BLM

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

June 2017 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and

Hazardous Fuels Treatment FillmoreField SaltOffice / Lake Field Office

Fillmore Field Office (Lead Office) 95 East 500 North Fillmore, Utah 84631 Phone: (435) 743-3100 Fax: (435) 743-3135

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

Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

This page intentionally left blank.

Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Location and Background ...... 1 1.1.1 Location ...... 1 1.1.2 General Background ...... 2 1.1.3 Background of the Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Area ...... 3 1.1.4 Project Background ...... 3 1.1.5 Goals and Objectives ...... 5 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 6 1.3 Decision to be Made ...... 7 1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plans ...... 7 1.5 Tiering to Existing NEPA Decisions ...... 8 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ...... 9 1.7 Cooperating Agencies and Partners ...... 10 1.8 Identification of Issues ...... 11 1.8.1 Scoping Summary ...... 11 1.8.2 Issues to be Analyzed in Detail ...... 11 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 13 2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 13 2.1.1 Initial Site-Specific Projects ...... 14 2.1.2 Proposed Suite of Treatment Types ...... 19 2.1.3 Implementation ...... 29 2.1.4 Project Design Criteria ...... 30 2.1.5 Monitoring ...... 36 2.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 37 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ...... 37 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 39 3.1 General Setting ...... 39 3.1.1 Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis ...... 39 3.2 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 39 3.2.1 Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Description ...... 40 3.2.2 Desired Conditions ...... 41 3.3 Migratory Birds ...... 42 3.3.1 Species That May Benefit from Focused Greater Sage-Grouse Management ...... 44 3.3.2 Species That May Be Negatively Affected by Focused Greater Sage-Grouse Management .... 44 3.4 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or Special Status Animal Species ...... 46 3.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 48 3.5.1 Mule Deer ...... 48

i Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

3.5.2 Elk ...... 49 3.5.3 Pronghorn ...... 49 3.6 Fuels/Fire Management ...... 49 3.6.1 Fire History ...... 50 3.6.2 Past Fuels and Vegetation Treatments ...... 50 3.6.3 Fire Regime/Condition Class ...... 51 3.6.4 Communities at Risk (Wildland Urban Interface) ...... 52 3.6.5 Trends ...... 53 3.7 Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species...... 53 3.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 54 3.9 Woodlands/Forestry ...... 54 3.10 Soils ...... 55 3.11 Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Health Standards ...... 56 3.12 Water Resources/Quality ...... 59 3.13 Wetlands/Riparian Zones ...... 60 3.13.1 Proper Functioning Condition Protocol Assessment Data ...... 60 3.13.2. Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) Data ...... 64 3.13.3 Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Monitoring Data ...... 64 3.14 Cultural Resources ...... 66 3.15 Recreation ...... 66 3.16 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 67 3.16.1 Current Status of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Inventories ...... 68 3.17 Air Quality/Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 71 3.17.1 Air Quality ...... 71 3.17.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change ...... 72 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 75 4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...... 75 4.2 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 75 4.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 75 4.2.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 75 4.3 Migratory Birds ...... 76 4.3.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 76 4.3.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 78 4.4 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species ...... 78 4.4.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 78 4.4.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 79 4.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 80 4.5.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 80 4.5.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 80

ii Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

4.6 Fuels/Fire Management ...... 80 4.6.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 80 4.6.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 81 4.7 Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species...... 81 4.7.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 81 4.7.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 84 4.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 84 4.8.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 84 4.8.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 85 4.9 Woodlands/Forestry ...... 85 4.9.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 85 4.9.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 86 4.10 Soils ...... 86 4.10.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 86 4.10.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 87 4.11 Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Health Standards ...... 87 4.11.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 87 4.11.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 88 4.12 Water Resources/Quality ...... 88 4.12.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 88 4.12.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 88 4.13 Wetlands/Riparian Zones ...... 88 4.13.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 88 4.13.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 89 4.14 Cultural Resources ...... 89 4.14.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 89 4.14.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 89 4.15 Recreation ...... 90 4.15.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 90 4.15.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 90 4.16 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 90 4.16.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 90 4.16.2 Alternative B – No-Action ...... 93 4.17 Air Quality/Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 93 4.17.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 93 4.17.2 Alternative B – No Action ...... 96 5.0 Cumulative Impacts ...... 97 5.1 Geographic Scope and Timeframe ...... 97

iii Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 97 5.2.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 97 5.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 100 5.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ...... 100 5.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 100 5.3.2 Migratory Birds ...... 100 5.3.3 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species ...... 101 5.3.4 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 101 5.3.5 Fuels/Fire Management ...... 101 5.3.6 Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 102 5.3.7 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 102 5.3.8 Woodlands/Forestry ...... 102 5.3.9 Soils ...... 103 5.3.10 Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Health Standards ...... 103 5.3.11 Water Resources/Quality ...... 103 5.3.12 Wetlands/Riparian Zones ...... 104 5.3.13 Cultural Resources ...... 104 5.3.14 Recreation ...... 104 5.3.15 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 104 5.3.16 Air Quality/Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 104 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 107 6.1 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted ...... 107 6.2 Summary of Public Participation ...... 108 6.2.1 Scoping ...... 108 6.2.2 Comment Period ...... 108 6.3 Preparers ...... 109 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 111 APPENDICES ...... 121 Appendix A: Maps ...... 122 Appendix B: Interdisciplinary Team Checklist ...... 137 Appendix C: Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Compliance 145 Appendix C.1: Special Status Species Objectives and Compliance ...... 145 Appendix C.2: Special Status Species Management Actions and Compliance...... 146 Appendix C.3: Vegetation Objective and Compliance ...... 147 Appendix C.4: Vegetation Management Actions and Compliance ...... 148 Appendix C.5: Fire/Fuels Management Actions and Compliance ...... 151

iv Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Appendix C.6: Livestock Grazing/Range Management Actions and Compliance ...... 154 Appendix D: Photographs ...... 157 Appendix D.1: Historic Photographs ...... 157 Appendix D.2: Monitoring Photographs and Data ...... 160 Appendix E: Public Scoping and BLM Response ...... 167

