetation. PDF HS-3 should ameliorate that short-term negative impact by retaining trees needed to provide bank stability. The goal of the reconstruction project would be to create more stable banks using grade control structures, channel recontouring and riparian vegetation restoration (Rosgen 1996). The grade control structures should result in direct, immediate increased bank stability, while the recontouring and revegetation will have direct and indirect benefits to banks stability as the vegetation grows and the floodplain remains connected to the channel. Mastication, hand thinning and mechanical thinning/harvest of trees in different vegetation types could result in direct impacts to stream bank stability through a loss of ground cover, displacement of soil, and compaction of soils (Chamberlain and others 1991). Implementation of PDFs HS-1 and HS-2 should ameliorate these concerns as they specify that machinery will be excluded from riparian influence zones. The aforementioned vegetation management activities, along with the use of Rx fire may have short-term impacts to bank stability by altering runoff volume and erosion patterns. These impacts should be minimized by maintaining riparian buffer zones and following all BMPs and PDFs outlined for the project. The treatments proposed would reduce fuel loading and continuity lowering the risk of a large, high severity fire (see Fuels Specialist Report and Vegetation Management Specialist Report) which would probably have substantial negative impacts to bank stability and channel morphology throughout the project area, if it should occur. Fine sediment Moving an 1,100 foot section of the Birch Creek ATV trail out of the Aquatic Management Zone of Birch Creek may have short term sediment delivery increases during the decommissioning process; however, in the long-term the route relocation will reduce sedimentation into Birch Creek. Similarly, exclosures around the headwater meadow of Ranch Creek and a GDE along Horse Creek should result in a reduction in sediment delivery to streams adjacent to and within these exclosures. Channel reconstruction along Horse Creek will result in direct sediment introductions to the channel. The long-term objective of the channel work is to restore a geomorphologically functional channel with a healthy riparian vegetation community. PDFs HS-3 and WF-13 are designed to ensure the success of these treatments. If successful, these treatments should be effective in creating riparian condition more effective at trapping overland sediment transport within five years. Hand thinning conifer in riparian areas will remove tree canopy within the riparian influence zone. It is reasonable to assume that upland conifers encroaching on riparian areas such as those found within the CEA are causing reductions in riparian vegetation density and diversity similar to those seen in upland settings. Increased rates of erosion are likely to follow any loss of stabilizing ground cover within the riparian areas. Removing canopy within the riparian influence zone will exacerbate the erosion and sedimentation of any bare ground the short-term. Grass, forb growth and ground cover has been shown to increase following juniper woodland treatments, indicating that riparian ground cover will be improved in the long-term, which should reduce fine sediment impacts to the streams in the project area (Bates and others 2011; Bates and others 2000).

One of the project objectives is to reduce the risk of a large, uncharacteristically severe wildfire, by reducing current fuel loading and fuel continuity. Implementing the proposed vegetation treatments may improve fine sediment loading issues in the long-term by creating a more fire resilient landscape. Removing tree canopy and the use of ground-based equipment can result in a loss of ground cover, displacement of soil, and compaction of soils (Chamberlain and others 1991). This can increase upland erosion rates and fine sediment influx into adjacent stream channels within the project area. Similarly, Rx fire can elevate levels of runoff and sediment transport; however, if areas are burned at low severity, the potential for increasing peak flows and erosion rates is relatively small. High severity fires can elevate sediment runoff over two orders of magnitude but the natural regrowth even on severely burned areas generally return flow rates and sediment yields generally to pre-burn levels in approximately four years (Elliot 2010). As discussed in the effects analysis for riparian vegetation and bank stability, the three proposed temporary road crossings will elevate fine sediment delivery at those areas where hydrologic connectivity to the stream is direct. Maintaining riparian buffer zones and implementing all PDFs and BMPs associated with the Proposed Action and Appendix A of the Hydrology and Soils Report should minimize the short-term and long-term sedimentation and bank damage to the greatest degree possible. Water temperature Actions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all involve potentially removing canopy from the riparian zone. Removal of overstory trees has been shown to increase stream water temperatures by removing solar shading over the stream (Brown and Krygier 1970; Chamberlain and others 1991; Johnson and Jones 2000). While riparian buffers have been shown to moderate the effects of timber harvest on stream water temperatures, these actions all propose removal of trees from the Riparian Influence Zone (Belt 1992; Beschta 1997; Chamberlain and others 1991). In the short-term impacts to shading could result in increases in temperature. For Actions 5-7 PDFs HS-1 and HS-2 preclude most activities from the Aquatic Management Zone (100 feet on either side of the stream), which should ameliorate any potential shading impacts to water temperature. For Actions 1, 2 and 4 canopy and overhanging vegetation cover is expected to recover within 5 years as riparian hardwoods and ground cover recover and exceed current conditions, which should return temperatures to current or lower levels. Additionally any improvements in stream geomorphology (narrowing width/depth ratio) and floodplain access may result in cooler temperatures. Sensitive and MIS Species Boreal toad As highlighted in the Affected Environment section there are no known occurrences of boreal toad individuals or populations in the project area; therefore no impacts are expected to individual boreal toad or any conservation populations. No known breeding areas would receive runoff from any of the treatment areas. Additionally, the amount of increased sedimentation that will be generated by the treatments in the Proposed Action would be minor and short-term (Hydrology and Soils Report). Boreal toad are a cryptic species and occupancy detection, especially in Utah, can be fairly low (10-15%) (Kevin Wheeler, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, personal communication). Limited amphibian surveys have been conducted in the CEA and wetlands have not been surveyed enough to determine occupancy rates of boreal toad. Given the above, sedimentation impacts from the Proposed Action may impact aquatic habitat used by boreal toad and their reproductive success in those areas; however, no known breeding populations are present, nor have there been observations of individuals in the project area or CEA.

Environmental Assessment

BCT The section addressing direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action to Aquatic Habitat discusses changes to existing riparian vegetation, bank stability, fine sediment deposition and shading/temperature within the Ranch Creek, Birch Creek and Horse Creek drainages in detail. The biggest potential impacts in the Ranch Creek drainage would be possible changes in overland flow and erosion from the combined effects of all the proposed treatments, which could negatively affect bank stability and channel morphology, as well as increase fine sediment deposition. Implementation of PDFs, HS-1, HS-2, HS-3 and HS-4 should minimize the amount of fine sediment transported into Ranch Creek from the Proposed Action. The riparian exclosure should improve stream channel configuration, bank stability and shading in the headwater meadow of Ranch Creek. The Proposed Action likely to result in short-term increases in fine sediment entering Birch Creek; however, both actions should result in a long-term reduction in fine sediment entering Birch Creek, as riparian vegetation replaces bare ground. Additionally, bank stability should be improved by implementing the Proposed Action in the long-term. Similarly the Proposed Action will result in short-term increases in fine sediment entering Horse Creek, as well as temporary bank instability issues. In the long-term the Proposed Action should increase hydric species on the greenline and provide a new, better channel configuration which should reduce fine sediment entering the stream as well as improve stream bank stability. Implementing all PDFs and BMPs associated with the Proposed Action and Appendix A of the Hydrology and Soils Report minimize the short-term and long-term sedimentation and bank damage to the greatest degree possible. Southern leatherside The closest conservation population of southern leatherside chub is in the East Fork Sevier River downstream from the CEA for this project, so no direct or indirect effects to individual southern leatherside, or any conservation populations are expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. Effects to historic and potential future habitat are the same as those disclosed for BCT above. Nonnative trout As described in the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action to Aquatic habitat, as well as the Hydrology and Soils Specialist report, detrimental effects of the Proposed Action to MIS nonnative trout habitat are expected to be short-term. In the long-term the Proposed Action is expected to improve riparian vegetation density, diversity and vigor which should result in less sedimentation, higher bank stability and maintenance or improvement of stream temperatures.

Additionally the proposed vegetation treatments proposed should reduce the risk of uncharacteristically large, severe wildfire in the project area subwatersheds, subsequently reducing the risk of impacts to MIS nonnative trout and their habitats in these watersheds over the No Action alternative. The impacts of fire to MIS nonnative trout are disclosed under the No Action Alternative Analysis.

Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Effects Area is described above (see Figure 13). Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities potentially effecting aquatic habitat in the CEA include: vegetation management projects, wildfire, grazing, off- road ATV use, roads, trails, dispersed campsites, water diversion, nonnative fish stocking, riparian exclosure construction, Aquatic Organism Passage projects and future BCT restoration activities (including barrier construction and nonnative fish removal. Effects from all these activities will continue under both the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. Past and future management actions

could impact or have impacted Sensitive and MIS fish and amphibian populations and aquatic habitat through habitat loss and fragmentation, competition with and/or depredation by nonnative fish, riparian and stream channel habitat degradation and impacts to water quality, including fine sediment deposition and increased temperatures. Overall implementation of the Proposed Action would not be expected to negatively change the trend or condition of Sensitive and MIS fish and amphibian or aquatic habitat in the CEA. The Hydrology and Soils Specialist supports that cumulative effects to water quality, sedimentation and detrimental soil disturbance will not results from implementation of the Proposed Action with all associated BMPs and PDFs. Long-term improved habitat and reduced fire risk should benefit BCT conservation in the Southern GMU as the Ranch Creek population will be protected and opportunities to develop BCT populations with average standing crop throughout Birch Creek and Horse Creek will be improved. Determinations Implementation of the Proposed Action may impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species for MIS nonnative trout. The no action alternative should not impact individual boreal toads, southern leatherside chub, or any conservation populations of these species, but it may affect suitable habitat in the project area; however, any potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species. The No Action alternative may impact individual BCT and the Ranch Creek core population; however, potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species.

3.5 Hydrology and Soils Introduction This section presents a summary of the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. Affected Environment The Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project area is primarily located within the Ranch Creek Sevier River and Sweetwater Creek 6th field subwatersheds. Additionally, 7th field equivalent drainages (7FED), which are smaller in size than a 6th field subwatershed, were delineated so as to capture better the variability within the subwatersheds and were used for direct and indirect effects analysis. Cumulative effects were analyzed at the 6th field subwatershed scale. The hydrologic and soil variables that are potentially affected by this type of a project and have been analyzed for effects are Streamflow (primarily peak flows), Water Quality (which includes temperature and sedimentation on both streams and springs), Channel Morphology (change to stream channel shape and substrate), and Detrimental Soil Disturbance (detrimental compaction, erosion, displacement, or severely burned). The potential effects to these variables and thresholds for determining effects are found in Table 17 (additional rational and references for these factors and thresholds are found in the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report).

Environmental Assessment

Table 27. Hydrologic Variables, Factors, and Thresholds Likely for a Vegetation Management Project That Were Used For Analysis

Hydrologic Variable Factor Threshold

Streamflow Canopy Removal Greater than 15% of a subwatershed’s canopy being removed4.

Streamflow Roaded Area 12% of a drainage being roaded. (includes both active and inactive roads)

Water Quality (Water Increasing Stream Raising water temperature above the state standard (for these Temperature) Water Temperature streams it is listed at having more than 10% of the samples higher than 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

Water Quality Ground Disturbance If ground disturbing equipment is allowed in the riparian areas (Sedimentation) in Riparian Area and more than an occasional necessary crossing. If effective Road Stream groundcover has been decreased to where increases in erosion are Connectivity evident. If there are multiple roads with direct connections to streams (i.e. the ditchline flows to a stream) and professional judgment as to if the amount of sediment contribution from these connections is more than natural background inputs elsewhere along the stream.

Channel Morphology Ground Disturbance If peak flows are measurably increased. If ground disturbing Along The equipment is allowed in the riparian areas more than an occasional Streambank, Road necessary crossing. If there are multiple roads with direct Stream connections to streams (i.e. the ditchline flows to a stream) and Connectivity, and professional judgment as to if the amount of sediment contribution Increase in Peak from these connections is more than natural background inputs Flows elsewhere along the stream.

Soil Quality Factor Threshold

Detrimental Compaction, 15% of activity area having detrimentally disturbed soils as Disturbance Erosion, defined in FSM 2550 Displacement, or Severely Burned

4 The effect of canopy removal is assumed to diminish linearly with full hydrologic recovery within 30 years.

Environmental Consequences A summary of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences are disclosed together for each alternative. Cumulative effects include prior vegetation management projects, wildfire, current grazing and off-road ATV impacts, future fish restoration, and future vegetation management projects. Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) In summary, any measureable effects of the No Action alternative on hydrology and soils would primarily be indirect and would be related to the No Action alternative leading to a large scale, high severity fire and the effects associated with such an event. Soils and hydrology in the project area would likely be impacted for many years if such an event occurs, leading to exceedances in forest, regional, and state standards for soil and water. Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) In summary, the Proposed Action is unlikely to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively have any measureable long term effects to hydrology that are contrary to the desired condition. Conversely, the Proposed Action is likely to lead to improvement in water quality and channel morphology for those streams and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) that are part of the stream treatments. With soils there is likely to be a measurable increase in detrimental soil disturbance; however, this increase in soil disturbance is estimated to be unlikely to exceed regional standards for allowable detrimental soil disturbance. Furthermore this action is likely to reduce the risk of a high severity large scale fire and the associated undesirable impacts to hydrology and soils

Table 18. Effects of Alternative 1 and 2 on Hydrology and Soils

Hydrologic Threshold Current Values Estimated Future Estimated Future Variable Values When Values When Combined With Alt. Combined With Alt. 2 1

Streamflow > 15% of a drainage’s 0.4-0.9% at .4-0.9% at 5.8-9.9% at canopy being removed subwatershed subwatershed scale subwatershed scale scale 0-1% at 7FED scale 13-15% at 7FED scale 0-1% at 7FED Unless a large

scale wildfire occurs

Streamflow 12% of a drainage 0.3% to 0.7% 0.3% to 0.7% 0.3% to 0.7% being roaded

Water Quality >10% Samples >68 0.5% 0.6% (due to climate 1% in short term then (Temperature) degrees Fahrenheit change). Could be 0.5% >10% if a large wildfire occurs

Environmental Assessment

Water Quality Below the threshold Below the threshold with (Sedimentation) unless a large the use of BMPs wildfire occurs

Channel Below the threshold Below the threshold with Morphology unless a large the use of BMPs wildfire occurs

Soil Quality Threshold Current Values Estimated Future Estimated Future Values When Values When Combined With Alt. Combined With Alt. 2 1

Detrimental 15% of activity area 20-30% for 20-30% for proposed <5% for proposed Disturbance having detrimentally proposed exclosure areas, <4% exclosure areas, <8% for disturbed soils as exclosure areas, for all other activity all other activity areas. defined in FSM 2550 <4% for all other areas Unless a large activity areas wildfire occurs

3.6 Range Introduction This section presents a summary of the Range Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Range and Noxious Weed Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. Affected environment The Ranch Creek project area is located within the Horse Creek allotment. Of the 24,247 acres in the allotment, 14,082 acres are in the project area. The allotment is deferred grazed June 16 through September 30 by 254 permitted head. Most of the project area is suitable to grazing. Approximately only fourteen percent of the project area is not suitable. The meadow cover type contains the highest amount of pounds per acre of available forage. The ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, spruce-fir, mixed conifer, and aspen cover types offer forage that can be found in the interspaces. Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct or indirect effects to rangeland resources or noxious weeds.

Cumulative Effects Under the No Action alternative there would be no measurable cumulative effects to rangeland resources or noxious weeds. Summary of Effects Under this alternative there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any of the resources. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Direct Effects Under the Proposed Action alternative there would be no direct effects to noxious weeds. The Proposed Action would directly affect the shrub cover classes. Mastication of the shrublands will lower the percentage of acres in the densest canopy cover class. The timber and prescribed fire treatments should have minimal impacts to the shrubland and rangeland resources. Grazing system rotations may need to be adjusted during treatment of those acres. The permittee will need to herd livestock away from treatment areas in the event of large treatment areas or the acres may need to be rested temporarily. Indirect Effects Noxious weeds may be indirectly affected from the Proposed Action due to the introduction of new weeds to the area from some of the treatments proposed. Treatments that lower the canopy cover classes of shrublands should result in higher herbage production which would increase the amount of available forage for livestock. Cumulative Effects Under the Proposed Action alternative there would be no measurable cumulative effects to rangeland resources or noxious weeds.

3.7 Recreation Introduction This report discloses the existing condition and the impacts of the no action and action alternatives on recreation and scenery resources in the project areas which could be impacted by this type of a project. Overview of Issues Addressed Prescribed burning, timber harvest and other vegetation removal have the potential to influence the recreation experience and scenic quality in the project area and surrounding area. Affected Environment Recreation Use Trends Visitor counts measured at the Escalante Interagency Visitor Center have shown a steady increase in visitation over the past 20 years (Escalante Interagency Visitor Center counts 2016.) Despite a constant increase in visitation to the surrounding area use in the project area remains relatively light. Light use in the area is likely due to difficult access.