List of Tables Table 1: Land ownership and/or management acreages within the analysis area ------1 Table 2: Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Orders, Manuals, Handbooks, and Other Plans ------9 Table 3: Proposed Treatment Focus Areas, including 5-year priority and responsible BLM field office - 14 Table 4: Proposed average yearly vegetation treatment targets within the analysis area ------14 Table 5: Potential seed mix ------20 Table 6: Project Design Criteria (protective/mitigation measures) ------30 Table 7: Habitat Objectives for the Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Area (BLM 2015c) ----- 41 Table 8: Migratory birds that may occur within the analysis area------43 Table 9: Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species that may occur within the analysis area. ------46 Table 10: Number of fires larger than 1 acres within (wholly or partially) the analysis area since the mid- 1970s ------50 Table 11: Fire Regime and Condition Class acreage within the analysis area (LANDFIRE) ------51 Table 12: General description of the five fire regime groups (Hann and Bunnell 2001) ------51 Table 13: General description of the three fire regime condition classes (Hann and Bunnell 2001) ------52 Table 14: Communities at Risk within the analysis area (Utah FF&SL 2016) ------52 Table 15: Vegetative classifications within the analysis area (Landfire.gov) ------53 Table 16: Major soil map units within the analysis area ------56 Table 17: Permitted use by grazing allotments administered by the BLM Fillmore Field Office ------57 Table 18: Permitted use by grazing allotments administered by the BLM Salt Lake Field Office ------58 Table 19: State of Utah, Division of Water Quality 303(d) listed perennial water sources within the analysis area (UDWQ 2016) ------59 Table 20: Lentic PFC protocol assessments within the analysis area ------61 Table 21: Lotic PFC protocol assessments within the analysis area ------62 Table 22: PFC assessment results for surveyed streams by miles and percent of total miles surveyed ---- 64 Table 23: Available MIM data for Birch Creek and Cow Hollow sites within the analysis area ------64 Table 24: Biodiversity and riparian habitat quality data collected at aquatic AIM stream sites ------65 Table 25: Water quality data collected at aquatic AIM stream sites ------65 Table 26: Watershed function and instream habitat quality data collected at aquatic AIM stream sites -- 65 Table 27: Lands with wilderness characteristics inventory units located within the Fillmore Field Office portion of the analysis area ------68 Table 28: Lands with wilderness characteristics inventoried units within the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area ------70 Table 29: Impact potential of the proposed action on migratory birds that may occur within the analysis area ------77 Table 30: Impact potential of the proposed action on threatened, endangered, candidate, or special status animal species that may occur within the analysis area ------79 Table 31: Vegetation and fuels treatment projects implemented by the BLM since 2000 in the cumulative effects area ------98

v Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Table 32: On-going vegetation treatment projects on private, state, and Forest Service lands within the analysis area ------99 Table 33: List of all persons, agencies, and organizations consulted ------107 Table 34: List of Preparers ------109

List of Figures Figure 1: Additional days of soil water availability in spring following conifer removal, by phase (Roundy et al. 2014) ------82 Figure 2: Clover Creek Civilian Conservation Corp camp, circa 1936. Sagebrush is the dominant vegetation on the slopes in the background. ------157 Figure 3: Clover Creek campground, circa 2003. Juniper has increased substantially on the slopes beyond the campground. ------157 Figure 4: View of Dry Canyon in the Stansbury Mountains in 1901. ------158 Figure 5: Dry Canyon in 1976. Juniper has increased significantly across the landscape. ------158 Figure 6: Big Creek Canyon in the Stansbury Mountains, 1901. Sagebrush is dominant on the landscape. ------159 Figure 7: Big Creek Canyon, 2004. Juniper has replaced sagebrush as the dominant vegetation on the landscape. ------159 Figure 8: Lofgreen project juniper thinning treatment area prior to mastication. ------160 Figure 9: Lofgreen project one year following mastication. ------160 Figure 10: Lofgreen project three years after mastication. ------160 Figure 11: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 prior to treatment (Plot 1, 2012). ------161 Figure 12: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 three years following treatment (Plot 1, 2015). ------161 Figure 13: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 prior to treatment (Plot 3, 2012). ------162 Figure 14: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 three years following treatment (Plot 3, 2015). ------162 Figure 15: Onaqui East Bench Bullhog Phase 1 prior to treatment. ------163 Figure 16: Onaqui East Bench Bullhog Phase 1 four years following juniper thinning and seeding. ----- 163 Figure 17: Clover fuels treatment three weeks after the Berry Fire (2015). The fuels treatments, implemented in 2011, decreased the amount of trees and increased perennial grasses and forbs which are key to ecosystem resiliency. The reduction in fuel loading helped moderate fire behavior resulting in a low severity fire. ------164 Figure 18: Clover fuels treatment 1 year following the Berry Fire (2015). Because the fuels treatment resulted in a high degree of ecosystem resiliency, there was no need for fire rehabilitation efforts. Perennial grasses and forbs recovered on their own.------164 Figure 19: Increased vigor and leader growth in sagebrush following juniper mastication. ------165 Figure 20: Natural sagebrush recruitment following mastication across three treated sites compared to adjacent untreated sites. ------165 Figure 21: Sagebrush establishing in masticated debris following juniper mulching. ------166 Figure 22: Natural recruitment of sagebrush following mastication treatment. ------166

List of Maps Map 1: Analysis area ------123 Map 2: Analysis area and greater sage-grouse habitat management areas as designated by the BLM Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA ------124 Map 3: Analysis area and location of treatment focus areas ------125 Map 4: Potential juniper treatment areas within the Fillmore Field Office portion of the analysis area -- 126 Map 5: Potential treatment areas and treatment types within the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area ------127

vi Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 6: Proposed Cherry Creek and Cow Hollow juniper management projects ------128 Map 7: Proposed Cherry Creek Juniper Management project, Phase 1 and Phase 2 ------129 Map 8: Proposed Erickson Pass Habitat Enhancement project (2017 to 2020) ------130 Map 9: Proposed Little Valley Juniper Management project ------131 Map 10: Proposed South Willow Creek juniper management project ------132 Map 11: Proposed Onaqui East Bench treatments ------133 Map 12: Historical fire perimeters within and adjacent to the analysis area ------134 Map 13: Fuels and vegetation treatments implemented by the BLM within the analysis area since 2004 ------135 Map 14: Livestock grazing allotments which overlap the analysis area ------136

vii Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

This page intentionally left blank

viii Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), West Desert District (WDD), Fillmore Field Office (FFO) and Salt Lake Field Office (SLFO) are preparing this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze and disclose the environmental consequences of the proposed Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project. An EA is a site-specific and/or programmatic analysis of potential impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed action or alternatives to the proposed action. The EA assists the BLM in project planning and ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in making a determination as to whether any “significant” impacts could result from the analyzed actions. “Significance” is defined by NEPA and is found in regulation 40 CFR 1508.27. An EA provides evidence for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) statement for a particular action. If the decision maker determines that this project would have significant impacts based on the analysis in the EA, then an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, a Decision Record (DR) may be signed approving the selected alternative, another alternative or a combination of alternatives. A DR, including a FONSI statement, documents the reasons why implementation of the selected alternative would not result in “significant” environmental impacts. 1.1 Location and Background 1.1.1 Location The Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment project analysis area consists of approximately 978,888 acres of Federal, State, and private lands located in Juab, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah. The legal land description extends from approximately Townships 3 to 15 South, Ranges 1 to 9 West, multiple sections, Salt Lake Meridian. The portion of the analysis area within Juab County is located within the Fillmore Field Office, while portions located within Tooele and Utah counties are within the Salt Lake Field Office. Land ownership or management responsibility within the analysis area is presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Appendix A, Map 1.

Table 1: Land ownership and/or management acreages within the analysis area Ownership/Management Acres Percent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 508,273 52 U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 89,698 9 Bankhead-Jones Lands (BLM/USFS) 1 19,217 2 Department of Defense (DOD), Tooele Army Depot 38,725 4 Private 238,626 24 State of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 83,665 9 State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 684 <1 Total 978,888

1 Formerly privately-owned farmlands that were purchased by the Federal government under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. These submarginal lands were originally patented under various agricultural laws, but proved uneconomical to support a family. Upon purchase, they were retired from agricultural use, and are managed generally in the same way as other BLM or USFS administered public lands. Approximately 16,454 acres are BLM- managed, with the remaining 2,763 acres managed by the USFS.

1 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 1.1.2 General Background Pinyon/juniper (Pinus spp./Juniperus spp.) woodlands have increased substantially throughout the Intermountain West over the past 130 to 150 years. Without disturbance, these woodlands will continue to mature and expand leading to increased fuel loading and greater potential for catastrophic wildfire. Where pinyon/juniper dominate, they out-compete understory species for light, moisture, and nutrients eventually resulting in nearly complete removal of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and other understory vegetation species. Historically, periodic wildfires maintained a healthy balance of vegetation types and prevented fuels from accumulating; however, the existing patterns of vegetation are not conducive to favorable effects from fire without the intervention of proposed treatments. Hazardous fuels currently need to be managed to protect vegetation and soils from uncharacteristic, severe wildfire. Altered disturbance regimes and climate change have resulted in major changes in plant community compositions. Since the 1850’s, many bunchgrass (Poaceae spp.) and sagebrush-bunchgrass communities, which dominated the Intermountain West, have shifted to woodlands or introduced annual dominated communities (West 1984, Miller et al. 1994). Although woodlands have increased dramatically in the last 150 years, they currently occupy far less acreage than they are capable of under current climatic conditions (Miller and Tausch 2001). Woodland expansion affects soils, vegetation structure and composition, water, nutrient and fire cycles, forage production, carbon storage, and plant and wildlife biodiversity. Increases in woodland cover often leads to a reduction in soil water availability, which in turn shortens the growing season and limits the amount and quality of forbs and grasses available for cover and food utilization by wildlife, including greater sage-grouse (Miller et al. 2017). There are three transitional phases of juniper woodland development (Miller et al. 2005):  Phase 1: Trees are present, but shrubs and herbs are the dominant vegetation that influences ecological processes (e.g., hydrologic, nutrient and energy cycles) on-site.  Phase 2: Trees are co-dominant with shrubs and herbs, and all three vegetation layers influence ecological processes on the site.  Phase 3: Trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant layer influencing ecological processes on the site. An increase in tree dominance results in a loss of understory vegetation, and fires in dense woodland could be extremely difficult to control and damaging to healthy woodlands and sagebrush ecosystems. Goals of woodland management include an attempt to restore ecosystem function and a more balanced plant community that includes shrubs, grasses, and forbs, and to increase ecosystem resilience2 to disturbances. Wildlife species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) depend on woodland landscapes that have multi-aged stands with a more open canopy and park-like structure with a robust understory of forbs, grasses, and shrubs. In highly dense woodland stands, the understory vegetation is eliminated over time. Wildfire and loss of sagebrush habitat due to pinyon/juniper expansion and infilling is identified as a major threat to greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the Utah State Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (UDWR 2013) and the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA; [BLM 2015c]). Thus, proactively managing pinyon/juniper to reduce fire threat and prevent loss of sagebrush is considered to be a priority conservation measure to meet greater sage-grouse habitat objectives. Within sagebrush stands that are not threatened by pinyon/juniper expansion, habitat is degraded due to lack of native grasses and forbs in the understory and the presence of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and other invasive species.

2 Ecosystem resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to maintain its fundamental structure, processes, and functioning when subjected to stress (e.g., drought), disturbance (e.g., wildfire), or invaders (e.g., invasive plants).

2 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 1.1.3 Background of the Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Area While the vast majority of greater sage-grouse populations in Utah are currently within normal population and habitat levels, this is not the case for the Sheeprock population. The Sheeprock greater sage-grouse population has experienced an approximately 40 percent population decrease over the last 4 years and annual decreases have been observed in 8 of the last 10 years. This serious decline in the Sheeprock population indicates the need to adaptively manage the habitat in the population area to help prevent further declines, in accordance with conservation measures in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. As part of adaptive management in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA, a number of soft and hard population triggers were identified. Soft triggers represent an intermediate threshold indicating that management changes are needed to address habitat or population losses before they become severe. Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to stop a severe deviation from greater sage-grouse conservation objectives. For more information of soft and hard trigger for population and habitat, see Appendix I in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c). In late 2016, an interagency team met to review greater sage-grouse population levels and wildfire data from 2015 and 2016, to evaluate whether population and habitat data indicated that a population has triggered a soft or hard trigger. Of the 10 soft triggers and seven hard triggers reviewed, one population soft trigger and one population hard trigger were determined to have been reached for the Sheeprock population (BLM 2017). The population triggers reached are as follows:  Population Soft Trigger: Population decreases in four consecutive years.  Population Hard Trigger: Lambda3 of less than 1 in 8 years of a 10 year window, based on all leks4 within the Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA). Table 1.1 found in Appendix I in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c) identifies specific management responses in the event of a trigger being reached. For additional information on the Sheeprock population triggers, see UT BLM IB-UT-2017-010 (BLM 2017). The analysis area boundary is synonymous with the Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Area boundary identified by the BLM in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. One specific adapative management action as a result of reaching the hard trigger above was the coversion of approximately 111,950 acres originally designated General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) in the Record of Decision for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA, to Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA). This bring the total acres of PHMA within the population area to approximately 646,553 acres and GHMA down to approximately 184,500 acres (See Appendix A, Map 2), regardless of land ownership. This area also encompasses the State of Utah’s Sheeprock Mountains Sage-Grouse Management Area (UDWR 2013) and the Sheeprock Priority Area for Conservation (USFWS 2013). 1.1.4 Project Background The BLM proposes vegetation treatments to decrease the risk of high-severity wildfire, restore ecosystem function and resiliency, and protect, improve, and expand sagebrush habitat. This is a landscape scale effort to benefit greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species (e.g., mule deer), primarily by the removal of expanding and infilling pinyon and juniper trees, the creation of fuel breaks/greenstrips

3 Lambda (λ) is the population change from a given Year 1 to the following Year 2 by dividing the total PHMA males counted in Year 2 by the total males counted in Year 1. If the result equals one (1), there was no change in the population level. A lambda that exceeds one (> 1) means the population is growing. A lambda that is less than one (< 1) indicates a declining population (BLM 2015c, Appendix I). 4 A lek is an open area surrounded by sagebrush, without trees or other tall structures in close proximity, where males traditionally display and breeding occurs.