Environmental Assessment

There are a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities in the project area. Historically, the major recreation uses have been, dispersed camping, hunting, hiking, and Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use. Winter recreation in the project area is believed to be light. Existing Condition Dispersed Camping – Dispersed camping occurs throughout the summer and fall seasons; however, most use occurs in the fall in association with the deer and elk hunting seasons. Dispersed campsites are located adjacent to open roads. Campsites in the project area are in good condition and are either in Frissell Condition Class 1, 2 or 3 (Frissell 1978). Hunting – Big game and turkey hunting are popular year round but most hunting occurs in the spring and fall seasons. Hiking – The project area includes portions of both the Great Western non-motorized trail and the Great Western Motorized trail (GWT.) The GWT system is a long distance trail that runs from Canada to Mexico. On the Escalante Ranger District, the motorized and non-motorized routes are usually separate; however, within the project boundary the two trails follow the same route along road 140 for approximately a mile. Off Highway Vehicle Use (OHV) – Approximately 37 miles or forest roads within the project area are open to and used by OHVs. The Birch Creek OHV trail (4.6 miles) and a portion of the Grass lakes OHV trail (3.2) are also located within the project area. Forest Road 30140 is also the Great Western OHV route. The area is closed to cross country travel except by over snow machines. Sightseeing – Access into the project area is difficult due to confusing roads which connect County Road 1016 to National Forest Lands and rough roads within the project area. These conditions discourage or limit sightseeing. Other – Firewood and Christmas tree cutting occur in the project area. Participants in these activities are likely local residents from the town of Antimony and adjacent private land. Environmental Consequences Methodology This section describes the effects of each alternative including all of the project design criteria on the recreation resource. The recreation resource and in effect the forest visitor experience can be affected by changes to the characteristics of the area and changes to the facilities. Perceptions of a management activity vary depending on the biases of the individual, making objective measurements to change difficult. The environmental consequences disclosed in this section are presented subjectively. Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The cumulative effects area (CEA) consists of recreational features tied to dispersed opportunities in the project area and adjacent areas. Geographically the area is defined by the Antimony Creek to the north, Road (FH17) on the south, the project boundary on the West, and the rim of the Griffin Top (Aquarius Plateau) on the east.

Within the CEA, past management activities that may affect recreation and scenery have included timber harvesting, precommercial thinning, and livestock grazing. Current management activities include livestock grazing. Alternative 1 – No Action Direct Effects There are no direct effects of choosing the No Action alternative. Indirect Effects In the short term, recreational use would continue at current rates or likely increase as recent trends are indicating. The conditions described in the Affected Environment would prevail over most of the area. The recreation activities described in the Affected Environment are expected to increase but at a slow rate due to difficult access. In the long term, recreational opportunities would potentially be impacted as a result of area closures related to unwanted fire. If lack of vegetation treatments resulted in a high intensity fire, recreational activities where viewing scenery is an integral part of the recreational experience (i.e. hiking, and to a lesser extent OHV riding and mountain biking) would likely be affected. The impact on the recreational experience could reduce the number of individuals engaged in these activities within the project area causing them to move elsewhere on the forest or leave the area entirely. A high intensity fire could totally eliminate Christmas tree cutting in the project area causing this activity to move elsewhere in the CEA or leave the area all together. The amount of dead and down or dead standing wood available for firewood cutting would likely increase. In addition, an unwanted fire would reduce the attractiveness of the area and make the area less desirable for many of the recreation activities described above. Effects from unwanted fire could be more long term in nature depending upon the size and intensity of the unwanted fire. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area along with past, present and future management activities within the CEA area identified above. The combination of these activities would have only limited and isolated effects on the recreation resource in the project area. However; should the No Action alternative result in a crown fire and spread through the CEA, the amount of recreation activity in the CEA would be expected to decrease. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct Effects Dispersed Camping Due to the limited amount of dispersed camping that occurs within the project area, the overall effect on dispersed camping would be minimal. During and immediately after management activities, dispersed camping participants might move to other sites within the CEA, but would likely return to the area within a few years. Hunting Concentrations of animals would temporarily shift during active management activities. After management activities have taken place game animals would be drawn back into the area (see Wildlife Report). Immediately after treatments hunting would continue at present levels, but would increase as habitat

Environmental Assessment improvements increase populations. Hiking Hikers would be the most affected by the Proposed Action. Since hikers travel at a slower speed, the visual effects of the proposed treatments’ would be more evident. The project design features identified in Chapter 2 would reduce these activities’ effects. The Proposed Action includes a reroute of an approximately 1 mile of the non-motorized GWT to move it off of Forest Road 30140. This reroute would improve both the hiker experience and safety. OHV Riding The Proposed Action would reroute roughly two tenths of a mile of the Birch Creek Trail improving the alignment of this section. Horseback Riding The effects of implementing the Proposed Action would be similar to those described for hiking. Sightseeing The Proposed Action is not likely to affect sightseeing in the project area. Indirect Effects Road improvements would occur throughout the area to enable timber removal. Improved roads would improve access to the area and possibly increase recreation in the area. This effect could last for up to ten years but would diminish as the unmaintained road become rough and rocky. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area along with past, present and future management activities within the CEA area identified above. The combination of these activities would have only limited and isolated effects on the recreation resource in the project area or CEA. 3.8 Scenery Affected Environment Methodology The Dixie National Forest uses the Scenery Management System to determine the relative value and importance of scenery on USFS lands (USDA 2000c). Forest Road 30140 is a designated scenic backway. This route is also the Motorized GWT and marked snowmobile route in the winter. Because of this designation the road corridor has a concern level of I. Concern levels represent a method for categorizing the importance of scenic resources for forest visitors. The scenic integrity level for a concern level I road is high. Resource management activities should not be permitted to reduce scenic integrity levels below the prescribed objective for a management area. The prescribed objective for the 2B, 5B, 6A and 9A Management Areas (MA) is moderate. The prescribed objective for the 7A MA is low. The prescribed objective for MA 1 is based on scenic inventory.

Within the project area there is one polygon designated as MA1. This polygon comprises 15% of the project area. The scenery for the most part can be described as common or typical and therefore has a moderate scenic integrity objective (USDA 2000c: 10). The scenery resource will be discussed in terms of the effects on the visual elements (form, line, color and texture.) Guidance for this section is found in Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook No 701 (USDA 1995). Dominance elements (form, line, color, texture) are the simplest visual recognition parts which make up the characteristic landscape. An observer sees landscapes in terms of form, line, color and texture, which usually descend in potential visual strength in the order shown. The following analysis focuses on the effects to these elements. Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The cumulative effects area (CEA) for scenery consists of recreational features tied to dispersed opportunities in the project area and adjacent areas. Geographically this area is the same as the CEA for recreation above. Within the CEA, past management activities that may affect recreation and scenery have included timber harvesting, precommercial thinning, tree planting, and livestock grazing. Current management activities include livestock grazing. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Direct Effects Under the No Action alternative, no immediate direct effects to scenery resources are expected. Scenic Integrity Objectives within the project area would remain unchanged. Indirect Effects The conditions described in the Affected Environment would prevail over most of the area. If lack of vegetation treatments resulted in a high intensity fire, scenery would likely be effected. A high intensity fire could cause significant changes to the scenery in the project area. Loss or reductions of standing trees could result in causing this activity to move elsewhere in the CEA or leave the area all together. The amount of dead and down or dead standing wood available for firewood cutting would likely increase. Landscape Character The No Action alternative would cause no short-term changes in landscape character in the analysis area. In the long-term, however, the character of the stands would change as tree density increases. The forest overstory would become more closed and visual variety would decrease over time. This visual condition would persist until a major fire occurs. A major disturbance would change landscape character drastically. Forest cover would decrease and erosion would increase. Form The No Action alternative would cause no effect to the land and forms of the project area. However, if a major fire occurred, landforms such as hills and the distant cliffs of the Aquarius Plateau would become visible from much more of the area.

Environmental Assessment

Line With No Action, there would be no effect on line values. Any existing road cuts currently visible would remain. Color The grayish brown of the snags would continue to dominate the view in the short-term. In the long-term, as the dead trees begin to fall the green understory will become more prevalent. As the dead overstory trees fall, some of the newly created natural openings will stimulate aspen to sprout. This will create pockets of light green within the existing dark green and gray. In the fall new pockets of aspen will turn yellow and may break up the view but the amount of aspen may not be enough to dominate it. Texture Under the No Action alternative, the existing vegetative texture would remain in the short-term. In the long- term textural variety will decrease as the aspen foliage becomes more dominated by the rough appearing spruce and fir. Any future openings in the dense forest landscape would be more noticeable. Concern Level and Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) If no management actions were implemented, the SIO's for each management area and concern level 1 travel corridor would be met or exceeded. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to scenery resources could occur as a result of adding the No Action to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past actions, such as unwanted and prescribed fire have likely created small areas within the CEA that might not be meeting the prescribed SIO for the management area. The SIO for the management areas within the CEA could be reduced below the prescribed objective if an unwanted fire occurred as a result of the No Action Alternative. The level of the effect would be dependent upon an unwanted fire occurring within the CEA, the location, intensity and duration. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct Effects Landscape Character The Proposed Action would cause both short-term and long-term changes in landscape character. The character of the treated stands would change to a more open condition. The forest would be less compact and less dark with removal of conifer trees would display greater visual variety. Form This visual element is usually dominant because of the vast scale involved. Examples in the project area are the cliffs of the Aquarius plateau in the distance, the rolling slopes and the tree line. The Proposed Action would have no effect on form in the project area. Line Live trees and brush provide important vertical line values to the forest landscape. In other instances, horizontal lines, such as those made by a roadbed, road cuts or fills, present an unnatural contrast with the forest floor. In addition skid trails and control lines constructed with this alternative would create additional

lines. After one or two growing seasons, these lines would become more natural in appearance but may not be fully integrated into the landscape until regeneration has occurred for a 5-10 year period. With the proposed action, the vertical lines of some trees would be more evident because of the increased openness of the forest canopy. Burned shrubs which previously blended into the landscape would become short vertical lines. The height of the remaining trees would be more evident in relation to the naturally regenerated grasses and forbs on the ground. Color The creation of large bare brown soil areas from log landings and burning would detract from the areas color scheme in the short term. These effects would be limited in duration and scale. Most of the burn treatments are located in areas which would have limited visibility from outside the unit. In the long term, the color element of the overall landscape would greatly increase. Within a few years of project implementation the aspen component of the forest would begin to proliferate. This would result in more light greens during the summer months and yellow during the fall. The overall aspen component of the project area is expected to increase from 15% of the area to approximately 30%. In areas where defoliated or dead trees are removed, the grayish brown color would be reduced and the green of the live understory would immediately dominate the view. Texture Under the Proposed Action the overall vegetative texture would become more course as the overstory is removed and various sized openings are created. Any future openings in the resultant forest landscape would be less noticeable than at present. Concern Level and Scenic Integrity Objectives The SIO’s that would be met by treatments under the Proposed Action are listed below. The Proposed Action would treat vegetation within two different Scenery Management System units and along Forest Road 30140, a concern level 1 (scenic backway) corridor. As stated above, SIO’s for the project area could not be reduced below the prescribed objective for that MA or concern level as a result of resource activities; therefore, the project is designed to retain the SIO’s for each MA. Following implementation, there would be a short-term impact to scenic quality in the prescribed burn areas due to the visibility of charred bark, brown needles and a blackened appearance to the ground and burned understory plants. A short term impact would also result from logging slash and skid trails. In the long term, proposed burn treatments would assist in retaining the SIO’s for each MA by reducing the potential for unwanted fires which would likely dramatically change the visual landscape and by increasing the aspen component. Indirect Effects No indirect effects to the scenery resource have been identified as a result of the proposed action. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to scenery resources could occur as a result of adding the proposed action to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The level of the effect would be dependent upon the location, intensity and duration. Effects from past management actions are relatively unnoticeable due to the length of time which has pasted since these action have occurred. Consequently, no cumulative effects to scenery are expected as a result of the proposed action.

Environmental Assessment

Monitoring Recommendations Scenic quality should be monitored along the Forest Road 30140 corridor to see whether the High SIO has been maintained.

3.9 Silviculture and Vegetation Introduction This section presents a summary of the Silviculture and Vegetation Resources Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Silviculture and Vegetation Resources Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the two alternative actions described in Chapter 2. Affected Environment Study Area Resource Character The project area is located within the Antimony Creek/Pine Lake geographic area. This area falls within the Dry Domain, Temperate Desert Regime Mountains, Nevada-Utah Mountains-Semi-Desert-Coniferous Forest-Alpine Meadow Province, Utah High Plateaus and Mountains Section ecoregion (Bailey 2005). The climatic regime is temperate and vegetation complexes are defined as either montane forest or montane steppe. Elevation within the project area varies from 7,600 feet at the lowest point on Horse Creek to 10,500 feet below Mud Springs Point on the eastern edge of the project area. At lower elevations the vegetation is a mosaic of sagebrush meadows (shrublands) and pinyon-juniper woodlands. As elevations rise from meadows onto ridges and benches the vegetation transitions from forest stands dominated by ponderosa pine into mixed conifer at mid-elevations and spruce-fir at higher elevations. Aspen is interspersed as clones ranging from 5 to 100 acres and intermixed as small groups of less than ¼ acre. Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects With no action, current management plans would continue to guide management for the project area. No silvicultural treatments would be implemented to manage forest and woodlands towards a properly functioning condition resilient to agents of disturbances such as fire and insects. Riparian areas would not be managed to improve riparian areas, stream and watershed functions. There are no direct effects of choosing the No Action alternative. Suitability There would be no change in forest land suitability as described in the affected environment, above. This will not be addressed further under the No Action alternative. Forest Composition

Aspen The Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments completed for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project have identified a progressive loss of the aspen cover type due to forest succession. Implementation of the No Action alternative will result in the continued decline of aspen within the project areas. Further reduction in aspen composition will reduce habitat diversity, reduce landscape resiliency to wild fire and increase surface fuel loading. Mixed Conifer The PFC assessments have identified a dominance of climax species in the mixed conifer cover type. Further reduction of seral species composition will increase the probability of insect and disease occurrence as climax species become decadent. Low densities of seral species composition will continue to promote stand replacing fire behavior which in turn will decrease watershed functions. Pinyon-juniper Woodland The PFC assessments completed for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project have identified a dominance of juniper spp. in the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type. High densities of juniper spp. within the woodland cover type will increase the probability of tree mortality especially during droughty periods. Drought induced stress can promote Ips beetle attacks on mature pinyon pine which further reduces pinyon pine composition. Ponderosa pine The PFC assessments have identified a dominance of climax species in the ponderosa pine cover type. Natural regeneration of ponderosa pine will continue to decline because of continued overstocking of climax species in the understory. As forest succession proceeds, ponderosa pine will become a minor component of stand species composition. Riparian The PFC assessments have identified a lack of late seral successional species in the riparian cover type. Riparian habitats within the RCWRIP area will continue to be dominated by juniper spp. and other late successional species. Juniper spp. dominance also decreases the abundance of riparian shrub species which promote stream bank stabilization. Shrublands The PFC assessments identified a trend toward juniper spp. encroachment within the shrubland cover type. Juniper encroachment will continue to occur and further reduce the composition of desired native shrub and grass species. Spruce/Fir Both the Forest Plan and the PFC assessment for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project direct that Engelmann spruce should be favored over subalpine fir. Regeneration Engelmann spruce will continue to be subordinate to regeneration of subalpine fir. As forest successional stages progress Engelmann spruce composition will decline relative to subalpine fir. Stands dominated by subalpine fir will experience increased insect and disease occurrences.