3 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA along strategic roadways, increasing and restoring plant species diversity in sagebrush stands where understory vegetation is lacking, decreasing cheatgrass in sagebrush habitat, and improving watershed conditions and water quality. These treatments are expected to be implemented over an approximately 15 year period. Functioning greater sage-grouse habitat is comprised of an overstory of sagebrush with a robust understory of perennial grasses and forbs interspersed with functioning riparian areas associated with wet meadow, streams, springs, and wetland habitats. One focus of this proposal would be to enhance the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem by manipulating vegetation composition, structure, and distribution to benefit and sustain greater sage grouse populations consistent with the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. Secretarial Order No. 3336 Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management, and Restoration (USDI 2015), sets forth policies and strategies for preventing and suppressing rangeland fire and for restoring sagebrush landscapes impacted by fire across the western United States. The Secretarial Order identified nine minimum actions in Section 7b of the Order that are essential for conserving habitat for the greater sage- grouse as well as other wildlife species associated with the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem in the Great Basin region. Five of those actions are addressed in this EA: (iii) Expand the focus on fuels reduction opportunities and implementation; (iv) Fully integrate the emerging science of ecological resilience into design of habitat management, fuels management, and restoration; (vi) Commit to multi-year investments for the restoration of sagebrush-steppe ecosystems, including consistent long-term monitoring protocols and adaptive management for restored areas; (vii) Implement large-scale experimental activities to remove cheatgrass and other invasive annual grasses through various tools; (viii) Commit to multi-year investment in science and research. The focus of this proposal would be to achieve the objectives for special status species and vegetation found in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c) and to reduce hazardous fuels in the analysis area. Specifically, proposed treatments are designed to comply with the following objectives found in that document:  Objective SSS-1: Protect PHMA from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce distribution or abundance of greater sage-grouse. Enhance or improve greater sage-grouse habitat (e.g., through restoration or rehabilitation activities) within PHMA that has been impaired or altered.  Objective SSS-3: In all greater sage-grouse habitat, where sagebrush is the current or potential dominant vegetation type or is a primary species within the various states of the ecological site description, maintain or restore vegetation to provide habitat for lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats.  Objective SSS-4: Within PHMA, increase the amount and functionality of seasonal habitats by: o Maintaining or increasing sagebrush in perennial grasslands, where needed to meet the Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse. o Reducing conifer (e.g., pinyon/juniper) from areas that are most likely to support greater sage-grouse at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of encroachment. o Reducing the extent of annual grasslands. o Maintaining or improving corridors for migration or movement between seasonal habitats, as well as for long-term genetic connections between populations. o Maintaining or improving understory (grass, forb) and/or riparian condition within breeding and late brood-rearing habitats.

4 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

o Conducting vegetation treatments based on the following 10-year (decadal) acreage objectives: Sheeprocks Population Area (BLM-administered public lands only): 33,700 acres of mechanical treatment; 10,000 acres of annual grass treatment.5 o Outside PHMA (in adjacent opportunity areas) improve and restore historical greater sage- grouse habitat to support greater sage-grouse populations and to maintain or enhance connectivity.  Objective VEG-1: In SFA6 and PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but no less than 70 percent) with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush cover or as consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6). The list of objectives provided above is not all inclusive. See Appendix C for additional information on proposed action compliance with the goals, objectives, and management actions outlined in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. While this proposal would be generally focused on BLM-administered public lands within the analysis area, where and when opportunities exist on adjacent Federal, State, and private lands, the BLM would coordinate with the Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWR), USFS, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), West Desert Adaptive Resource Management (WDARM) local working group, Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands (UFFSL), Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI), permittees, and local landowners to identify opportunities where the BLM could assist with projects on non-BLM managed lands to ensure resource benefits that cross jurisdictional boundaries within the analysis area. 1.1.5 Goals and Objectives The goals of this project are to: 1. Maintain, improve, and restore Rangeland Health Standards to promote soil site stability, hydrologic function, and biological integrity; 2. Maintain, improve, and restore properly functioning lentic and lotic riparian habitat; 3. Maintain, improve, and restore ecosystem resistance and resiliency; 4. Maintain, improve, restore and expand sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other dependent species in accordance with the Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse provided in Table 2-2 of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c); and 5. Reduce fuel loading and decrease the probability of extreme (high-severity) wildland fire. The objectives of the project include: 1. Removal of up to 100 percent of pinyon/juniper in selected sagebrush habitats where expansion and infilling has occurred; 2. Increase perennial native plant cover and diversity, and decrease cheatgrass cover and other noxious and invasive plants in sagebrush habitats; 3. Re-introduction of sagebrush and perennial understory species where determined necessary; 4. Enhance the availability and distribution of proper functioning riparian habitat; and

5 These acreage figures are based on modeling and represent an objective for treatment on BLM-administered public lands over a 10-year period, and do not represent a maximum or minimum acreage for a treatment type. 6 There are no Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) designated within the Sheeprocks population area by the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA.

5 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

5. Reduce the threat of high-severity wildland fire and restore the area to Fire Regime Condition Class 1. This proposal builds upon the approximately 54,000 acres of previous vegetation treatment and fuels reduction work completed by the BLM within the analysis area since 2004. Previously completed treatments have included mastication, lop & scatter, harrowing, disking, mowing, biomass removal, herbicide application, prescribed burning, and seeding. Many of these treatments have provided an indirect benefit to sagebrush habitat and the Sheeprock greater sage-grouse population; however, additional treatments are needed to further reduce wildfire risk and improve and create useable, resilient sagebrush habitat. 1.2 Purpose and Need Healthy sagebrush ecosystems should consist of a diverse array of plants and support a wide variety of wildlife species. However, sagebrush habitat throughout the Great Basin is being degraded due to pinyon/juniper encroachment (Wisdom and Chambers 2009; Miller et al. 2005; Suring et al. 2005) and cheatgrass invasion (Wisdom and Chambers 2009; Chambers et al. 2007; Knapp 1996). Research has clearly shown that pinyon and juniper woodlands have increased substantially throughout the Intermountain West over the past 130 to 150 years (Romme et al. 2009; Wisdom and Chambers 2009; Miller et al. 2008; Tausch and West 1995; 1988). Prior to 1860 sagebrush-steppe communities were dominant and trees were virtually absent on two-thirds of the landscape. Now, less than one-third of the landscape is treeless with more than 90 percent of the trees establishing since 1860 (Miller et al. 2008). Without disturbance these wood-lands continue to mature and expand leading to increased fuel loading and nearly closed canopy conditions within the next 50 years (Miller et al. 2008). Where pinyon/juniper dominates they out-compete understory species for light, moisture, and nutrients eventually resulting in nearly complete removal of the understory (Miller et al. 2000; 2005). A diverse understory, consisting predominantly of perennial species, is the key to ecosystem resilience which promotes soil stability and resistance to invasive species (Prevey et al. 2010) like cheatgrass and enables a system to recover naturally following disturbance. Excessive fuel buildup due to pinyon/juniper expansion and infilling can eventually lead to catastrophic wildfire which may threaten private property and further degrade the ecosystem by promoting cheatgrass dominance. Once established cheatgrass becomes a major obstacle preventing the re-colonization and growth of native perennial vegetation and can also result in major increases in fire occurrence and size (Whisenant 1990; Brooks and Pyke 2001). In order to curb this process, it is essential that action be taken (Wisdom and Chambers 2009; Meinke et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2008). Degraded sagebrush habitat can be improved by removing pinyon and junipers and reseeding with perennial species where desirable understory species are lacking (BLM 1999; 2000). This proactive approach reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire and promotes ecosystem resiliency. The purpose of this proposal is to:  Improve and/or maintain suitable and functional sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate wildlife species at a landscape level to ensure the long-term viability and persistence of the Sheeprocks greater sage-grouse population;  Manage pinyon and juniper expansion and infilling;  Promote ecosystem resiliency;  Minimize invasive species; and  Reduce wildland fire risks, specifically high-severity fire, within the analysis area. The need for this action stems from changes in vegetation composition and structure that puts sagebrush habitat at risk of degradation or loss due to wildland fire, cheatgrass invasion, and conifer expansion and infilling. This problem is common throughout the west, as Miller et al. (2008) reported in three Great Basin study areas that the area occupied by pinyon and juniper has increased by 125 to 625 percent since 1860. Encroachment areas are expected to eventually become closed canopy conifer habitats with little to