Environmental Assessment

Northern Goshawk Territories Both the forest plan as amended and the PFC assessment for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project direct that forested areas should be managed for the full range of seral conditions characteristic of each forest cover type. Stand composition will continue to be dominated by late successional species. Such climax stand compositions lack resiliency compared to stands composed of a majority of seral species. Forest / Shrubland Structure The PFC estimates that landscapes should contain approximately 40 percent mature and old forest structural stages (for goshawk post-fledgling and foraging areas, these equal VSS classes 5 and 6). The majority of forest and shrubland stands lack larger diameter classes. In forest cover types, stands will continue to be dominated by VSS 3 and 4 classes. Shrubland stands will continue to be dominated by mid-aged structural classes which lack vertical structure. Stand densities will continue to increase beyond the desired Stand Density Index (SDI) thresholds. The increased stand densities will result from ingrowth of late successional climax species. Increased stand densities will promote density related mortality. The predominant canopy structure within the project area is even-aged. Canopy structure will remain dominated by single story stands with little vertical structure. Disturbance Regimes The Forest Plan and the PFC assessment hold that forest stands should be thinned to maintain insects at endemic levels and to reduce mortality to less than five trees per acre. High stand densities and dominance of late successional species will continue to promote insect and disease occurrences. Surface fuel loading will continue to increase as aspen stands succumb to successional forces. The continued development of stand understory structures dominated by late successional species will further reduce canopy base heights, increase ladder fuel development and promote stand replacing fire effects. Stand conditions will continue to lose resiliency necessary to withstand perturbations of wildfire, insect and disease outbreak and other natural disturbance regimes. Forest and shrubland stands will continue to move outside of the natural range of variability relative to historic fire regimes. Pattern The Forest Plan and the PFC assessment hold that patterns for forest stands should be within historical ranges in terms of pattern size, shapes, and corridor functions. Stands within the project areas will continue to develop as dense even-aged, single storied stands dominated by late successional species. Old Growth The Dixie Forest Plan requires that 7 to 10 percent of each watershed be managed for old growth. Each of the three watersheds—North Creek, Ranch Creek-Sevier River, and Sweetwater Creek in which the project area is located is currently meeting the Forest Plan requirements. The No Action alternative will not reduce the number of stands and distribution of old growth stands.

Transportation System The No Action alternative would not result in any changes to the current road system within the project area. Maintenance levels and schedules would not be effected by the No Action alternative. No temporary roads would be reopened or constructed to facilitate vegetation treatments. Forest Road 30235 would be realigned to prevent further roadbed degradation. Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) within which the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project area as analyzed is approximately 61,429 acres in size. Within the CEA, approximately 46,357 acres are lands administered by the Dixie National Forest. Suitability Implemented or planned vegetation treatments within the CEA have had no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the suitability of lands for management. There have been no administrative decisions which have removed any forest cover type from management consideration. Forest Composition Aspen Aspen regeneration and cleaning treatments planned or implemented across the CEA are designed to shift species composition away from conifers and back toward aspen. For the 61,429-acre CEA, these treatments have totaled approximately 13 acres. This is a small step intended to arrest the decline of aspen within the CEA. Under the No Action alternative this acreage total would remain unchanged. Mixed Conifer Commercial thinning in the mixed conifer cover type is designed to promote the development and retention of seral species over climax species and has been implemented (or planned) for approximately 2,159-acres of the 64,429-acre CEA. The mixed conifer cover type is a minor cover type within the CEA representing only 3,720-acres. While 58% of the mixed conifer cover type has received some form of vegetation treatment, it must be noted that most of the past vegetation projects have occurred more than 40 years ago. Vegetation treatment effectiveness is typically not expected to last longer than 20 years. As described in the “Affected Environment” the mixed conifer cover type is currently not within desired conditions. To forgo the treatments proposed under the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project would leave this total unchanged, and would fail to move the CEA toward the Forest Plan desired future condition for managed forest, which is to promote seral species over climax species. Pinyon-juniper Woodland Stand density treatments in the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type is designed to promote the development pinyon dominated stands and to control juniper density. Projects have been implemented (or planned) for approximately 997-acres of the 64,429-acre CEA. Many of these past treatments focused on the removal of ponderosa pine from transition stands between the ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper woodland ecotones. Most of the past vegetation projects have occurred more than 40 years ago. Vegetation treatment effectiveness is typically not expected to last longer than 20 years. As described in the “Affected Environment” the pinyon-juniper cover type is currently not within desired conditions. To forgo the treatments proposed under the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project would leave this

Environmental Assessment total unchanged, and would fail to move the CEA toward the forest plan desired future condition for managed forest, which is to promote pinyon dominated stands at densities which allow for natural fire return intervals. Ponderosa pine Commercial thinning in the ponderosa pine cover type is designed to promote the development and retention of seral species over climax species and has been implemented (or planned) for approximately 1,029-acres of the 64,429-acre CEA. The ponderosa pine cover type is a minor cover type within the CEA representing only 3,108-acres. While 33% of the ponderosa pine cover type has received some form of vegetation treatment it must be noted that most of the past vegetation projects have occurred more than 40 years ago. Vegetation treatment effectiveness is typically not expected to last longer than 20 years. As described in the “Affected Environment” the ponderosa pine cover type is currently not within desired conditions. To forgo the treatments proposed under the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project would leave this total unchanged, and would fail to move the CEA toward the forest plan desired future condition for managed forest, which is to promote seral species over climax species. Riparian There have been no vegetation treatment projects within the riparian cover type. Currently there are 493- acres typed as riparian within the CEA. The No Action Alternative would not treat any riparian acres. Riparian habitats within the project area will continue to be dominated by juniper spp. and other late successional species. To forgo the treatments proposed under the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project would leave this total unchanged, and would fail to move the CEA toward the forest plan desired future condition for riparian areas and further jeopardize watershed function. Shrublands Vegetation treatments in the shrubland cover type is designed to promote the development a mosaic of age classes and to control juniper density. Projects have been implemented (or planned) for approximately 1,194-acres of the 64,429-acre CEA. Many of these past treatments focused on the removal of ponderosa pine from transition stands between the ponderosa pine, shrubland and pinyon-juniper woodland ecotones. Approximately 63 percent of the shrubland cover type has received some treatment. As described in the “Affected Environment” the shrubland cover type is currently not within desired conditions for age class distribution. To forgo the treatments proposed under the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project would leave this total unchanged, and would fail to move the CEA toward the forest plan desired future condition for managed shrubland, which is to promote juniper encroachment. Spruce/Fir Commercial thinning in spruce/fir designed to promote the retention of spruce over fir has been implemented (or planned) for approximately 2,875-acres of the 61,429-acre CEA. To forgo the treatments proposed under the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project would leave this total unchanged, and would fail to move the CEA toward the forest plan desired future condition for managed forest, which is to promote spruce over fir. Nor would the No action alternative address the potential for stand replacing wildfire within the CEA and the impacts of a large scale fire event would have on watershed functions.

Northern Goshawk Territories Projects within the CEA listed above were implemented prior to the identification of northern goshawk territories within the CEA. Therefore, projects implemented before 2005 have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on CEA northern goshawk territories. The No Action alternative will maintain the current forest composition and structure of the Ranch Creek and Hurricane Hollow northern goshawk territories. Stand composition will continue to be dominated by late successional species. Such climax stand compositions lack resiliency compared to stands composed of a majority of seral species. Forest structure within northern goshawk territories will remain dominated by VSS Class 3 and 4. Forest / Shrubland Structure Cumulative effects of the No Action alternative will continue to promote the dominance of VSS Class 3 and 4 forest structural stages in the short term. Even-aged stands will continue to dominate canopy structure and total canopy closure will increase as a result of ingrowth of climax species. The majority of forest and shrubland stands will continue to lack larger diameter classes. Shrubland stands will continue to be dominated by mid-aged structural classes which lack vertical structure. Stand densities will continue to increase beyond the desired SDI thresholds. The increased stand densities will result from ingrowth of late successional climax species. Increased stand densities will promote density related mortality. Disturbance Regimes Cumulative effects of the No Action alternative will continue to promote high stand densities which increase the probability of insect and disease outbreaks which exceed endemic levels. Surface fuel loading will continue to increase as aspen stands succumb to successional forces. The continued development of stand understory structures dominated by late successional species will further reduce canopy base heights, increase ladder fuel development and promote stand replacing fire effects. Stand conditions will continue to loss resiliency necessary to withstand perturbations of wildfire, insect and disease outbreak and other natural disturbance regimes. Forest and shrubland stands will continue to move outside of the natural range of variability relative to historic fire regimes. Pattern Cumulative effects of the No Action alternative will continue to promote heterogeneity in age class distribution and canopy structure. Stands within the project area will continue to develop as dense even- aged, single storied stands dominated by late successional species with little variation. Old Growth There are no cumulative effects expected relative to old growth retention within the CEA. Each of the three watersheds—North Creek, Ranch Creek-Sevier River, and Sweetwater Creek in the CEA are currently meeting the forest plan requirements. The No Action alternative will not reduce the number of stands and distribution of old growth stands. Transportation System Cumulative effects of the No Action alternative may result in further degradation and possible loss of Forest Road 30235 as natural forces continue to erode the adjacent stream bank. Maintenance levels and schedules

Environmental Assessment would not be effected by the No Action alternative. No temporary roads would be reopened or constructed to facilitate vegetation treatments.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Effects The following proposed actions concern vegetation management treatments only. Each proposed action addresses in part or in whole the stated purpose and need for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project. Each proposed action is discussed in turn. Suitability There would be no change in forest land suitability as described in the affected environment. Only lands identified as suitable for timber harvest are included for treatment. Action 1 - Treat riparian areas to promote riparian dependent vegetation species. To promote riparian dependent vegetation species; riparian treatments will remove juniper species from 122 acres of existing vegetation cover types. Riparian treatments will occur primarily within the riparian and shrubland cover types but also include small acreages of aspen, mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine stands. Within the riparian influenced zone, all juniper removal will be performed using chainsaws and/or hand tools. Slash generated from this treatment will be either hand piled and burned/chipped or lopped and scattered in areas of low juniper density. Outside of the riparian influenced zone (uplands adjacent to riparian) juniper spp. will be removed by wheeled or tracked machinery using a rotating mastication head to grind and disperse juniper trees. Forest Composition Riparian The PFC assessments have identified a lack of late seral successional species in the riparian cover type. Direct effects of juniper spp. removal include a reduction in total stand stocking levels and basal area in the short term (1-10 years). Species composition will shift from stands dominated by juniper species (63 percent) to stands dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood and willow spp. (70 percent). Indirect effects include a shift in stand reproduction from juniper species to reproduction and expansion of existing narrowleaf cottonwood reproduction. Removal of juniper species will create growing space for other riparian dependent species to establish and distribute along riparian corridors. Shrublands The PFC assessments identified a trend toward juniper spp. encroachment within the shrubland cover type. Direct effects of juniper spp. removal include a reduction in total stand stocking levels and basal area in the short term (1-10 years). Species composition will shift from stands dominated by juniper species to stands dominated by sagebrush spp. Indirect effects include a shift in stand reproduction from juniper species to reproduction and expansion of existing Shrubland spp. including sagebrush. Northern Goshawk Territories Riparian treatments within northern goshawk post fledging or nest areas will reduce juniper densities and promote establishment of tree species having a higher habitat value to northern goshawks and associated prey species.

Forest / Shrubland Structure Riparian areas are dominated by single story canopy structures with a few scattered legacy narrowleaf cottonwood trees. Direct effects of riparian treatments will be to remove juniper spp. and promote the development of VSS Class 1 structure composed of narrowleaf cottonwood and associated riparian dependent species. The indirect effects of removing juniper from riparian areas will be to promote riparian dependent species which will enhance streambank stability. The average vegetation structural stage (VSS) is classified as 1 or seedling/sapling forest. Approximately 60 percent of the BA occurs between 0.0 and 7.9 inches DBH. The direct effects of the riparian treatments is predicted to shift the current VSS distribution to an average VSS Class of 1. VSS 5, and 6 classes are increasing in representation. Action 5 - Treat the shrubland community to remove encroaching conifers and improve structure of shrub communities. Shrubland communities will be restored by reducing the total stocking level of juniper spp. within the shrubland cover type as well as adjacent cover types comingled with shrubland communities. The silviculture prescription will be termed Shrubland Tree Control. Conifer encroachment has reduced the representation of early seral stages of shrubland spp. through competition and allopathic affects. Juniper will be removed from approximately 1,065 acres. Treatment will consist of using wheeled or tracked skid steer mechanical equipment with a mounted rotating mastication head to masticate and distribute juniper trees. Shrub cover around existing juniper trees will also be masticated to reduce the total percentage cover of mid seral shrub species. This reduction in total cover will promote establishment of early seral stages. Mechanical mastication will occur on level ground and on slopes up to 30 percent and only on soils not identified as having high compaction or erosion potential. On sensitive soil and slopes over 30 percent, Shrubland Tree Control will be implemented through hand thinning using chainsaws and/or other hand tools. Composition Shrublands The PFC assessments identified a trend toward juniper spp. encroachment within the shrubland cover type. Direct effects of juniper spp. removal include a reduction in total stand stocking levels and basal area in the short term (1-20 years). Species composition will shift from stands exhibiting conifer encroachment by juniper species to stands dominated by sagebrush spp. Indirect effects include a shift in stand reproduction from juniper species to reproduction and expansion of existing Shrubland spp. including sagebrush. If noxious weed populations are present in the treatment area, indirect effects may include an increase in noxious weeds. Northern Goshawk Territories There are no defined northern goshawk PFA or Nest areas within the shrubland cover type. Shrubland Structure The direct effects of removing conifers and reducing the total cover percentage of shrubland species will be to re-balance the seral stage distribution of shrubland species. Action 6 - Treat Goshawk nest areas and PFAs to meet the intent of the Goshawk Amendment.

Environmental Assessment

Action 6 is intended to address and comply with the Dixie LRMP and specifically the standards and guidelines for managing northern goshawk habitat. The “goshawk amendment” to the LRMP, guideline D, requires that forest cover types should be managed to provide for a full range of seral stages with each seral stage containing a strong representation of early seral tree species. The affected environment discussion presented for northern goshawk territories describes the high stocking and density of late successional climax species present within northern goshawk territory forested stands. The silviculture prescriptions for goshawk nest areas and post fledging areas are designed to address the lack of early seral species components and distribution of structural stages. Silviculture treatments common to both the Ranch Creek and Hurricane Hollow PFA/NA include: individual tree selection, precommercial thinning, riparian and Shrubland tree control treatments. Ranch Creek PFA and NA will also receive group selection harvest, improvement cut and conifer thinning treatments. Table 19 summarizes the Ranch Creek silviculture treatments and associated acreages. Table 20 summarizes the Hurricane Hollow silviculture treatments and acreages. A full definition of these silvicultural methods can be found in the Silviculture and Vegetation Specialist Report in the project record or on the project webpage. Ranch Creek PFA/NA

Table 19. Proposed Silviculture Treatments and acres for Ranch Creek PFA/NA

Silviculture Treatment Cover Type Ranch Cr. Ranch Cr. PFA Treatment NA acres acres Totals Group Selection 268 Aspen 268 Improvement Cut 25 Aspen 5 Ponderosa pine 20 Individual Tree Selection 51 Ponderosa pine 51 Precommercial Thinning 40 Ponderosa pine 29 11 Conifer Thinning 272 Aspen 201 71 Riparian 3 Riparian spp. 3 Shrubland Tree Control 48 Shrubland spp. 17 31 Totals 247 460 707 Composition Direct effects following completion of all treatments within the Ranch Creek PFA/NA include stand overstory species composition remaining dominated by aspen (76 percent), with ponderosa pine comprising the balance. Understory species composition is dominated (93 percent) by aspen in VSS Class I. Ponderosa pine remains as a secondary understory species. Juniper spp. and subalpine fir composition has declined to less than one percent stand composition. Early seral species including aspen and ponderosa pine now dominate both the overstory and understory. Indirect effects include a reduction in ponderosa pine

regeneration. The dominant aspen overstory does not promote ponderosa pine regeneration. Periodic disturbance events such as wild or prescribed fire will be necessary to promote ponderosa pine regeneration and maintain ponderosa pine as a viable stand component. Structure Stand structure remains even-aged and single storied. Direct effects include the development of a second story of aspen regeneration and a shift in VSS distribution. At the beginning of the post treatment evaluation year (2025) stand density has recovered and canopy closure index (CCI) has increased. The increase in CCI is due to lateral crown expansion following commercial thinning and vertical crown extension from sapling and pole class ingrowth. The average vegetation structural stage (VSS) is classified as 4 or mid-aged forest. This represents a shift from VSS 3 to VSS 4. Approximately 60 percent of the BA occurs between 8 and 15.9 inches DBH. FVS projections indicate that it will require an additional forty years before this stand will grow into a VSS Class 5 stand. This is due to the low site index and corresponding annual diameter increment. The number of snags (10,300 snags/100 ac.) exceeds recommended guidance of 300 snags per 100 acres. The increase in snags per acre is a direct effect of silviculture treatments. The increase in both aspen and ponderosa pine regeneration has increased competition induced mortality. This increase in snag numbers will also result in an increase in total surface fuel loading. This high number of snags per acre will continue to add down woody debris and thus fuel loading to these sites as snags begin to accumulate on the forest floor. The quantity and distribution of course woody debris will be effected by the silviculture prescriptions implemented within the Ranch Creek PFA/NA. There is a direct effect of increased course woody debris across log diameter classes following treatment. Hurricane Hollow PFA/NA

Table 20. Proposed Silviculture Treatments Hurricane Hollow PFA/NA

Silviculture Cover Type Hurricane Hollow. Hurricane Treatment Treatment NA acres Hollow PFA Totals acres Individual Tree 438 Selection Ponderosa pine 385 Mixed Conifer 53 Precommercial 160 Thinning Mixed Conifer 160 Riparian 5 Riparian spp. 5 Shrubland Tree 12 Control Shrubland spp. 12 Totals 160 455 615

Environmental Assessment

Composition Direct effects following completion of all treatments within the Hurricane Hollow PFA/NA include a shift in overstory species composition. The overstory is dominated by ponderosa pine Douglas fir (79 percent), with aspen comprising the balance. Understory species composition is dominated by aspen and Gambel oak in VSS Class I Douglas fir remains as a secondary understory species. Juniper spp. and Blue spruce composition has declined to less than two percent stand composition. Aspen dominates the understory species composition. Gambel oak stands are unaffected by thinning prescriptions. Early seral species including aspen and ponderosa pine now dominate the overstory. Indirect effects include a short term reduction in aspen overstory composition. Periodic disturbance events such as wild or prescribed fire will be necessary to promote ponderosa pine regeneration and maintain ponderosa pine as a viable stand component. Structure Stand structure transitions from even-aged and single storied to uneven-aged and multi-storied. Direct effects include the development of a second story of aspen regeneration and a shift in VSS distribution. At the beginning of the post treatment evaluation year (2025) stand density has recovered and CCI has increased. The increase in CCI is due to lateral crown expansion following commercial thinning and vertical crown extension from sapling and pole class ingrowth. The average vegetation structural stage (VSS) is classified as 4 or mid-aged forest. Approximately 51 percent of the BA occurs between 12 and 19.9 inches DBH. FVS projections indicate that it will require an additional twenty years before this stand will grow into a VSS Class 5 stand. The number of snags (3,100 snags/100 ac.) exceeds recommended guidance of 300 snags per 100 acres. The increase in snags per acre is a direct effect of silviculture treatments. The increase in aspen regeneration has increased competition induced mortality. The increase in Douglas fir snags is the result of continued mortality due to dwarf mistletoe. This increase in snag numbers will also result in an increase in total surface fuel loading. This high number of snags per acre will continue to add down woody debris and thus fuel loading to these sites as snags begin to accumulate on the forest floor. The quantity and distribution of course woody debris will be effected by the silviculture prescriptions implemented within the Hurricane Hollow PFA/NA. There is a direct effect of increasing the total course woody debris. The PCT treatment contributes the greatest amount of coarse woody debris to the Hurricane Hollow PFA. Action 7 - Treat up to 8,550 acres of forest stands to alter species composition and density by using silvicultural treatments, hand and mechanical thinning, and using prescribed fire. • Within the aspen cover type implement vegetation treatments including group selection harvest, stand improvement thinning, pre-commercial thinning, mechanical conifer thinning, and prescribed burning. • Within the mixed conifer cover type implement vegetation treatments including group selection harvest, individual tree selection harvest, sanitation-salvage harvest, prescribed burning, and pre-commercial hand thinning. • Within the ponderosa pine cover type implement vegetation treatments including commercial thinning, improvement thinning, individual tree selection harvest, precommercial hand thinning, sanitation-salvage harvest of which 46 acres will be planted

with ponderosa pine, and prescribed burning. • Within the spruce-fir cover type implement vegetation treatments including group selection harvest, individual tree selection harvest, pre-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning. • Within the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type implement vegetation treatments including group selection cutting utilizing both mastication and hand thinning methods, and individual tree selection thinning utilizing both mastication and hand thinning methods, and prescribed burning. In addition, the proposed action includes temporary road construction (approximately 24.31 miles) and existing road maintenance (31.14 miles). Action 7 is intended to address and comply with the Dixie LRMP and specifically management goal 24 through 28 as well as specific management objectives determined for each resource management unit. The standards and guidelines for managing northern goshawk habitat will also be applied specifically to move forest stands toward a more balanced VSS distribution. The affected environment discussion presented for aspen, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, spruce/fir and pinyon-juniper woodlands describes the high stocking and density of late successional climax species, stand structures dominated by VSS class 3 and 4, and declining aspen composition. The silviculture prescriptions for these cover types are designed to address the lack of early seral species components and distribution of structural stages. Silviculture treatments common to all forest cover types include: conifer thinning, improvement cutting, precommercial thinning, riparian, Woodland tree control, Shrubland tree control, sanitation salvage, patch cut, group selection and individual tree selection treatments. Prescribed burning is also used in combination with the above treatments and as a single treatment. Use of the transportation system is another element common to the implementation of Action 7. Table 21 summarizes Action 7 silviculture treatments and acreages.

Table 21. Action 7 Silviculture Treatments and Acres Silviculture Aspen Mixed Meadow Ponderosa Pinyon Riparian Spruce/ Total Acres Treatment Conifer Pine Juniper Fir Commercial Thin 47 47 Conifer Thinning 432 432 Group Selection 445 52 301 797 Improvement Cut 307 28 335 Individual Tree 8 1,366 1,709 773 177 4,033 Selection Patch Cut 770 62 211 1,043 Pinyon/Juniper 241 241 Tree Control Pre Commercial 201 160 80 441 Thinning Sanitation/ 204 204 Salvage Grand Total 2,164 1,578 694 2,129 1,013 493 690 7,573 In addition to the above treatments, prescribed burning is proposed for 1,586 acres: approximately 976 acres are Rx only, and approximately 610 acres are Rx combined with one of the above treatments.

Environmental Assessment

Aspen Treatments Forest Composition The PFC assessments completed for the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project have identified a progressive loss of the aspen cover type due to forest succession. Direct effects of implementation of the Proposed Action alternative will result in increased aspen composition from 41 percent to 90 percent aspen. Ponderosa pine and subalpine fir remain as minor components in both the understory and overstory. Forest Structure Aspen stands are dominated by single story canopy structures with a few scattered legacy Ponderosa pine trees. Direct effects of aspen treatments will be to remove juniper spp., reduce stocking of subalpine fir and promote the development of VSS Class 1 structure composed of aspen. The indirect effects of removing juniper and subalpine fir from aspen stands will be to promote early seral species (aspen) regeneration and reduce ladder fuel development which will positively influence fire effects within the stands. The average vegetation structural stage (VSS) is classified as 3 or young forest but is trending toward VSS 4. Approximately 60 percent of the BA occurs between 8 and 15.9 inches DBH. The current VSS distribution is under weighted in the VSS 1, 2, 5, and 6 classes and over weighted in the VSS 3, and 4 classes Mixed Conifer Treatments Forest Composition The PFC assessments have identified a dominance of climax species in the mixed conifer cover type. Direct effects of implementation of the Proposed Action alternative will result in an increase in the ponderosa pine species composition from 5 percent to 9 percent. Douglas fir and aspen composition remains level at 23 percent and 50 percent respectively. Gambel oak composition remains above 20 percent. Engelmann spruce and white fir remain as minor species components. Forest Structure Direct effects of the proposed treatments include a shift from stand structures dominated by single canopy stands to 30 percent of stands having multiple canopies. Legacy class ponderosa pine trees remain scattered. Direct effects of treatments will be to reduce the stocking and density of climax species and promote the development of VSS Class 1 structure composed of aspen and ponderosa pine. The indirect effects of reducing stocking and density of climax species will be to promote early seral species (aspen, ponderosa pine) regeneration and reduce ladder fuel development which will positively influence fire effects within the stands. The average vegetation structural stage (VSS) is classified as 4 or mid-age forest. Approximately 60 percent of the BA occurs between 10 and 17.9 inches DBH. Recruitment of VSS class 5 trees is projected to begin by tear 2045. The current VSS distribution is under weighted in the VSS 1, 2, 5, and 6 classes and over weighted in the VSS 3, and 4 classes.

Ponderosa pine Treatments Forest Composition Implementation of the Action 7 treatments results in a shift in species composition from 25 percent to 44 percent ponderosa pine. Douglas fir and limber pine remain minor overstory components. Juniper species composition is reduced to less than 5 percent. Aspen composition remains as both intermingled and intermixed clones at 23 percent. Understory ponderosa pine composition is shifted from 22 percent to 43 percent. The remaining understory consists of aspen, Douglas fir, limber pine and narrowleaf cottonwood. The direct effect of the proposed treatments is to maintain the overstory as ponderosa pine dominated stands with minor components of aspen and Douglas fir and a reduced presence of juniper spp. Forest Structure Structure of ponderosa pine stands is temporary even-aged (75 percent) with a new established cohort of ponderosa pine regeneration. Ponderosa pine canopy cover percentage remains at 80 percent. Direct effects of the proposed treatments is reduced total stand density and a shift in canopy structure from multi-canopy to single canopy. The post treatment vegetation structural stage (VSS) is classified as 3 or young forest. Approximately 60 percent of the BA occurs between 7.0 and 14.9 inches DBH. FVS projections indicate a return to multi canopy structure by year 2035. Post treatment VSS distribution is under weighted in the VSS 1, 2, and 6 classes and over weighted in the VSS 3 and 4 classes. Spruce/Fir Treatments Forest Composition The PFC assessments have identified a dominance of climax species in the spruce/fir cover type, particularly in the understory. Direct effects of implementation of the Proposed Action alternative will result in a decrease in the subalpine fir species composition from 58 percent to 8 percent. Engelmann spruce and aspen composition has increased from 14 percent to 24 percent and from 28 percent to 55 percent respectively. Forest Structure Direct effects of the proposed treatments will maintain canopy structure as multi storied and uneven-aged. Legacy class Engelmann spruce trees remain scattered. Direct effects of treatments will be to reduce the stocking and density of subalpine fir species and promote the development of VSS Class 1 structure composed of aspen and Engelmann spruce. The indirect effects of reducing stocking and density of climax species will be to promote early seral species (aspen) regeneration and reduce ladder fuel development which will positively influence fire effects within the stands. Average vegetation structural stage (VSS) remains classified as 3 or young forest. Approximately 56 percent of the BA occurs between 7.0 and 14.9 inches DBH.

Environmental Assessment

Pinyon-juniper Woodlands Woodland Forest Composition The PFC assessments have identified a dominance of juniper species in the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type. Direct effects of implementation of the Proposed Action alternative will result in a decrease in the juniper species composition from 62 percent to 17percent. Pinyon pine composition has increased from 8 percent to 20 percent. Woodland Forest Structure Structure of PJ woodland stands is remains even-aged with scattered uneven-aged pockets. A direct effect of the proposed treatments is a reduction in total stand density with an increased distribution of basal area in pinyon pine. Based on the basal area weighted diameter class distribution the PJ woodland cover type remains classified as VSS 3. Approximately 60 percent of the BA occurs between 7.0 and 14.9 inches DBH. Regeneration of pinyon pine is not an objective of the proposed treatments. Therefore, a direct effect of the proposed treatments is a reduction in VSS class 1 representation. Elements Common to All Proposed Vegetation Treatments Disturbance Regime The proposed silviculture treatments represent a small scale disturbance to the forest and woodland cover types and associated habitats. A direct effect of the proposed treatments is a shift in species composition favoring seral species and a reduction in total stand density. This low stand density typifies early seral conditions which favors the development of new seral cohorts as well as a reduction in the occurrence of insect and disease agents. Indirect effects to the natural disturbance regime is stand conditions which are more resilient to perturbations. Forest/Woodland Pattern Vegetative cover dominated by seral species is a direct effect of the proposed treatments. This represents a return to a vegetative pattern typified by early successional development which includes multiple life stages across species. At the landscape scale this represents an increase in vegetation diversity and contributes to the mosaic of vegetative cover types within the project area. Old Growth There are no direct effects to the distribution and percentage of old growth associated with any of the proposed treatments across all forest and woodland cover types. Transportation System System roads will be required to implement all treatments, particularly Admin roads. The proposed treatments themselves will result in increased road traffic as contractors and Agency personnel administer vegetation treatments. Increased log truck traffic may potentially degrade road surfaces which will necessitate maintenance of the road system. The direct effect on the transportation system is an accelerated maintenance schedule for all system roads.

The development of a temporary road system is required to implement the proposed vegetation treatments. This temporary road system will be established at a minimum maintenance level sufficient to provide access. Following completion of vegetation treatments all temporary roads will be decommissioned and returned to a natural state. Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) within which the proposed RCWRIP as analyzed is approximately 61,429 acres in size. Proposed vegetation treatments within the 14,059-acre RCWRIP boundary total approximately 23 percent of the CEA. Suitability The Proposed Action in combination with implemented or planned vegetation treatments within the CEA will have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the suitability of lands for management. Forest Composition Aspen The proposed action will treat approximately 1,630-acres of aspen cover type stands. Proposed action treatments are intended to improve species composition, regulate diameter/age class distributions and increase total aspen canopy cover within the project boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed actions in combination with planned vegetation treatments will result in treating approximately 76 percent of the aspen cover type within the CEA. When implemented the proposed actions will move aspen cover type stands toward the desired future condition, promote aspen regeneration and have a positive effect on fire behavior within the targeted watersheds. Mixed Conifer The proposed action will treat approximately 1,749-acres of mixed conifer cover type stands. Proposed action treatments are intended to improve seral species composition, regulate diameter/age class distributions, and reduce dwarf mistletoe infection within the project boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed actions in combination with planned vegetation treatments will result in treating approximately 105 percent of the mixed conifer cover type within the CEA. The percentage of mixed conifer stands treated reflects retreating acres from past entries. When implemented the proposed actions will move mixed conifer cover type stands toward the desired future condition, promote seral species regeneration and reduce total surface fuel loading. The reduction in fuel loading coupled with an increase in average canopy base height and the development of VSS class I structure will increase mixed conifer stand resiliency. Pinyon-juniper Woodland The proposed action will treat approximately 984-acres of pinyon-juniper woodland cover type stands. Proposed action treatments are intended to improve seral species composition, regulate diameter/age class distributions, and create a mosaic pattern of structural classes within the project boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed actions in combination with planned vegetation treatments will result in treating approximately 99 percent of the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type within the CEA. When implemented the proposed actions will move pinyon-juniper woodland cover type stands toward the desired future condition, promote seral species regeneration, and reduce juniper and total stand densities. Lower stand densities will promote woodland stand resiliency.

Environmental Assessment

Ponderosa pine The proposed action will treat approximately 897-acres of ponderosa pine cover type stands. Proposed action treatments are intended to improve seral species composition, regulate diameter/age class distributions, reduce dwarf mistletoe infection and promote VSS Class 5 and 6 retention within the project boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed actions in combination with planned vegetation treatments will result in treating approximately 62 percent of the ponderosa pine cover type within the CEA. When implemented the proposed actions will move ponderosa pine cover type stands toward the desired future condition, promote seral species regeneration, improve forest health and facilitate the use of prescribed fire to manage fuel loading and ingrowth of climax species. Riparian The proposed action will treat approximately 122-acres of riparian cover type stands. Proposed action treatments are intended to improve species composition, promote riparian dependent species, and stabilize riparian corridors within the project boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed actions in combination with planned vegetation treatments will result in treating approximately 25 percent of the riparian cover type within the CEA. When implemented the proposed actions will move riparian cover type stands toward the desired future condition, promote cottonwood and willow regeneration and promote healthy watershed functions. Shrublands The proposed action will treat approximately 694-acres of Shrubland cover type stands. Approximately 1,065-acres of Shrubland cover type stands will be treated. Of these acres approximately 371-acres are comingles and intermixed with other cover types. Cumulative effects for the 371-acres are discussed under relevant cover type classifications. Proposed action treatments are intended to improve seral species composition and develop a mosaic pattern of structural stages within the project boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed actions in combination with planned vegetation treatments will result in treating approximately 63 percent of the Shrubland cover type within the CEA. When implemented the proposed actions will move Shrubland cover type stands toward the desired future condition, promote seral species regeneration, and develop a balance of structural stages. Spruce/Fir The proposed action will treat approximately 961-acres of spruce-fir cover type stands. Proposed action treatments are intended to improve seral species composition, regulate diameter/age class distributions, and reduce total stand density within the project boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed actions in combination with planned vegetation treatments will result in treating approximately 108 percent of the spruce-fir cover type within the CEA. The percentage of spruce-fir stands treated reflects retreating acres from past entries. When implemented the proposed actions will move spruce-fir cover type stands toward the desired future condition, promote seral species regeneration and reduce total stocking and density of climax species. .