6 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA no sagebrush if no action is taken to curtail the process. Degradation of sagebrush habitat can also occur in the absence of pinyon and juniper. Invasion of cheatgrass and decreased perennial grasses and forbs degrade sagebrush stands reducing their ecological function. Loss of sagebrush habitat may negatively impact populations of greater sage-grouse, mule deer, and other sagebrush obligate species. The proposal is needed to:  Minimize key threats to sagebrush habitat within the analysis area, which includes wildland fire, conifer expansion and infilling, and invasive species;  Enhance habitat conditions for greater sage-grouse, other sagebrush-obligate wildlife, and other wildlife species;  Decrease the amount of pinyon/juniper expansion and infilling into areas historically dominated by sagebrush;  Restore and improve sagebrush-steppe ecosystem function by manipulating vegetation composition, structure, and distribution;  Improve watershed conditions and water quality;  Restore and protect riparian areas associated with wet meadows, springs, streams, and wetlands;  Improve the management of and reduce the threat of wildfire fire (i.e., high-severity) impacting natural resources and rural communities through the treatment of hazardous fuels; and  Deter the spread of cheatgrass, knapweed, and other invasive plants and noxious weeds. 1.3 Decision to be Made Based on the analysis contained in this EA, the BLM will decide whether to approve or deny the proposed Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project, and if so, under what terms and conditions. Under NEPA, the BLM must determine if there are any significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action warranting further analysis in an EIS. Because this proposed project is located within two field offices, the District Manager is the Responsible Official who will decide one of the following:  To issue a FONSI and approve the Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project with project design criteria as submitted;  To analyze the effects of the proposed action in an EIS; or  To deny the Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project. 1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plans The following is a listing of the land use plan(s) and amendments that are applicable to this planning effort. The alternatives developed in this EA are consistent with the House Range and Pony Express Record of Decisions (RODs) and Resource Management Plans (RMPs) decisions, goals, and/or objectives related to the management of the following resources, including but not limited to: air quality, areas of critical environmental concern, cultural resources, special status species, fire/fuels management, vegetation, lands/access, historic trails, recreation, soil, water, riparian zones, hazardous materials, visual resources, and wildlife management as required by 43 CFR 1610.5. Record of Decision for the House Range Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Rangeland Program Summary (BLM 1987), as amended  Wildlife: Manage wildlife habitat to favor a diversity of game and non-game species; Improve habitat in poor and fair condition on crucial and high priority habitat; Improve riparian and fisheries habitat currently in poor or fair condition; and Protect all T&E and sensitive species habitats.

7 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

 Cultural: Protect the cultural and historic values in the planning area from accidental or intentional destruction and give special protection to cultural sites having potential for the NRHP. Watershed: Improve watershed conditions on areas identified with significant erosion condition problems and on other sensitive watershed and riparian areas.  Fire: The goals and objectives of the program will be to reduce human and ecological losses; complement resource management objectives and sustain productivity of biological systems through fire management. Record of Decision for the Pony Express Resource Management Plan and Rangeland Program Summary for Utah County (BLM 1990), as amended  Range: Decision 1 (forage use).  Soil, Water, and Air: Decision 1 (evaluate on a case-by-case basis), Decision 4 (evaluate areas of erosion), and Decision 5 (manage riparian areas).  Wildlife and Fisheries: Decision 4 (protect habitat values), Decision 5 (improve crucial habitats), Decision 10 (upland game birds), Decision 11 (cooperative management plans), and Decision 12 (range improvement projects).  Recreation: Decision 2 (off-road vehicle access).  Cultural Resource: Decision 1 (evaluate on a case-by-case basis).  Forestry: Decision 1 (service demands of the public).  Fire Management: Decision 1 (fire suppression). Approved Amendments and Decision Record for the Salt Lake District Proposed Fire Management Plan Amendment (EA-UT-020-98-08; BLM 1998c)  Alternative 2-Proposed Action/Integrated Fire/Resource Management Plan (page 7-8) specifically mentions the action, and is consistent with the objectives identified above to emphasize greater use of vegetation management to meet resource management objectives. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho, Southwestern Montana, Nevada, Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah (DOI-BLM-UT-9100-2013-0002-EIS; BLM 2015b) and Attachment 4: Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (BLM 2015c)  Section 2.2.1 Special Status Species (SSS): Objectives SSS-1, SSS-3, SSS-4, and SSS-5; Management Actions (MA) MA-SSS-1, MA-SSS-3, and MA-SSS-4.  Section 2.2.2 Vegetation (VEG): Objective VEG-1; MA-VEG-1, MA-VEG-2, MA-VEG-3, MA- VEG-4, MA-VEG-5, MA-VEG-6, MA-VEG-10, MA-VEG-12, MA-VEG-14.  Section 2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE): MA-FIRE-2, MA-FIRE-3, MA-FIRE-4, and MA-FIRE-5.  Section 2.2.4 Livestock Grazing/Range Management (LG): MA-LG-8, MA-LG-11, MA-LG-12, MA-LG-16, and MA-LG-17. 1.5 Tiering to Existing NEPA Decisions This EA is tiered to the following NEPA decisions and incorporates, by reference herein, all analysis, best management practices, require design features, management actions, and mitigation measures (project design criteria/protective measures) contained in the documents listed below:  Decision Record, FONSI, and Environmental Assessment for the Salt Lake District Weed Management Plan (UT-020-96-24; BLM 1996)

8 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

 Record of Decision for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2007b)  Decision Record, FONSI, and Environmental Assessment for the Woodland Products Areas for the Salt Lake Field Office (DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2012-0011-EA; BLM 2014a)  Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah (DOI-BLM-UT-9100-2013-0002-EIS; BLM 2015b)  Record of Decision for the Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOI-BLM-WO-WO2100-2012-0002-EIS; BLM 2016b) 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans Development of project alternatives is consistent with the applicable federal and state laws, regulations, policies, county ordinances, and other plans listed below in Table 2, to the maximum extent possible. Federal policies include Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and BLM Manuals, Handbooks, Instruction Memorandum, and Information Bulletins. Compliance includes the completion of procedural requirements, including consultation, coordination, and cooperation with stakeholders, interested publics, and Indian Tribes, and completion of the applicable level of NEPA review. These documents and their supporting information and analysis are hereby incorporated by reference based on their use and consideration by various preparers of this EA. The attached Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Checklist (Appendix B) was developed after consideration of these documents and their content. The specialists identified which issues to carry forward and analyze further in this document or, if not impacted, provided a rationale for not carrying them forward.