Northern Goshawk Territories Past projects within the CEA listed above were implemented prior to the identification of northern goshawk territories within the CEA. Therefore, past projects implemented before 2005 have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on CEA northern goshawk territories. The Proposed Action Alternative will reduce total stocking and density of climax species, promote seral species composition and structure of the Ranch Creek and Hurricane Hollow northern goshawk territories. Stand composition will become dominated by early successional species (aspen, ponderosa pine). Forest structure within northern goshawk territories will remain dominated by VSS Class 3 and 4 diameter class distributions. However, post treatment diameter distributions will move toward VSS Class 5 and 6 more rapidly. Forest / Shrubland Structure Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action alternative will promote the development of structural stages which move the average stand structure toward the desired VSS distribution. Multi canopy stands will begin to dominate canopy structure and total canopy closure will remain sufficient to provide areas with interlocking crowns. Forest and shrubland stands will have a more balanced diameter distribution with greater percentages of larger diameter classes. Shrubland stands will have balanced structural classes with varied vertical structure. Stand densities will be maintained at desired SDI thresholds. Disturbance Regimes Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action alternative will decrease the probability of insect and disease outbreaks beyond endemic levels. Total surface fuel loading will decrease as a result of fuels treatments which in turn will allow for natural fire regimes. The reduction of understory climax species stocking will result in an increase in canopy base heights which will have a positive effect on fire behavior. Pattern Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action alternative will develop heterogeneity in age class distribution and canopy structure. Stands within the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement project area will develop as uneven-aged, multi storied stands dominated by early successional species which typifies the desired vegetation pattern. Old Growth There are no cumulative effects expected as a result of the Proposed Action alternative relative to old growth retention within the CEA. Each of the three watersheds—North Creek, Ranch Creek-Sevier River, and Sweetwater Creek in the CEA are currently meeting the forest plan requirements. The Proposed Action alternative will not reduce the number of stands and distribution of old growth stands. Transportation System Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action alternative will improve the alignment and stability of Forest Road 30235. Maintenance levels and schedules would not be effected by the Proposed Action Alternative as no changes to the motorized travel plan are proposed. . Temporary roads will be reopened or constructed to facilitate vegetation treatments. Temporary roads will be used for a short duration (less than 10 years) and be decommissioned upon completion of vegetation treatments.

Environmental Assessment

3.10 Wildlife and Plants Introduction This section presents a summary of the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the two alternatives described in Chapter 2. Eighteen wildlife species, various sensitive plants, and migratory birds are analyzed for the project and are summarized below. Affected environment Bald Eagle The closest open water body capable of providing fish is Pacer Lake, which is approximately 4.8 air miles north of the project area. Foraging opportunities do not exist in the project area for wintering eagles. Therefore, this species will not occur in the project area, and will not be analyzed further in this document. California Condor Foraging and nesting habitat along with associated roosting habitat does not occur in the project area. This species will not be present in or adjacent to the project area due to lack of suitable habitat, and therefore is not analyzed further in this document. Desert Bighorn Sheep This species will not be present in or adjacent to the project area due to lack of suitable habitat, and therefore is not analyzed further in this document. Flammulated Owl The flammulated owl occurs primarily in mid-level conifer forests that have a significant yellow pine component which provides higher prey diversity, compared to other forests. They hunt exclusively at night. Reported common features of flammulated owl breeding habitat consist of: cool, semi-arid climate; high abundance or diversity of nocturnal arthropod (mostly insect) prey; open physiognomy; some dense foliage used for roosting; and cavities excavated by woodpeckers for nesting. They are very tolerant of humans and nest abandonment is rare. Other important aspects or preferences of flammulated owl habitat include: high- quality foraging habitat near the nest; nest sites with low to medium stem density; preference for foraging in large, older trees along forest/grassland edges; and roosting habitat with dense vegetation and multi-layered stands. Greater Sage-grouse Approximately 104 acres of PHMA is within the project area, of which, 32 acres are within private land. Of the 72 remaining acres on Forest Service lands, 31 acres are pinyon/juniper cover type, leaving 41 acres of open habitat on Forest Service lands. These acres are located on the west side of the project area next to the private land. These 41 acres are identified in the existing habitat conditions as shrubland cover type. Additional acres on the north end of the project area falls within the four mile lek buffer and contains potentially suitable sage-grouse summer habitat.

Mexican Spotted Owl Breeding habitat does not occur in the project area. The closest known suitable canyon habitat is the Colorado Plateau Ecological Management Unit CP-12 that is approximately nine air miles south of the project area. This species will not be present in or adjacent to the project area due to lack of suitable habitat, and therefore is not analyzed further in this document. Mule Deer & Rocky Mountain Elk Mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk are management indicators for the distribution of forage and cover and other habitat factors. Use of the project area by deer and elk occurs during all seasons with season of use being dependent on the elevation. The project area contains 4,960 acres of Forest Plan designated Big-game Winter Range Management Area. According to the Utah DNR, the majority of deer winter range in the Boulder Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 25C in which the project area is located, is comprised of pinyon pine and Utah juniper woodlands. While these woodlands provide valuable escape and thermal cover for wildlife, encroachment and invasion into historic shrublands reduces available browse and decreases the carrying capacity of the unit. Most wintering takes place on the lower slopes and at the base of the mountain. The upper limits of the normal winter range in the project area are up to 9,000 feet during normal winters, but are limited to an upper limit of around 8,000 feet during severe winters. Between Antimony and Widtsoe, winter range is restricted due to the steep drop off from Griffin Top to the river valley. There is ample range in normal winters, but in severe winters, usable range may become limited. The potential to increase forage for wintering deer and elk is substantial and can be gained by the removal of encroaching pinyon and juniper trees that are very pronounced along the benches and flats of the WMU (UDNR 2013). Northern Flicker The northern flicker is a primary cavity nester and is a management indicator of available habitat for wildlife species that depend on cavity nests and snags (DNF LRMP II-15). The forest plan’s desired condition is to maintain a minimum number and size of snags in vegetative management treatments by cover type. The number of snags at the preferred size for the spruce/fir and ponderosa pine cover types are not meeting the Forest Plan objective. However, while the area is deficient in snags 18 inches for ponderosa pine and spruce/fir cover types, snags greater than 12 inch dbh are available that would meet and exceed the Forest Plan objectives. In addition, minimum size snags meet the Forest Plan objective in the mixed conifer cover type. This is an indication that while preferred nesting habitat for some species is deficient in the ponderosa pine and spruce/fir cover types that snags are not a limiting factor in the presence of cavity nesters in the project area. Northern Goshawk There are three distinct components of a goshawks’ nesting home range: nest area, post fledging-family area (PFA), and foraging area. The Ranch Creek project area contains the home ranges for two northern goshawk territories; Hurricane Hollow and Ranch Creek. Within the Ranch Creek NA and PFA, aspen is poorly represented in the understory and the aspen component is both intermixed in the spruce overstory and occurs as isolated patches with variable VSS classes. Structure is predominately single storied and even-aged. The average vegetation structural stage (VSS) is classified as 3 or young forest but is trending toward VSS 4.

100

Environmental Assessment

The Hurricane Hollow NA and PFA extends primarily across mixed conifer cover types. The aspen component is both intermingled and intermixed throughout the area. The percentage of aspen in the overstory is declining due to forest succession as conifer species continue to over-top aspen clones. Structure of forest stands is predominately even-aged and single storied. VSS distribution for a representative mixed conifer stand indicates the current VSS distribution is under weighted in the VSS 1, 3, 5 and 6 classes and over weighted in the VSS 2 and 4 classes. Peregrine Falcon Potential nest habitat occurs along part of the eastern boundary of the project area. This cliff area has been surveyed and one eyrie has been known to exist. The closest water impoundment that could supply an abundance of avian prey is the Barker Lake Complex which is approximately 2.1 air miles east of the cliff habitat. Peregrine can capture prey above any habitat type that supplies prey species. Pygmy Rabbit An on the ground review of the suitability of habitat was conducted in the potentially suitable sagebrush habitat within the project area. This occurred in the Horse Creek drainage and on the north part of the project area. The project area did not contain suitable habitat for the pygmy rabbit. Either sagebrush stands did not consist of tall sagebrush species as in the northern part of the project area, or the sagebrush that was the appropriate species and height was dominated by rabbitbrush and patch sizes were not large enough to support the species. Pygmy rabbits will not occur in the project area, and therefore is not analyzed further in this document. Spotted Bat Potential day-roosting habitat is likely to occur along the cliffs on the east side of the project area. Spotted bats are easily identified acoustically. Spotted bats were acoustically identified below these cliffs in the meadow area. Spotted bat foraging habitat can include forest openings and subalpine mountain meadows in spruce, pine, and pinyon-juniper woodlands, large riverine/riparian areas, riparian habitat associated with small to mid-sized streams in narrow canyons, wetlands, meadows, and old agricultural fields. Three-toad Woodpecker In south-central Utah, three-toed woodpecker populations occur in the mountains, and as is the case of the Escalante Ranger District, the high-elevation plateaus (UDNR 2003). These populations occur uncommonly in boreal forests, particularly spruce (Parrish and others 2002). There are 1,013 acres of spruce/fir cover type within the project area. Surveys were conducted throughout suitable habitat within the project area. One three-toed was detected but after a search for the bird it was not found. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Townsend’s big-eared bats do not occur in the project area due to lack of suitable roosting habitat in or near the project area that would provide roosting and foraging individuals. This species will not be discussed further in this document. Utah Prairie Dog The project area contains approximately 43 acres of historic prairie dog habitat of the Paunsaugunt RU. The only proposed treatment near suitable prairie dog habitat is the filling of a gully that is located along a pinyon/juniper stand. Surveys have been conducted in suitable habitat. The closest prairie dog colony to this

101

ravine is outside the 350 foot buffer zone. This species is not present in or adjacent to proposed treatments, and therefore it will not be analyzed further in this document. Wild Turkey The wild turkey is a management indicator of relatively undisturbed old growth ponderosa pine habitat (DNF LRMP, II-15). The project area is used by wild turkeys for fall, spring, and summer habitat, and often winter depending on the amount of snow accumulation in the lower elevations. Old growth is delineated within the Silviculture and Vegetation Resources Report. The Dixie Forest Plan requires that 7 to 10 percent of each watershed be managed for old growth. Old growth requirements are currently being met within the watersheds as documented in this report (see the Silviculture and Vegetation Resources report). Yellow-billed Cuckoo This species has not been located on the Dixie National Forest (DNF). Its presence on the DNF is unlikely because it is associated with low elevation cottonwood riparian areas with dense understories (Rodriguez, 2012). The project area does not contain cottonwood riparian areas with dense understories. While cottonwood is present within riparian areas, it is linear and sparse and therefore does not contain the habitat structure needed by the species. This species will not be discussed further in this document due to the lack of suitable habitat in the project area. Migratory Birds Species of management concern with their priority habitat and key risk factors were selected for analysis using various lists. Bird species of management concern, along with any identified priority habitat within the project area, will be discussed in the environmental consequences analysis and include; bald eagle, black- throated gray warbler, Brewer’s sparrow, broad-tailed hummingbird, California condor, flammulated owl, gray vireo, juniper titmouse, Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, pinyon jay, sage sparrow, sage thrasher, and Virginia’s warbler. Sensitive Plants There are known locations of five sensitive plant species on the south facing slope of Horse Creek Top, immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the project area. These populations are all secure in their habitat on Wasatch Limestone open, barren escarpments and talus slopes. Some of these populations may extend into the southern boundary into the project area, however, they would only exist on open Wasatch Limestone where no vegetation treatment or disturbance form the project is proposed (Madsen 2017). Therefore, none of these plant species will be discussed further in this document. Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Flammulated Owl Breeding habitat quality and quantity will continue to decline as forested stands do not meet PFC including; loss of aspen composition, low seral species representation in the mixed conifer and increased risk of stand replacing fire, and the dominance of climax species in the ponderosa pine cover type. These effects on flammulated owl habitat components as a whole will result in the further reduction of potential breeding habitat and use of the project area by breeding owl pairs.

102

Environmental Assessment

Greater Sage-grouse Juniper spp. encroachment within the shrubland cover type will continue, thereby decreasing the quality and quantity of suitable habitat. This will cause a decline in use of these areas by the sage-grouse. Mule Deer & Rocky Mountain Elk Under the no action alternative, juniper canopy would continue to increase, reducing understory forage in critical winter range. Pinyon and juniper will continue to replace pine forests, sagebrush, grasses, and forbs in the area. In forested stands, as successional processes continue, canopies will close, favoring shade tolerant conifers such as white fir or juniper in the understory. The effects of the no action alternative will decrease the carrying capacity of the area by deer and elk as understory vegetation continues to decrease. Northern Flicker With no action, a majority of forested stands that lack larger diameter classes will continue to be dominated by VSS 3 and 4 classes. This continued lack of larger VSS 5 and 6 classes will limit recruitment of large snags in the ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce/fir cover types. However, the total snags per acre does meet desired conditions resulting in the project area providing habitat for snag dependent wildlife, but deficient in optimum habitat for some species. Northern Goshawk Northern goshawk habitat quality and potential use will decrease as conditions within cover types continue to not meet PFC including; loss of aspen composition, low seral species representation in the mixed conifer and increased risk of stand replacing fire, the dominance of climax species in the ponderosa pine cover type, high densities of juniper spp. within the woodland cover type, riparian areas dominated by juniper spp. and other late succession species, and loss of spruce/fir habitat to increased occurrences of insect and disease in the spruce/fir cover type. Both the forest plan as amended and the PFC assessment for the Ranch Creek Project direct that forested areas should be managed for the full range of seral conditions characteristic of each forest cover type. Stand composition will continue to be dominated by late successional species. Such climax stand compositions lack resiliency compared to stands composed of a majority of seral species (see the Silviculture and Vegetation Resources report). The PFC estimates that landscapes should contain approximately 40 percent mature and old forest structural stages (for goshawk post-fledgling and foraging areas, these equal VSS classes 5 and 6). The majority of forest stands lack larger diameter classes. In forest cover types, stands will continue to be dominated by VSS 3 and 4 classes (see the Silviculture and Vegetation Resources report). The decrease in suitable and quality habitat described for the no action will result in the decreased suitability of the Ranch Creek and Hurricane Hollow territories. As the territories become less suitable, abandonment by goshawk pairs is likely to occur. Wintering habitat in the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type will reduce wintering habitat quality and result in a reduction of potential use. Peregrine Falcon There will be no effects to the peregrine falcon from the no action alternative. Habitat will not be changed and foraging falcons will continue to forage in the area.

103

Spotted Bat There will be no effects to the spotted bat from the no action alternative. Foraging habitat will continue to be provided for and roosting habitat will not be changed. Three-toed Woodpecker The regeneration Engelmann spruce will continue to be subordinate to the regeneration of subalpine fir. As forest successional stages progress, Engelmann spruce composition will decline relative to subalpine fir. Stands dominated by subalpine fir will experience increased insect and disease occurrences. This will provide a food source for the woodpecker and species occurrences would be expected to increase in the project area until beetle activity subsides. Wild Turkey The wild turkey is a management indicator of relatively undisturbed old growth ponderosa pine habitat (DNF LRMP, II-15). The Dixie Forest Plan requires that 7 to 10 percent of each watershed be managed for old growth. Each of the three watersheds—North Creek, Ranch Creek-Sevier River, and Sweetwater Creek in which the project area is located is currently meeting the forest plan requirements. The No Action alternative will not reduce the number or distribution of old growth stands (see the Silviculture and Vegetation Resources report). Migratory Birds As a result of the no action alternative, pinyon and juniper will continue to increase in density and can be expected to continue to replace pine forests, shrublands including sagebrush, grasses, and forbs in the area. The increase in pinyon and juniper density will increase suitable breeding habitat, but decrease foraging habitat for the black-throated gray warbler. As pinyon and juniper densities increase and shrublands in the understory decrease, potential habitat for the Virginia’s warbler will decrease. No effects are expected for potential juniper titmouse, gray vireo and pinyon jay habitat since mature pinyon and juniper will continue to occur. As a result of the no action alternative, shrublands would continue to trend toward juniper spp. encroachment, resulting in loss of shrubland habitat and the reduction of desired native shrub and grass species. Shrubland stands will continue to be dominated by mid-aged structural classes. These conditions will result in a loss of potential habitat for Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and the sage thrasher. Riparian habitats within the project area will continue to be dominated by juniper spp. and other late successional species. Juniper spp. dominance decreases the abundance of riparian shrub species. This reduction in riparian communities will reduce potential habitat for the broad-tailed hummingbird. Cumulative Effects The effects described under the No Action alternative for the flammulated owl, greater sage-grouse, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, northern flicker, northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, wild turkey, and the migratory bird species extend to the respective habitat types within the CEA. Generally, conditions described for the No Action alternative exist across the CEA. Only 13 acres has been treated in the aspen within the CEA. This amount is so minor that benefits to wildlife would not be measurable. Most vegetation projects have occurred more than 40 years ago in the mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper woodland, and ponderosa pine cover types. Vegetation treatment effectiveness is typically not expected to last longer than

104

Environmental Assessment

20 years. No vegetation treatments have been done in the riparian cover type. Past treatments within the shrublands focused on ponderosa pine removal from transition stands and not juniper spp. encroachment and resulting reduction of desired native shrub and grass species. Within the spruce/fir cover type, many of the stands do not meet the desired future condition of promoting spruce over fir and the potential for stand replacing wildfire within the CEA. Forest and shrubland stands within the CEA will continue to develop homogeneous stand structures with little variation in age class distribution or canopy structure at the landscape scale. Since habitat conditions and effects described for the No action alternative exist across the CEA, effects to the wildlife species disclosed above apply to the entire CEA. The reduction in habitat that meets PFC will result in loss of habitat for its associated species and decreased use of the CEA. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Action 1 This action will promote the development of the existing Narrowleaf cottonwood stands and enhance natural reproduction of cottonwood seedlings. These areas will be structured to withstand future wildfire events. Establishment of riparian dependent species will enhance streambank stability which in turn increases resiliency against high water flow events. Riparian dependent species will be promoted (Carroll, 2017). Riparian dependent wildlife will benefit from these effects. Potential habitat for the broad-tailed hummingbird will increase and will likely increase hummingbird use in the project area. Project Design Feature WL-12 will protect breeding migratory birds including the broad-tailed hummingbird that may be using juniper trees as an alternative to preferred nesting habitat. This treatment will result in beneficial effects to the flammulated owl, greater sage-grouse, Mexican spotted owl, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, northern flicker, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, spotted bat, and wild turkey. Moving this area towards PFC and promoting riparian dependent species will improve and potentially increase foraging habitat and provide for prey species that many of these species use. In the case of the greater sage-grouse, potentially suitable habitat will be developed as sagebrush areas expand. Action 5 By removing juniper and promoting sagebrush spp. these areas will be better structured to withstand future wildfire events. Establishment of early seral stages of shrubland species will enhance this habitat type and increase resiliency against future disturbance events (Carroll, 2017). Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) for the greater sage-grouse will not be affected by this treatment. Approximately 103 acres of potentially suitable sage-grouse habitat that is within the lek buffer will be treated. The removal of conifer species will benefit this species as suitability of the habitat increases. This has the potential to increase use in this area as brood-rearing/summer habitat. The UDNR stated that the removal of encroaching pinyon and juniper trees that are very pronounced along the benches and flats of this area has the potential to substantially increase forage for wintering deer and elk (UDNR, 2013). Therefore, beneficial effects to deer and elk in crucial winter range will occur as well as other species that rely on forage in the shrubland cover type such as turkey. This increase in forage will help elk and deer populations especially in severe winters when winter range can become limited in this area. Migratory bird species that depend on shrublands including Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher will benefit from improvements and balancing of the seral stage distribution. Long-term benefits will be achieved from improvements to withstand future wildfire events.

105

Action 6 Action 6 is intended to address and comply with the Dixie LRMP and specifically the standards and guidelines for managing northern goshawk habitat. The “goshawk amendment” to the LRMP, guideline D, requires that forest cover types should be managed to provide for a full range of seral stages with each seral stage containing a strong representation of early seral tree species. The affected environment discussion presented for northern goshawk territories describes the high stocking and density of late successional climax species present within northern goshawk territory forested stands. The silviculture prescriptions for goshawk nest areas and post fledging areas are designed to address the lack of early seral species components and distribution of structural stages (Carroll, 2017). Following completion of all treatments within the Ranch Creek PFA/NA, the stand overstory species composition remaining will be dominated by aspen (76 percent), with ponderosa pine comprising the balance. Understory species composition will be dominated (93 percent) by aspen in VSS Class I. Ponderosa pine will remain as a secondary understory species. Juniper spp. and subalpine fir composition will decline to less than one percent stand composition. Early seral species including aspen and ponderosa pine will dominate both the overstory and understory. The dominant aspen overstory will not promote ponderosa pine regeneration. Stand structure will remain even-aged and single storied. The development of a second story of aspen regeneration and a shift in VSS distribution will occur (Carroll, 2017). Following completion of all treatments within the Hurricane Hollow PFA/NA, a shift in overstory species composition will occur. The overstory will be dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas fir (79 percent), with aspen comprising the balance. Understory species composition will be dominated by aspen and Gambel oak in VSS Class I. Douglas fir will remain as a secondary understory species. Juniper spp. and Blue spruce composition will decline to less than two percent stand composition. Aspen will dominate the understory species composition. Gambel oak stands will be unaffected by thinning prescriptions. Early seral species including aspen and ponderosa pine will dominate the overstory. There will be a short term reduction in aspen overstory composition. Stand structure will transition from even-aged and single storied to uneven- aged and multi-storied. There will be a development of a second story of aspen regeneration and a shift in VSS distribution. The average vegetation structural stage (VSS) will be classified as 4 or mid-aged forest (Carroll, 2017). These treatments are proposed so the goshawk nest areas and PFAs meet the intent of the Forest Plan for the goshawk and its prey species. Project design criteria WL-6 is in place so that these improvements to habitat will not affect breeding pairs associated with these two territories. Treatments will provide benefits to the goshawk resulting in the improvement of breeding habitat and therefore a higher likelihood of continued use. Goshawk pairs are more likely to continue to utilize their territories as a result of proposed activities than the no action. In addition, improvements to habitat and moving the area towards PFC will benefit all species that use this forested habitat that are analyzed in this document. This treatment will improve and increase available breeding and foraging habitat for the flammulated owl. Where uneven-aged structure is promoted, roosting habitat will improve. Since aspen is a highly utilized habitat type, and the quality of forage taken from aspen by deer and elk can potentially be very high, especially in summer (DeByle and Winokur, eds. 1985), treatments in this cover type will improve foraging habitat for deer and elk and those species that they are an indicator for. The northern flicker is one of the prey species of the northern goshawk and therefore one of the species that the goshawk amendment includes in vegetation management objectives. Aspen retention treatments as wells as moving the forested stands toward PFC will maintain and increase foraging and brood rearing areas for the wild turkey. The Pinyon jay utilizes ponderosa pine habitat as secondary

106

Environmental Assessment breeding habitat. Moving stands toward a balanced VSS distribution will maintain and improve secondary breeding habitat for the Pinyon jay. Action 7 Proposed activities within the aspen cover type will provide long-term improvements to flammulated owl habitat by retaining seral aspen stands and improving the openness of the stand. The 432 acres of conifer thinning and 307 acres of improvement cut treatment will not directly affect the flammulated owl as no potentially suitable nesting habitat will not be removed. Direct effects to nesting flammulated owls from patch cut and Group Selection treatments are unlikely since surveys of suitable habitat in these areas show that no flammulated owls are present. The remaining aspen treatments are small and no flammulated owls are present in these areas, therefore effects to the owl are unlikely. Treatment activities will occur during the day and this species is strictly nocturnal and nest abandonment is rare as a result of human activities, therefore direct effects to the species is unlikely. Since aspen is a highly utilized habitat type (DeByle and Winokur, eds. 1985), and the quality of forage taken from aspen by deer and elk can potentially be very high, especially in summer (DeByle and Winokur, eds. 1985; pp. 142-145), this treatment will improve primarily summer habitat for foraging deer and elk. Disturbance from treatment activities may displace foraging deer and elk to other locations in the project area or to surrounding habitat, producing a minor effect. Project design features will maintain snag numbers for the northern flicker and the species that depend on cavity nests and snags, as well as the three-toed woodpecker in areas where treatments are adjacent to the spruce-fir cover type. Goshawk management recommendations call for the management of early seral species such as aspen (Graham et al. 1999). USDA Forest Service (1999) states that forest changes including forests that are now dominated by mid- to late successional species instead of early succession species are suspected to result in a decline of goshawk populations. As a result of proposed treatments, aspen will not be replaced by conifer, and a mixture of aspen will be retained throughout the project area and therefore will reduce the risk of a decline of individual goshawks that could use the project area in this foraging habitat. Disturbance to foraging goshawks during treatment activities would result in dispersing of foraging individuals to other foraging habitat and would cause minor effects. The project area does not contain preferred foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon that provides an abundance of prey, primarily waterfowl. Therefore, impacts to foraging falcons will be low due to the short- term or small scale of area of impact as falcons will not be as dependent on prey in the project area. Peregrine falcons would likely avoid foraging above any of the treatment activities and would disperse of other foraging habitat. These potential effects will not be measurable due to the lack of treatments in preferred foraging habitat and the small area in which treatments will occur at any given time. Treatments will not affect roosting habitat for the spotted bat. Clear cut treatments may improve foraging habitat temporarily as openings are created. Foraging individuals will not be affected as treatments will occur during the day when individuals are roosting. Aspen regeneration harvests would increase herbage production (Debyle and Winokur, eds., 1985). The retention of aspen clones will benefit the turkey by maintaining and increasing foraging habitat. Disturbance from logging activities may displace turkeys to other locations in the project area or to surrounding habitat, producing a minor effect.

107

Proposed activities within the mixed conifer cover type will provide long-term improvements to flammulated owl habitat by retaining seral species and improving the openness of the stand. Flammulated owls prefer to forage in open forest and are nearly absent from dense forest types. These owls contain relatively long wings which reduces maneuverability and may contribute to the selection of these open forests (Linkhart and McCallum, 2013). Goggans (1986) also found that flammulated owls foraged more than expected in stands with low to medium stem density. Foraging habitat will be improved as a result of the total reduction in stand densities. Flammulated owls prefer to nest and forage in large, older trees (Reynolds et al., 1989; Reynolds and Linkhart, 1987). Nesting habitat will be improved in the long-term. While there are no direct effects to the distribution and percentage of old growth associated with the mixed conifer cover type, recruitment of VSS class 5 trees is projected to begin by year 2045 as VSS distributions change (Carroll, 2017). Treatment activities will occur during the day and this species is strictly nocturnal and nest abandonment is rare as a result of human activities, therefore direct effects to the species is unlikely. Summer foraging habitat is likely to increase for deer and elk. Since most summer use is concentrated underneath the lava rock rim where stands of aspen, fir, and spruce are interspersed with sage flats and meadows, proposed treatments will improve foraging habitat by reducing stand densities and creating openings. There will be direct effects to deer and elk as a result of treatment disturbance. Deer and/or elk that happen to be near treatment areas during activities will disperse to other habitat away from treatments. This dispersing effect is likely to be minor as individuals will use other areas. Project design features will maintain snag numbers for the northern flicker and the species that depend on cavity nests and snags, as well as the three-toed woodpecker in areas where treatments are adjacent to the spruce-fir cover type. The multi-storied reduction in ponderosa pine habitat will not affect roosting habitat for the flammulated owl. This is because stands are declassified as multi-storied primarily as the result of understory thinning of small trees and undesirable species including white fir and juniper spp. While stands have been multi-storied primarily due to undesirable species, it is expected that habitat is not suitable due the lack of breeding owls in these areas. The long-term beneficial effects of the retention of early seral species and an increase in vegetation diversity is expected to promote breeding habitat and increase use of the project area. Flammulated owls prefer to forage in open forest and are nearly absent from dense forest types. These owls contain relatively long wings which reduces maneuverability and may contribute to the selection of these open forests (Linkhart and McCallum, 2013). Goggans (1986) also found that flammulated owls foraged more than expected in stands with low to medium stem density. Foraging habitat will be improved as a result of the total reduction in stand densities. Flammulated owls prefer to nest and forage in large, older trees (Reynolds et al., 1989; Reynolds and Linkhart, 1987). Nesting habitat will be improved in the long- term. There are no direct effects to the distribution and percentage of old growth associated with the ponderosa pine cover type. No breeding owls were found in or near this cover type. Therefore, there are no direct effects to the species from treatments in this cover type. Treatments that will benefit deer and elk by increasing forage in the ponderosa pine cover type include; reduction of understory stocking of conifer spp., especially juniper spp. in shrubland cover type that is intermixed within ponderosa pine stands, promotion of riparian vegetation, opening stands as a result of removing mistletoe infected trees or excess trees, and prescribed burning. Deer and/or elk that happen to be

108

Environmental Assessment near treatment areas during activities will disperse to other habitat away from treatments. This dispersing effect is likely to be minor as individuals will use other areas. Project design features will maintain snag numbers for the northern flicker and the species that depend on cavity nests and snags, as well as the three-toed woodpecker in areas where treatments are adjacent to the spruce-fir cover type. The management recommendations for the northern goshawk in Utah states that treatments within this cover type be planned to convert these crowded stands into open stands dominated by large fire resistant trees. It proposes that cleanings, weedings, and thinnings through mechanical means or fire could be used to create these conditions (Graham et. al., 1999). Treatments are therefore consistent with the management recommendations for the northern goshawk. The management recommendations also promote treatments in the ponderosa pine cover type that stimulate quaking aspen regrowth where needed. Proposed treatments within this cover type will result in VSS class 1 of aspen through prescribed burning and in other treatment areas, creating conditions where aspen composition remains as both intermingled and intermixed within these stands. Treatments will benefit the goshawk by improving foraging habitat. Disturbance to foraging goshawks during treatment activities would result in dispersing of foraging individuals to other foraging habitat and would cause minor effects. The project area does not contain preferred foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon that provides an abundance of prey, primarily waterfowl. Therefore, impacts to foraging falcons will be low due to the short- term or small scale of area of impact as falcons will not be as dependent on prey in the project area. Peregrine falcons would likely avoid foraging above any of the treatment activities and would disperse of other foraging habitat. These potential effects will not be measurable due to the lack of treatments in preferred foraging habitat and the small area in which treatments will occur at any given time. Treatments will not affect roosting habitat for the spotted bat. Treatments that will create small pockets of openings within the ponderosa pine cover type will create foraging habitat. Foraging individuals will not be affected as treatments will occur during the day when individuals are roosting. Treatments will improve foraging habitat for the wild turkey by reducing stand densities and creating openings resulting in an increase of understory vegetation growth. Disturbance from logging activities may displace turkeys to other locations in the project area or to surrounding habitat, producing a minor effect. Turkeys are an indicator of old growth ponderosa pine. There are no direct effects to the distribution and percentage of old growth associated with the ponderosa pine cover type. The Shrubland Tree Control silviculture treatment that will be implemented on approximately 39 acres of shrubland cover type intermixed within ponderosa pine stands will remove all juniper spp. This will improve potential breeding habitat for the sage sparrow and sage thrasher. Openings created by logging in the spruce-fir type would increase quantity and quality of forage (Alexander 1987). Aspen regeneration harvest would increase herbage production (DeByle and Winokur eds., 1985). This will result in benefits to deer and elk and those species that depend on forage. Project design features will maintain snag numbers for the northern flicker and the species that depend on cavity nests and snags, as well as the three-toed woodpecker. Foraging opportunities will temporarily increase, especially for the three-toed woodpecker as it prefers to forage in fire-killed trees.