Table 2: Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Orders, Manuals, Handbooks, and Other Plans

Type Law, regulation, policy, orders, ordinance, plans, and agreements Federal Law  Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703)  Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315)  National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. 470)  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.)  Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA; 16 U.S.C. 469)  Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.)  Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)  Clean Air Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)  Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)  The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA; 16 U.S.C. 470)  Endangered Species Act of 1983 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531)  Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013)  American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. § 1996) Executive Order  Environmental Justice (EO 12898) (EO) and  Indian Sacred Sites (EO 13007) Secretarial Order  Control of Invasive Species (EO 13112) (SO)  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (EO 13175 and 13084)  Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186)  Rangeland Fire Prevention, Mitigation, and Restoration (SO 3336) BLM Manuals  BLM Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook, H-1740-2

9 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Type Law, regulation, policy, orders, ordinance, plans, and agreements and Handbooks  BLM Fencing Handbook, H-1741-1  BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1  BLM Rangeland Health Standards, BLM Manual 4180  Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory of BLM Lands, BLM Manual 6310  Special Status Species Management, BLM Manual 6840  Cultural Resource Management, BLM Manual 8100  Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources, BLM Manual 8110  Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources, BLM Manual 8130  Protecting Cultural Resources, BLM Manual Section 8140  Native American Consultation, BLM Manual 8160 BLM Instruction  Assessing Tribal and Cultural Considerations, Washington Office (WO) Instruction Memorandum or Memorandum (IM) WO-IM-2004-052 Bulletins  Utah Riparian Management Policy, Utah (UT) IM, UT-IM-2005-091  Updated BLM Sensitive Species Lists for Utah, UT-IM-2011-037  BLM Manual 6310 (release 6-129; dated 03/15/2012) Implementation within the West Desert District, UT-IM-W000-2015-04  Policy for Resource Management Plan Effectiveness Monitoring for Renewable Resources with Additional Guidance for Plans Implementing the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy, WO-IM-2016-139  Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse (including the Bi-State distinct Population Segment) Habitat Assessment Policy, WO-IM-2016-144  Implementing BLM Utah’s Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Triggers Information Bulletin (IB), UT-IB-2017-010 State of Utah and  West Desert Greater Sage-Grouse Local Conservation Plan (WDARM 2007) County Plans  Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah (UDWR 2013b) and Rules  Utah Governor Executive Order Implementing the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse, EO/2015/002, February 2015  Utah Smoke Management Plan (UDAQ 1999, revised 2006)  Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UDWR 2015) Other Documents  A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDI-USDA 2006)  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013)  BLM Utah State Office Rangeland Health, Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997)

1.7 Cooperating Agencies and Partners The BLM has statutory responsibility to engage officials and staff of local governments and other Federal agencies in carrying out its mission. It is the BLM’s goal to work with partners in a meaningful manner that allows cooperating agencies opportunity to help shape a plan of action and analysis of the impacts of that plan. Their involvement goes beyond merely commenting on a plan. The BLM, WDARM, UDWR, NRCS, USFS, SITLA, and UFFSL have worked closely with each other and landowners in Tooele and Juab counties to address resource concerns including wildfire and community preparedness, watershed management, and wildlife habitat. These agencies and experts have been assisting the BLM with design of project proposal since the early stages of this project and continue to be involved on a regular basis with identifying areas in need of restoration and/or hazardous fuels reduction treatments..

10 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 1.8 Identification of Issues Identification of issues requiring analysis was accomplished through a variety of ways: internally; coordinating and consulting with key stakeholders including the permittees, various agencies, organizations, and local governments that manage resources, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The project design and layout is the result of the interdisciplinary team review, site visits, surveys, and coordination, cooperation, and consultation with stakeholders. The BLM IDT identified resources within the analysis area which might be affected, and considered potential impacts using current office records, geographic information system (GIS) data, site visits, and information received from the public. The results of this review are summarized in the IDT Checklist (see Appendix B). Section 1.8.1 summarizes the information received as a result of public participation. Resources determined to be present and potentially affected by the proposed action are carried forward for analysis in this EA and listed in Section 1.8.2. Where resources are present but determined to not be impacted or resources are determined not to be present, a rationale for not considering them further is provided in the IDT Checklist (see Appendix B). 1.8.1 Scoping Summary The scoping process included discussions with and reviews from the interdisciplinary team, meetings with cooperating agencies and partners, and website postings. On June 13, 2016, the BLM West Desert District posted the proposed action on the BLM’s NEPA Register7.The BLM received one scoping letter via electronic mail from a public organization, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), during the scoping period. A summary of the public scoping comments received from SUWA and the BLM response is presented in Appendix E. Additional information regarding the public participation process, including scoping, is found in Chapter 6. 1.8.2 Issues to be Analyzed in Detail The following potential issues of concern for the proposal were identified through the internal and external scoping process described in Section 1.8, and will be address in this EA:  Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change: Would short-term and localized impacts to air quality result from the proposal? How would climate change impact the proposal and what impact may the proposal have on climate?  Cultural Resources: How would treatments impact historic properties? Are eligible sites present and how would they be protected?  Fuels/Fire Management: Would treatments of existing vegetation types alter fuel composition and reduce risks associated with hazardous fuels? What treatment methods would be used? What monitoring methods would be needed? What protections are needed for each treatment method?  Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds: Is there potential for invasive weeds to establish or increase within the analysis area? What weed control measures and practices would be utilized associated with the initial treatments and maintenance of treatments? What actions would be taken for long term control of any newly established noxious or invasive weeds in individual project areas?  Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Would treatments adversely impact the qualifications and quality of lands that have or may be determined to have wilderness characteristics?  Livestock Grazing: Would changes to livestock grazing practices be made to facilitate rest of the vegetation treatment areas? Who would be responsible for installing and maintaining supporting fences, gates or other infrastructure necessary for the successful treatments?

7 Visit the BLM NEPA Register. The BLM NEPA Register is a BLM website that is available for public use to review current and past planning projects.

11 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

 Migratory Birds: Would migratory birds be impacted by the proposed treatments? Would time of year and/or location (buffer zone) restrictions be needed to mitigate for sagebrush or woodland species?  Rangeland Health Standards: How would treatments enhance BLM’s ability to maintain or achieve Utah’s Standards for Rangeland Health in the analysis area?  Recreation: How would treatments impact dispersed recreation use and special recreation events?  Sage-Grouse Habitat: How would the proposal improve or maintain sagebrush habitat? Would threats to sage-grouse habitat be reduced by the project?  Soils: The proposal could affect soils through surface disturbing activities (such as use of a masticator) over potentially thousands of acres.  Special Status Animal Species: How would treatments impact habitat for special status animal species including kit fox, golden eagles, burrowing owls, long-billed curlew, and ferruginous hawks? What mitigation measure may be needed to minimize or eliminate disturbances to special status species?  Vegetation Excluding Special Status Species: Would removal of woody species increase forbs and perennial shrubs and grasses?  Water Resources/Quality: How would treatments impact timing and amount of surface water runoff, both overland flow and discharge in springs, streams, and washes?  Wetlands/Riparian Zones: How would treatments affect the timing and duration of surface flow within wetland/riparian zones? How would removal of vegetation impact riparian areas?  Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species: Would treatments affect habitat for big game and non-game species in the analysis area? Would time of year and/or location (buffer zone) restrictions be needed to mitigate impacts to these species? Is browse species vegetation sufficient to meet the nutritional requirements for big game species?  Woodland/Forestry: Would areas be identified and opened for woodcutting opportunities, and if so, which ones?