109

The management recommendations for the northern goshawk in Utah states that treatments within this cover type should be planned to promote early seral species (Graham et al., 1999). Treatments will shift species composition in favor of early seral species. The management recommendations also state that mixed forests made up of a mosaic of early seral species would be highly used by the goshawk, with indirectly improving habitat by lowering the risk of epidemics of insects and diseases and stand-replacing fire (Graham et al., 1999). The proposed treatments will change the natural disturbance regime towards stand conditions which are more resilient to perturbations (Carroll, 2017). Management recommendations in this potential vegetation type promote the use of fire or mechanical treatments or both to be used to create conditions favorable to quaking aspen (Graham et al., 1999). Proposed treatments favor early seral species including aspen. Treatments will benefit the goshawk by improving foraging habitat. Disturbance to foraging goshawks during treatment activities would result in dispersing of foraging individuals to other foraging habitat and would cause minor effects. The project area does not contain preferred foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon that provides an abundance of prey, primarily waterfowl. Therefore, impacts to foraging falcons will be low due to the short- term or small scale of area of impact as falcons will not be as dependent on prey in the project area. Peregrine falcons would likely avoid foraging above any of the treatment activities and would disperse of other foraging habitat. These potential effects will not be measurable due to the lack of treatments in preferred foraging habitat and the small area in which treatments will occur at any given time. The burning treatment near nesting habitat will not affect the breeding pair since burns will be conducted either after the breeding season or project design feature WL-11 will be implemented in the spring. Treatments will not directly affect roosting habitat for the spotted bat. Existing conditions within this cover type generally do not provide foraging habitat for the species. Treatments that will create openings within the spruce-fir cover type will increase foraging habitat. Foraging individuals will not be directly affected as treatments will occur during the day when individuals are roosting. The prescribed burning portions of this treatment will not affect roosting individuals but may disperse foraging individuals to other habitat due to the smoke. The burning period will likely occur in the fall which is outside the period in which the species would roost in the project area. Any burning during spring or summer months would be short in duration (estimated at approximately 2-5 days with periods with heavy smoke) and will result in foraging dispersal routes changing to other areas. Treatments will increase forage for the wild turkey. Openings created by logging in the spruce-fir type would increase quantity and quality of forage (Alexander 1987). Aspen regeneration harvests would increase herbage production (DeByle and Winokur eds., 1985). The retention of aspen clones will benefit the turkey by maintaining and increasing foraging habitat. Disturbance from logging activities may displace turkeys to other locations in the project area or to surrounding habitat, producing a minor effect. The shift in species composition favoring pinyon pine over juniper and a reduction in total stand density will result in an increase of grass and shrub cover. This will increase forage production for deer, elk, and wild turkey, as well as increase small prey for the flammulated owl and northern goshawk. The benefit to these species will primarily increase winter foraging habitat. Increasing forage in the benches and flats of this area has the potential to substantially increase forage for wintering deer and elk (UDNR, 2013). Therefore, beneficial effects to deer and elk in crucial winter range will occur as well as other species that rely on forage. This increase in forage will help elk and deer populations especially in severe winters when winter range can become limited in this area.

110

Environmental Assessment

Proposed treatments within the pinyon-juniper woodland cover type will result in moving stands toward desired conditions. This will benefit the black-throated gray warbler, gray vireo, juniper titmouse, Virginia’s warbler, and pinyon jay. There are no effects to old growth associated with this cover type and stand conditions will become more resilient to perturbations, thereby aiding in retaining habitat for migratory birds that depend on this cover type. Cumulative Effects The effects described under the Proposed Action alternative for the flammulated owl, greater sage-grouse, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, northern flicker, northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, wild turkey, and the migratory bird species extend to the respective habitat types within the CEA. Generally, conditions described for the No Action alternative exist across the CEA. Most vegetation projects have occurred more than 40 years ago in the mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper woodland, and ponderosa pine cover types. Vegetation treatment effectiveness is typically not expected to last longer than 20 years. No vegetation treatments have been done in the riparian cover type. Past treatments within the shrublands focused on ponderosa pine removal from transition stands and not juniper spp. encroachment and resulting reduction of desired native shrub and grass species. The Proposed Action alternative will result in an increase in aspen composition within the CEA. Total aspen composition is expected to be over 20 percent of total vegetative cover. Stand densities are expected to be within desired SDI thresholds for the rotation cycle ending in year 2025. Forest and Shrubland stands within the CEA will continue to develop heterogeneous stand structures with variation in age class distribution and canopy structure (Carroll, 2017). As disclosed under the Proposed Action alternative for each of the respective species and the habitats they use, these vegetative improvements will maintain or increase suitable habitat in the CEA. Many of the species discussed above will benefit from an increase in aspen composition, desired SDI thresholds within forested stands, and variation in age class distribution. As with the effects disclosed for the species in their associated habitats, treatments would likely cause dispersal to other habitat. Past projects within the CEA listed above were implemented prior to the identification of northern goshawk territories within the CEA. Therefore, past projects implemented before 2005 have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on CEA northern goshawk territories. The Proposed Action Alternative will reduce total stocking and density of climax species, promote seral species composition and structure of the Ranch Creek and Hurricane Hollow northern goshawk territories. Stand composition will become dominated by early successional species (aspen, ponderosa pine). Forest structure within northern goshawk territories will remain dominated by VSS Class 3 and 4 diameter class distributions. However, post treatment diameter distributions will move toward VSS Class 5 and 6 more rapidly. 3.11 Other Disclosures 3.11.1 Environmental Justice Act Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations, and Departmental Regulation 5600-2 direct federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment.

111

Implementation of any of these alternatives will be consistent with this Order and will not have a discernible effect on minorities, American Indians, or women, or the civil rights of any United States citizen. Nor will it have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities or low-income individuals. No civil liberties will be affected. Public involvement and comment was sought and incorporated into this document. The Forest Service has considered all public input from individuals or groups regardless of age, race, income status, gender, or other social/economic characteristics (see project record). Executive Order 12898 also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. The decision would not alter opportunities for subsistence hunting by Native American tribes. Native American tribes holding treaty rights for hunting and fishing on the Dixie National Forest were provided an opportunity to comment on the proposal (see project record). Based on experience with similar projects on the Escalante Ranger District, none of the alternatives would substantially affect minority or low-income individuals, women, or civil rights. The implementation of this project is expected to provide job opportunities in communities such as Escalante and Antimony, Utah. Some of these communities include minority populations that may benefit from the economic effects. Small or minority- owned businesses would have the opportunity to compete for some of the work. Analysis Methods

The economic efficiency of each action alternative was analyzed using the present net value (PNV) of revenues and costs anticipated during the life of the project using QuickSilver Access (2015) software (Vasievich et al, 2008). PNV is a convenient and consistent method to measure the relative economic efficiencies of a range of alternative forest management scenarios. The following assumptions were used in the PNV analysis. • This analysis determines the net economic returns of various alternatives based on resource costs and benefits, which can easily be measured in dollar terms. Other resources that are more difficult to assign a dollar value (e.g., wildlife, water, air) were not considered. • Values have been discounted to the year 2016. • Revenue and cost data were developed specifically for this project and reflect current levels for this geographic area. Costs used included funding to the district for the various preparation works such as treatment unit layout, NEPA, contract administration, and costs based on recent contracts, such as Non- Commercial thinning, piling, mastication, and burning. • The area included in this analysis includes Garfield County, Utah. • PNV is used as an indicator of economic efficiency and is used in conjunction with other factors in the decision-making process. PNV combines benefits and costs that occur at different times and discounts them into an amount that is equivalent to all economic activity occurring in a single year. Economic impacts are displayed as employment and income estimated to result from implementation of each alternative. Economic efficiency considers the benefits and costs associated with implementing each alternative. This analysis will display market costs, although there are many non-market benefits and costs that will not be assigned dollar values. Examples of non-market benefits that will not be included in this analysis are vegetation treatments that result in habitat improvements and road improvements, which increase public safety. Examples of non-market costs would include erosion, or loss of wildlife cover and security as a result of the No Action alternative. This report will focus on the market costs and benefits of implementing activities included in the

112

Environmental Assessment analyzed alternatives and will rely on the various specialist’s reports to identify the non-market benefits and costs that implementation would produce for each resource covered by this EA. Specialist’s reports will discuss the qualitative non-market benefits of this activity, while this economic section shows the market costs. Management of the forest is expected to yield positive benefits, as well as financial benefits. Economic effects are assessed within the managerial context of the Forest Plan, as a part of an integrated approach to multiple-use management. Net public benefits represent the sum of priced outputs (PNV) plus the net benefit of non-priced outcomes. Net public benefits cannot be expressed as a dollar value because many of the outcomes of management are not quantifiable in monetary terms. The economic returns of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22. Economic Return of Proposed Action B/C Ratio Present Net Value $ PV –Benefits $ PV – Costs $ Alternative 2 Proposed Action 0.12 -$1,610,143.89 $219,030.15 -$1,829174.04

The present value benefits are derived from the sale of forest products resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action. Forest products include saw timber, fuel wood, and post and pole permits. The implementation period is expected to last for five years and thus all expected receipts from the sale of timber are discounted to the base year of 2016. Non-priced benefits include additional fuel wood either sold to the public in future years or utilized by the recreational public. Recreation visitor use trends indicate that growth in visitation, measured by recreation visitor days (RVD’s), is expected to continue regardless of future forest management practices. Summer recreation use has been the greatest growth. Increases in RVD’s can be attributed to advertising by local communities and businesses, and a general increase in the number of people seeking forest recreation experiences. Summer recreation contributes the highest proportion of RVD’s in and around the project area. Reduction of RVD’s is not likely to occur from the Proposed Action given the limited scale and scope of the project. Cumulative Effects

The benefits to Garfield County from the Proposed Action would include contributed wages from Forest Service employees, contractors and their employees as well as employees of Utah State and stewardship partners. Local and regional sawmills will also incur benefits from the acquisition, manufacture and selling of forest products. Garfield County merchants who provide services to contractors as well as Federal and State employees will benefit. The recreation and tourism industry plays an increasingly important role in the economy of Garfield County. These industries are highly fragmented and seasonal, creating difficulty in measuring changes due to the effects of the Proposed Action. The economy of Garfield County is relatively diversified, adapting well to local changes in the economy. The small communities in the analysis area will be impacted primarily by the Proposed Action providing seasonal jobs and the spin-off benefits that they provide such as increased spending at local businesses and tax revenues.

113

Effects of No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative

This alternative proposes no action and produces no economic outputs. There is no return on this investment. No benefits, (direct, indirect or non-quantifiable) can be attributed to this alternative. Implementation of the no action alternative will not provide additional public benefits to local jobs. Even though this alternative does not result in implementation of an action alternative, there are planning costs (NFMA and NEPA), which would still be incurred. These costs are estimated at $94,359.71. Table 23 displays the economic returns of No Action.

Table 23. Economic Return of No Action

Alternative B/C Ratio Present Net Value $ PV –Benefits $ PV – Costs $

No Action 0.00 -$94,359.71 $0.00 -$94,359.71

Cumulative Effects

Under the no action alternative, increases in local income would not be generated. Impacts to other industry such as the forest products industry and tourism would continue at present trends. 3.11.2 Climate Affected Environment The vegetation resources of the high-elevation plateaus in southern Utah are being affected by a changing climate. Forest cover types are generally water limited in the summer, so higher temperatures will increase summer moisture stress, resulting in lower growth and possibly lower regeneration in drier locations. Sensitivity to moisture stress in conifers will vary by landscape position (e.g., north vs. south aspects, high vs. low elevation). Because ponderosa pine is so fire tolerant, sensitivity to increased wildfire will be relatively low, except in locations where stem densities and fuel loadings are high (Intermountain Adaptive Partnership 2016 draft). Forests cycle carbon. They are in continual flux, emitting carbon into the atmosphere, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and storing carbon as biomass (sequestration). Over the long term, through one or more cycles of disturbance and regrowth, net carbon storage is often zero because regrowth of trees recovers the carbon lost in the disturbance and decomposition of vegetation killed by the disturbance (Kashian and others 2006; Ryan and others 2010). The majority of the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project area is currently stocked more heavily than desired, thus competition for water and nutrients is high and the trees in the area are more susceptible to drought, insects, disease, and fire (Negron and others 2008). At this stage of their development, the affected forest stands are estimated to be net carbon sinks. That is, they are likely sequestering carbon faster than they are releasing it to the atmosphere. As they continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase (typically peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually declining, but remaining positive) (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004).

114

Environmental Assessment

Increased frequency and magnitude of drought, and consistently drier soils will cause ponderosa pine (and other co-occurring species) to grow slower, but mortality will be rare unless drought lasts for several consecutive years and bark beetles cause additional stress. The expected increase in frequency and extent of wildfire may favor ponderosa pine and aspen regeneration over less fire tolerant competitors, thus ensuring ponderosa pine dominance in most forests, although limber pine and bristlecone pine will probably persist at higher elevations where fuel loads are typically low. Exceptions include mixed conifer and spruce-fir areas where fire exclusion has increased stand density and fuel loads conducive to crown fires, but even then, regeneration of seral species will probably be sufficient to maintain seral species dominance after fire. If bark beetles become more prevalent in a warmer climate, they could increase stress and mortality in all tree species, especially during drought periods. On the other hand, the strength of that sink has likely weakened in some stands with recent tree mortality from spruce beetle infestations (Kurz and others 2008a). Tree mortality in these areas may have changed these site-specific conditions from a situation where more carbon was removed from the atmosphere than was being emitted (sink) to forest conditions that are emitting more carbon through decay than is being absorbed through tree growth (source)—though even these effects are highly variable depending on beetle species and stand growth rates (Hicke and others 2012). Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of No Action Alternative The direct and indirect effects of the no action and proposed action alternative on climate were analyzed within the project area throughout the life of the project, through 2022. Cumulative effects were calculated in a larger context, the State of Utah. Climate Change Influences on Vegetation Resiliency Climate Change and Insect Disturbance–Climate can have direct effects on insect metabolism and lifecycles and can indirectly affect “factors such as food quality and predation” (Bentz, Alston, & Evans, 2008). Although future climate change at the local level is uncertain, a shift towards a drier or seasonally drier condition could result in an increasing risk over time of large-scale insect attack in the absence of management action to control tree stocking levels. Increased tree densities result in increased inter-tree competition for limited water and nutrients. Increased moisture stress reduces the natural defenses of the tree to repel insect attack and makes the forest susceptible to large- scale loss during periods of extended drought. An example is the recent spruce bark beetle epidemic that occurred on the Dixie NF over the last two decade resulting in high mortality of Engelmann spruce on the Aquarius Plateau (Samman & Logan, 2000, p. 28) (UDNR, 2003). Regionally a complex of droughts and insects has caused widespread mortality in the pinyon and juniper woodlands since at least 1990 (Shaw, 2006) (Witt & Shaw, 2010). Climate Change and Vegetation Resiliency–With the no action alternative, an opportunity to manage forests and woodlands towards desired conditions would not occur. Stand densities would continue to increase and forest fuels would continue to accumulate. There would be an increasing risk of severe wildfire with the potential for catastrophic carbon losses to the atmosphere. There would be continued releases of carbon to the atmosphere from the decomposition of down dead wood, especially in areas that are currently experiencing high levels of conifer mortality from insect attacks and fire. Tree mortality would increase over time as species composition changes from seral dominated stands to stands dominated by climax species and as stocking levels increase. Forest stands with high tree densities become more susceptible to attack by insects and disease. Tree mortality leads to additional amounts of fuels and decomposing woody material.

115

Forest stands containing a lack of vigor or diversity may have their ability to adapt to meet future climate challenges compromised. Climate Change and Wildfire Severity–Climate warming associated with elevated greenhouse-gas concentrations may create an atmospheric and fuel environment that is more conducive to large severe fires. General circulation model studies suggest that fire occurrence or area burned could increase across North America under a doubled CO2 environment because of increases in lightning activity, the frequency of surface pressure and associated circulation patterns conducive to surface drying, and fire-weather conditions in general that are conducive to larger and more severe wildfires (McKenzie, Heinsch, & Heilman, 2011) (Chambers, 2008, p. 30) (Ziska, Reeves III, & Blank, 2005). With no action, forest and woodlands within the project area would not be as resilient to disturbances such as wildfire under a changing climate. Climate Change and Adaptation–Under some predictive scenarios, changes in climate may occur that will exceed the capacity of existing forest and woodland vegetation to adjust physiologically and developmentally. Furthermore, climate changes may occur at rates that will exceed the capacities of forest species to evolve in place to adapt to new conditions or to migrate to more favorable, future environments. Being relatively long lived, the forest trees living today will probably compose much of the forests of the next century. Long term adaptation to climate changes will require healthy and productive forests and woodlands in the short term (Anderson, Silviculture and Climate Change, 2008). The susceptibility and resilience of these forests to fire or pest disturbances, as well as their ability to adapt to meet future climate challenges may be compromised by a lack of vigor or diversity. Declines in vigor may make forests and woodlands more susceptible to large scale pest attacks and more frequent or severe fires. Furthermore, existing plant species or genotypes may be poorly adapted to future climate conditions during all or various parts of their life cycles, resulting in increased risk of regeneration failures and altered trajectories of forest growth, development, and productivity (Anderson, Silviculture and Climate Change, 2008) (Chambers, 2008). Project Level Carbon Cycling Influences on Climate Change With no action there would be little immediate change in the amount of sequestered carbon in forest stands and little immediate change in the rate of carbon removal from the atmosphere (Table 24). Total stand carbon represents the total amount of aboveground carbon in the project area. Harvested carbon represents the total amount of carbon that was removed from the project area by smoke or harvested forest products. Sequestered carbon represents the amount of carbon sequestered in forest products as a result of removal and processing. The total accumulation of carbon in fully stocked forest and woodland stands will continue to rise until the stands reaches maturity. At some point, the rate of carbon storage declines due to less efficient photosynthesis and higher respiratory losses and may eventually have zero net CO2 intake (Mader, 2007). There would be no removal of wood or fiber for carbon storage in wood product form. There would be no use of wood as bioenergy to displace fossil fuel consumption. Since there would be no silvicultural activities, emissions from mechanical equipment would not contribute to atmospheric carbon. There would be no releases of carbon to the atmosphere from prescribed burning. It is worth noting that the no action alternative may result in large amounts of carbon emission as a result of the increased risk of a stand-replacing wildfire (Hurteau and others 2008).