12 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for vegetation treatments proposed for BLM-administered public lands within the analysis area. The alternatives were developed through a collaborative effort based on issues identified during internal and external scoping. The range of alternatives explores different means of meeting the purpose and need for action. The purpose and need statement assists in defining the range of alternatives. The alternatives are described in detail in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 below. 2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The BLM is proposing to conduct habitat improvement and fuels management projects within the Sheeprock greater sage-grouse population area. These projects are designed to improve sagebrush ecosystem resistance and resiliency, and protect, preserve, expand, and improve sagebrush habitat. A variety of vegetation treatments are proposed, including: reducing expanding and infilling pinyon/juniper; decreasing cheatgrass and other invasive/noxious plants in sagebrush habitat; establishing fuel breaks or greenstrips along strategic roadways; restoring sagebrush, perennial grasses, and forbs where deficient; and improving riparian habitats associated with wetlands, meadows, springs, and seeps. These proposed treatments would build upon previously completed fuels reduction and vegetation management efforts (approximately 54,000 acres) implemented since 2004 in the analysis area. The BLM has prioritized 19 Treatment Focus Areas (management subset units) within the analysis area where treatments may occur under this proposal (see Table 3 and Appendix A, Map 3). Treatment Focus Areas were initially prioritized to immediately benefit the Sheeprock population and guide implementation priorities over the next 5 years. Since the proposed actions would be implemented over approximately the course of 15 years beginning in Fall 2017, it is anticipated that treatment prioritization may be adjusted overtime (years 5 to 15) as projects are implemented and opportunities become available in other locations. However, the purpose and intent of any proposed treatments are anticipated to remain the same. Treatments would not occur on all acres within a particular Treatment Focus Area. The strategy would be to consider lek locations and expand outward from those locations to target improvement of breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat within 3.1 miles of leks. This would require a justifiable departure from the lek buffer distances (see Appendix B of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA [BLM 2015c]) for surface disturbance (within 3.1 miles of leks) and noise-related activities (0.25 miles). A justifiable departure would be acceptable as the proposed action is specifically designed to improve sagebrush ecosystem resistance and resiliency, and protect, preserve, expand, and improve sagebrush habitat, which would be of direct benefit to greater sage-grouse populations. Additionally, required project design criteria (see Table 6) would restrict implementation during lekking season, in addition to restrictions on disturbances during nesting season, and in brood-rearing and winter habitat. Noise restrictions (see Table 6) would also be implemented during breeding season as directed by the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. In addition, other high priority habitat requisites such as riparian zones (e.g., wetlands, meadows, seeps, and springs) and winter range would be targeted for treatment. Projects in these areas would enhance sagebrush ecosystem composition, function, structure, and distribution; reduce habitat fragmentation; reduce fire risk; and re-establish corridors and connectivity. Treatments have been designed, and would continue to be designed, in coordination with the UDWR and other partners. Additional consideration and coordination has occurred, and would continue to occur, with the NRCS, USFS, SITLA, WDARM, UWRI, permittees, and private landowners. While this proposal focuses on BLM-administered public lands within the analysis area, where and if opportunities exist on adjacent lands, the BLM may work with partners and assist with implementation of treatments on state and private lands within the analysis area.

13 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Table 3: Proposed Treatment Focus Areas, including 5-year priority and responsible BLM field office Treatment Focus Area Name 5-Year Priority Field Office Cherry Creek High Fillmore Coyote Butte High Fillmore East Tintic Mod Fillmore Erickson Pass High Salt Lake Faust Mod Salt Lake Forest Service/Private None n/a Furner Mod Fillmore Gilson Low Fillmore Government Creek High Salt Lake Grantsville Low Salt Lake Jericho Low Fillmore Maple Mod Fillmore McIntyre High Fillmore Rush Valley Low Salt Lake Simpson Mountain Low Salt Lake St. John None Salt Lake Stockton Low Salt Lake Tintic Valley High Fillmore West Onaqui Low Salt Lake

Table 4 presents the proposed average acres/miles of vegetation treatments that would be targeted for implementation each year within the analysis area. A detailed description of each treatment type can be found in Section 2.1.2. Appendix A, Map 4 and Map 5 present potential locations within the analysis area where treatments may be implemented under this proposal. The locations presented in these maps are not all inclusive; locations presented may not be treated in their entirety, may not be treated at all, and/or additional locations may be identified in the future based on monitoring, funding, and cooperator input.

Table 4: Proposed average yearly vegetation treatment targets within the analysis area Proposed Annual Acres Proposed Annual 15-year Total Acres Treatment Type to be Treated Miles to be Treated Proposed for Treatment Mastication (bullhog) 5,000 to 10,000 n/a 75,000 to 100,000 Mastication Treatment 5,000 to 10,000 n/a 75,000 to 100,000 Seeding Lop & Scatter 2,500 to 5,000 n/a 37,500 to 75,000 Fuel Break/Greenstrip n/a 5 75 (miles) Perennial Grass/Forb 500 to 1,000 n/a 7,500 to 15,000 Restoration Sagebrush Restoration 100 to 500 n/a 1,500 to 7,500 Prescribed Fire 500 to 1,000 n/a 7,500 to 15,000

2.1.1 Initial Site-Specific Projects While this EA is programmatic in nature, it also identifies the initial site-specific treatment proposals within the analysis area. Projects described below in Subsections 2.1.1.1 through 2.1.1.8 may be authorized by the Responsible Official during this planning process. Subsequent site-specific proposals under this proposal in the treatment areas identified in Table 3 would be subject to review under the DNA process (see Section 2.1.3). Project design features (mitigation measures) intended to reduce and avoid

14 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA impacts that would be implemented under the proposed action are described in Section 2.1.4. Monitoring requirements are described in Section 2.1.5. All site-specific proposals listed in Subsections 2.1.1.1 to 2.1.1.8 (and all subsequent proposals reviewed through the DNA process) would be subject to completion of cultural resource inventories, consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and maintenance and updating of lands with wilderness characteristics inventories, as necessary, prior to implementation.