116

Environmental Assessment

Table 24. Total stand carbon, in kilotons, in harvested carbon (carbon emission from smoke and forest product removal) and sequestered carbon (long-term carbon storage from removed forest products) as well as a result of the proposed action and no action in 2025 as forecasted by the Forest Vegetation Simulator

Carbon Pool (kilotons) Existing Condition Proposed Action 2025 No Action 2025

Total Stand Carbon (trees) 300.2 277.6 312.6

Removed Carbon (forest N/A 25.8 N/A products and emissions))

Sequestered Carbon (forest N/A 13 N/A products)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action

Climate Change Influences on Vegetation Resiliency-Although future climate change at the local level is uncertain, the proposed action with other past, current, and foreseeable silvicultural treatments within the cumulative effects area would improve the ability of the forest to withstand the forecasted drier or seasonally drier conditions associated with climate change. Resilience to climate change can be accomplished within treated forest and woodland stands by maintaining desired conditions through reducing high tree densities and by favoring drought resistant and more ecologically sustainable species. Thinned forest stands through commercial and non-commercial thinning would be expected to increase vigor in the remaining trees due to reduced competition. Such measures would also reduce the risk of insect attack during prolonged drought periods. If the local climate shifts toward wetter conditions, the proposed action would not have a detrimental effect to the vegetation resource. The thinning, harvesting and prescribed fire activities would reduce the risk of severe fire (Graham and others 1999). This would reduce the possibility of large amounts of carbon dioxide being released as a result of a large stand replacing wildfire (Hurteau and others 2008), Project Level Carbon Cycling Influences on Climate Change-The proposed action would result in an immediate reduction in the capacity of the standing forest to store carbon due to the reduction in the number of trees (Table 26). However much of the carbon stored in the harvested trees will remain sequestered in the resulting manufactured forest products and eventually released to the atmosphere over a long period (Smith and others 2006: 1). Silvicultural strategies that employ active management have been shown to be effective at long-term carbon sequestration (Hurteau and others 2008; Moore and others 2012). The harvest, thinning and burning treatments under the proposed action will temporarily reduce canopy cover, maintain stand vigor, capture mortality, and shift carbon uptake to more efficient growers. The group selection and reforestation treatments are designed to regenerate or create new age classes of seedling and saplings which will increase forest resiliency over time. Regeneration within these areas will re-establish or maintain fully stocked, young, vigorous stands. “While these treatments may release carbon in the short term, they focus growth and storage for the future on trees that are at lower risk and/or more resilient to disturbance” (USDA 2015). The proposed action alternative will reduce the risk of losing large volumes of carbon to the atmosphere as a result of major wildfire in the project area. Following the treatments of the proposed action, fire behavior under severe wildfire conditions will decrease. Flame lengths will be lower and there will be a reduced

117 chance for fire to climb into the crowns. The result will be post project conditions where wildfires would be less damaging and easier to suppress (Graham and others 1999). Accumulations of snags and down dead wood release carbon to the atmosphere through decomposition. Prescribed fire following harvest and thinning activities will minimize the accumulation of activity generated slash. The project would result in short term releases of carbon to the atmosphere during prescribed fire activities. Although prescribed burning returns some carbon, other greenhouse gases and particulate matter to the atmosphere, combustion is more complete than wildfire, which releases higher concentrations of the other greenhouse gases and particulate matter (Mader 2007). There will be short term emissions associated with machinery while harvest activities are underway. With up to 14,082 treated acres depending on alternative, the Ranch Creek Watershed and Riparian Improvement Project activities represent only a small percentage (0.003 %) of forest and woodlands in Utah. Compared to emissions of carbon from large facilities in the state of Utah (114,000,000 metric tons) over the life of the project, this project will release relatively little carbon (40,000 metric tons) into the atmosphere, with the opportunity for additional sequestration over the long term. The potential for utilization of biomass for bioenergy (i.e. firewood, hog fuel) would also have the potential to displace some fossil fuel consumption and provide long term carbon sequestration.

118

Environmental Assessment

Chapter 4. Contributors The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and other organization and individuals during the development of this environmental assessment:

4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies US Senator Mike Lee US Senator Orrin G. Hatch US Congressman Chris Stewart US Fish and Wildlife Service Utah State Representative Mike Noel Utah State Senator Ralph Okerlund Utah State Senator Evan Vickers Utah RDDC Public Lands Policy Coordination Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands Garfield County Commission Five County Association of Governments Mayor of Antimony, Utah Mayor of Tropic, Utah Mayor of Bryce Canyon City, Utah

4.2 Tribes Kaibab-Paiute Tribe Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe Paiute Indian Tribe Ute Tribe

4.3 Others: Western Watersheds Project. Utah Southern Rockies WildEarth Guardians Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance The Nature Conservancy Utah Farm Bureau Alliance for the Wild Rockies Wild Utah Project Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Grand Canyon Wildlands Council Flying V-Bar Ranch Roark Stratton Derrel Spencer Andrew Flegal

Appendix A - MAPS

120

Environmental Assessment

Figure 9. Management Areas and Vicinity Map

121

Figure 10. Vegetation Cover Types Map

122

Environmental Assessment

Figure 11. Vegetation Treatments Map

123

Figure 12. Other Treatments Map

124

Environmental Assessment

Figure 13. Cumulative Effects Area for aquatic habitat, boreal toad and MIS nonnative trout.

125

Environmental Assessment

Figure 14. Project Area Transportation Map

127

Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Amundson, J.K., Ogle, K., Winward, A., Stender, P., Newhouse, D., Colin, T., . . . 1996. Properly functioning condition. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Region 4.

Arno, S.F.; Harrington, M.G. 1995. Use Thinning and Fire to Improve Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat. Tree Farmer. May/June: pp. 6-8 & 23.

Bailey, R. 2005. Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environmental Management. 34(Suppl. 1): S14-S26. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-0163-6.

Barrett, S., Havlina, D., Jones, J., Hann, W., Frame, C., Hamilton, D., Schon, K., Demeo, T., Hutter, L., and Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. https://www.frames.gov/partner-sites/frcc/frcc-guidebook-and-forms/.

Batchelor, J.L.; Ripple, W.J.; Wilson, T.M.; Painter, L.E. 2015. Restoration of Riparian Areas Following the Removal of Cattle in the Northwestern Great Basin. Environmental Management. 55(4): 930-942. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-014-0436-2.

Bates, J.D.; Davies, K.W.; Sharp, R.N. 2011. Shrub-steppe early succession following juniper cutting and prescribed fire. Environ Manage. 47(3): 468-81. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-011-9629-0.

Bates, J.D.; Miller, R.F.; Svejcar, T.J. 2000. Understory dynamics in cut and uncut western juniper woodlands. Journal of Range Management. 53(1): 119-126. DOI: Doi 10.2307/4003402.

Belt, G.H., O'Laughlin, J., & Merrill, T. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Report No. 8. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences.

Bennion, M. 2010. Southern Leatherside Chub Monitoring – East Fork Sevier River. Washington County Field Office: unpublished field report.

Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian Shade and Stream Temperature: An Alternative Perspective. Rangelands. 19(2): 25- 28.

Brown, G.W.; Krygier, J.T. 1970. Effects of Clear-Cutting on StreamTemperature. Water Resources Research. 6(4): 133-1139.

Burton, T.A.; Smith, S.J.; Cowley, E.R. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center. 155 p.

Chamberlain, T.W.; Harr, R.D.; Everest, F.H. 1991. Timber Harvesting, Silviculture and Watershed Process. In: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 181-205.

Resource Name

Cline, N.L., Roundy, B.A.; Pierson, F.B.; Kormos, P.; Williams, C.J. 2010. Hydrologic Response to Mechanical Shredding in a Juniper Woodland. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 63: 467–477.

Dunham, J.B.; Rosenberger, A.E.; Luce, C.H.; Rieman, B.E. 2007. Influences of Wildfire and Channel Reorganization on Spatial and Temporal Variation in Stream Temperature and the Distribution of Fish and Amphibians. Ecosystems. 10(2): 335-346. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-007-9029-8.

Dunham, J.B.; Young, M.K.; Gresswell, R.E.; Rieman, B.E. 2003. Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 183-196.

Elliot, W.J.M., Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 299 p.

Frissell, S.S. 1978. Judging Recreation Impacts on Wilderness Campsites. Journal of Forestry. 76(8): 481-483.

Golden, M. 2013. Dixie National Forest fish surveys FY2012. Cedar City, UT: Dixie National Forest, Supervisor's Office.

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Haak, A.; Williams, J.; Colyer, W. 2011. Developing a Diverse Conservation Portfolio for Bonneville cutthroat trout. Missoula, MT: Trout Unlimited.

Hadley, M.; Golden, M. 2016. 2015 Survey of Bonneville cutthroat trout in the East Fork Sevier River drainage, Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Hadley, M.; Ottenbacher, M.; Golden, M. 2011. Survey of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the Upper Virgin River Drainage, Utah, 2009-2010. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Hadley, M.; Ottenbacher, M.; Golden, M.; Whelan, J. 2010. Survey of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the Upper Sevier River and East Fork Sevier River Drainages, 2008-2009. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Hadley, M.; Ottenbacher, M.; Whelan, J. 2011. Survey of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the Middle SevierRiver Drainage, Utah, 2008-2010. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Hepworth, D.K.; Beckstrom, S. 2004. A simple 4 step method to manage for quality fishing: Implmenting Utah's Blue Ribbon Fishing Program. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 13 p.

Hepworth, D.K.; Ottenbacher, M.; Chamberlain, C.; Whelan, J. 2003. Abundance of Bonneville cutthroat trout In Southern Utah, 2001-2002, compared to previous surveys. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Hogrefe, T.C.; Bailey, C.L.; Thompson, P.D.; Nadolski, B. 2005. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) Conservation Plan in the State of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication Number 05-37. 65 p.

130 Environmental Assessment

Hood, S.M.; Miller, M. 2007. Fire ecology and management of the major ecosystems of southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 110 p.

Hurteau, M.D.; Koch, G.W.; Hungate, B.A. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6(9): 493-498. DOI: 10.1890/070187.

Johnson, S.L.; Jones, J.A. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 57: 30-39. DOI: DOI 10.1139/cjfas-57-S2-30.

Keller, C.R.; Burnham, K.P. 1982. Riparian Fencing, Grazing, and Trout Habitat Preference on Summit Creek, Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(1): 53-59. DOI: 10.1577/1548- 8659(1982)2<53:RFGATH>2.0.CO;2.

Lentsch, L.; Converse, Y.; Perkins, J. 1997. Conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) in the State of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Natural Resources.

Lentsch, L.; Toline, C., .; Kershner, J. [and others]. 2000. Range-wide conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah). Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle. 61:23-27.

Mader, S. 2007. Climate Project: Carbon Sequestration by California Forests and Forest Products. Los Angeles, CA: CH2M Hill, Inc. on behalf of California Forests for the Next Century.

Madsen, M. 2017. Botanical Prefield Research Form, USFS Region 4, Ranch Creek Watershed Improvement Project. unpublished:

Moore, P.T.; DeRose, R.J.; Long, J.N.; van Miegroet, H. 2012. Using Silviculture to Influence Carbon Sequestration in Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forests. Forests. 3(2): 300-316.

Parrish, J.R.; Howe, F.; Norvell, R. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. Salt Lake City: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Petersen, S.L.; Stringham, T.K. 2008. Infiltration, runoff, and sediment yield in response to western juniper encroachment in southeast Oregon. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 61(1): 74-81. DOI: 10.2111/07- 070r.1.

Pierson, F.B.; Bates, J.D.; Svejcar, T.J.; Hardegree, S.P. 2007. Runoff and Erosion After Cutting Western Juniper. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 60(3): 285-292.

Pierson, F.B.; Williams, C.J.; Kormos, P.R. [and others]. 2010. Hydrologic Vulnerability of Sagebrush Steppe Following Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 63(6): 614-629. DOI: 10.2111/rem-d-09-00148.1.

Platts, W.S.; Nelson, R. 1985. Characteristics of Riparian Plant Communities and Streambanks with Respect To Grazing in Northeastern Utah.

Resource Name

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research. 46:627-638.

Reynolds, R.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H. [and others]. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Rinne, J.N. 1996. Short-Term Effects of Wildfire on Fishes and Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the Southwestern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Manaftement. 16: 653-658.

Rinne, J.N. 2004. Forests, Fish and Fire: Relationships and Management Implications for Fishes in the Southwestern USA. In: Proc. Forest-Land-Fish Conf. II, April 26-28, 2004; Edmonton, Alberta. Forest Land–Fish Conference II– Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration: 151-156 p.

Rodriguez, R. 2012. Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species of the Dixie National Forest, v.6.0 2011. Cedar City: USFS Dixie National Forest.

Romme, W.H., Allen, C. D., Bailey, J. D., Baker, W. L., Bestelmeyer, B. T., Brown, P. M., . . . Weisberg, P. J. 2009. Historical and Modern Disturbance Regimes, Stand Structures, and Landscape Dynamics in Pinon-Juniper Vegetation of the Western U.S. Rangeland Ecology and Managment. 62 (3), 203-222.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology: Chapter 8 Applications. Pagosa Springs: Wildland Hydrology. 8.1-8.41. Ross, M.R.; Castle, S.C.; Barger, N.N. 2012. Effects of fuels reductions on plant communities and soils in a Pinon-juniper woodland. Journal of Arid Environments. 79: 84-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.11.019.

Roundy, B.A.; Vernon, J.L. 1999. Watershed values and conditions associated with pinyon-juniper communities. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service.

Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Skog, K.E.; Birdsey, R.A. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 216 p.

Stebleton, A.; Bunting, S. 2009. Guide for Quantifying Fuels in the Sagebrush Steppe and Juniper Woodlands of the Great Basin. Technical Note 430. Denver, CO: USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Tucker-Schulz, T.; Leininger, W. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and exlosures. Journal of Range Management. 43(4): 295-299.

UDNR. 2003. Vertebrate information compiled by the Utah Natural Heritage Program: a progress report: Utah Department of Natural Resources.

UDNR. 2013. Utah Big Game Range Trend Unit Summaries, 2013, Wildlife Management Units 22, 24, 25A, 25B, 25C, 27, 28, 29, 30. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Department of Natural Resources. pp. i-viii. 109-146, & 265 p.

UDWR. 2010. Conservation agreeement and strategy for southern leatherside (Lepidomeda aliciae) in the State of Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

132 Environmental Assessment

USDA. 1986, as amended. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dixie National Forest. Cedar City, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Dixie National Forest.

USDA. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA. 2000a. Environmental assessment for noxious weed management Dixie National forest. Cedar City, UT: USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest.

USDA. 2000b. Properly Functioning Condition: Rapid Assessment Process. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

USDA. 2000c. Scenery Management System EA (SMS). Cedar City, UT: USDA Forest Service Dixie National Forest.

USDA. 2000d. Utah Fire Amendment Environmental Assessment. Price, UT: USDA Forest Service.

USDA. 2000e. Utah Northern Goshawk Project Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact and Amendment. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

USDA. 2006. Dixie and Fishlake National Forest PFC Vegetation Strategy. Cedar City, UT: USDA Forest Service, Dixie and Fishlake National Forests.

USDA. 2009. Properly Functioning Condition. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

USDA. 2012. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: Level 1 inventory field guide. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

USDA. 2015. Baseline estimates of carbon stocks in forests and harvested wood products for national forest system units; Intermountain Region. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 42 p.

Utah Wildlife Action Plan Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to help prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.