2.1.1.1 Cherry Creek and Cow Hollow Juniper Management The Cherry Creek and Cow Hollow Juniper Management projects were identified as the first site-specific projects to be evaluated within the analysis area for the Fillmore Field Office. These site-specific projects are located within the Coyote Butte and Cherry Creek Treatment Focus Areas (Appendix A, Map 6), are situated within the Sheeprock PHMA, and would complement other juniper management projects completed or proposed by the NRCS on adjoining private property. Current knowledge by UDWR is that a majority of the Sheeprock greater sage-grouse winter in sagebrush dominated habitat on the south slope and bench of the Sheeprock Mountains. The overall goal of the projects would be to create a travel corridor between sage-grouse nesting/brood-rearing habitat near the McIntyre lek area to winter range at lower elevation on the south aspect of the Sheeprock Mountains. All work would occur on BLM-administered public lands, but may be coordinated with actions on private property by the NRCS. Treatment boundaries and methods may be modified as other resource (e.g., cultural, wildlife, recreation) issues and concerns are assessed and evaluated. The objective would be to conduct mastication (mechanical shredding) treatments on approximately 8,000 acres within the Cow Hollow and Cherry Creek drainages, on slopes less than 30 percent. Junipers on slopes greater than 30 percent may be lopped and scattered. Up to 100 percent of juniper trees may be removed (masticated) from these two polygons. In removing juniper from these polygons, health and distribution of the sagebrush, perennial grasses, and forbs would be improved along with the elimination of taller overstory cover. In addition to improved sagebrush habitat composition and distribution, the condition and access to wet meadow and riparian habitat within the bottom of the Cow Hollow and Cherry Creek drainages would be improved. Further, an approximately 3,500 acre lop and scatter juniper treatment would be conducted. This project would occur on slopes greater than 30 percent and would happen adjacent to recent juniper treatments conducted by the NRCS on adjoining private property. The project objectives are the same as those discussed above and up to 100 percent of juniper trees may be lopped and scattered. Phase 1 of this site-specific project proposes to masticate approximately 3,119 acres and aerial seed approximately 2,998 acres starting in the fall of 2017 in the Cherry Creek drainage (see Appendix A, Map 7). In 2016, approximately 3,500 acres were inventoried for cultural resources within the Cherry Creek drainage. A lands with wilderness characteristics inventory would also be completed prior to implementation. Subsequent phases within the Cherry Creek and Cow Hollow drainages as proposed under this site-specific action would likely be implemented beginning in 2018 and beyond as cultural resource and lands with wilderness characteristics inventories are completed. These actions are designed to improve approximately 11,500 acres of brood-rearing and winter habitat for greater sage-grouse within the Sheeprock PHMA. Benefits would include enhanced ecosystem resistance and resiliency; improved sagebrush community composition, function, and structure; reduction in the risk of high-severity wildland fire; and reduced threat and control of invasive species.

2.1.1.2 Erickson Pass Habitat Enhancement The Erickson Pass Habitat Enhancement project is primarily located in the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area within the Erickson Pass Treatment Focus Area. This project is designed to build on

15 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA previous juniper tree removal efforts by creating and expanding useable habitat that could be utilized by greater sage-grouse as a corridor between nesting/brood rearing-habitat and winter-range. To accomplish this, pinyon/juniper trees would be masticated and areas where perennial understory is lacking would be aerially seeded with a perennial grass/forb seed mix. Approximately 6,334 acres have been identified for treatment (see Appendix A, Map 8); with approximately 2,029 acres of mastication and seeding, and approximately 1,200 acres of lop and scatter, proposed for implementation in the fall of 2017. A cultural resource inventory and lands with wilderness characteristics inventory maintenance/update would be completed prior to implementation. The remaining acres would be treated starting in fall of 2018 and continue for up to three years, if approved by the Responsible Official. The objectives of the Erickson Pass Habitat Enhancement Project are to: 1. Create and/or expand sagebrush habitat for greater-sage grouse that could be occupied immediately after treatment; 2. Create travel corridors between brood rearing and winter habitat; 3. Mitigate the three major threats to greater sage-grouse: fire, conifer expansion, and invasive species; 4. Increase available moisture for residual and seeded plant species by removing competition from trees; 5. Reduce crown fire potential and fuel loading, in treated areas, by decreasing juniper cover to less than 5 percent immediately post treatment; and 6. Improve ecosystem resiliency and meet habitat objectives defined in the BLM Utah Greater Sage- Grouse ARMPA by increasing perennial grass and forb cover to greater than 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively, by 3-years post treatment.

2.1.1.3 Little Valley Juniper Management This site-specific project was proposed by the UDWR and is a cooperative effort between the BLM, UDWR, SITLA, NRCS, and private landowners, located within the Government Creek Treatment Focus Area (Salt Lake Field Office). The purpose of the project is to reduce high-severity wildfire risk and improve sagebrush habitat by masticating pinyon/juniper along strategic roadways and throughout Little Valley. The UDWR is proposing to treat approximately 1,371 acres, of which approximately 208 acres are BLM-administered public lands (208 acres BLM; 1,163 acres SITLA), of phase 2 pinyon/juniper utilizing mastication in the Little Valley area along the Lookout Pass Road/Pony Express National Historic Trail (see Appendix A, Map 9). Approximately 600 acres would be aerially seeded prior to mastication to enhance the existing understory. Approximately half of the acres identified for treatment on SITLA land were treated previously using chaining. Thus, this project would maintain and build upon previous efforts to manage juniper and pinyon in the area. This site-specific proposal would be implemented by the UDWR on SITLA land and BLM-administered public lands. A cultural resource inventory for this project would be completed by the State of Utah on both SITLA and BLM-administered public lands, prior to implementation. A lands with wilderness characteristics inventory would be completed by the BLM prior to implementation..

2.1.1.4 South Willow Creek Juniper Management The South Willow Creek Juniper Management Project is located within the Grantsville Treatment Focus Area in the northern portion of the analysis area (Salt Lake Field Office), and is situated within the Sheeprock GHMA. While the Grantsville Treatment Focus Area has a five-year treatment priority rating of low, this site-specific proposal would complement juniper management projects currently being implemented by the USFS, UDWR, UFFSL, the NRCS, and private landowners on adjacent lands. All work would occur on BLM-administered public lands, but may be coordinated with actions on private

16 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA property by the NRCS. Treatment boundaries and methods may be modified as other resource (e.g., cultural, wildlife, recreation) issues and concerns are assessed and evaluated. This site-specific project would help mitigate three major threats to sagebrush habitat in the largest parcel of BLM-administered public lands in Grantsville Treatment Focus Area: wildland fire, conifer expansion, and invasive species. This site-specific proposed action would utilize mastication of juniper trees and seeding perennial species to improve approximately 535 acres of sagebrush habitat within the Sheeprock GHMA (see Appendix A, Map 10). Additional benefits as a result of this action would be enhanced ecosystem resistance and resiliency, and a reduction in the risk of high-severity wildland fire. A cultural resource inventory would be completed on approximately 798 acres of BLM-managed public lands prior to any ground disturbing activities. No lands with wilderness characteristics inventory maintenance or update is required for the South Willow Creek Juniper Management project as the project location is an isolated BLM-administered parcel that does not meet the greater than 5,000-acre requirement (the entire parcel is only 798 acres) and is surrounded on all sides by private land.

2.1.1.5 Government Creek Lek Wet Meadow Habitat Improvement This project is designed to protect and enhance wet meadow habitat near the Government Creek lek, which is located within prime brood-rearing habitat in the Government Creek Treatment Focus Area (Salt Lake Field Office). The Government Creek Spring has been severely degraded due to damage (e.g., trampling) from wild horses and/or livestock. These animals walk down into the mud of the spring source and pool, which causes erosion and pooling of the water. In addition, wild horses and/or livestock have removed all of the wetland vegetation surrounding this water source. This project proposes to build an exclosure fence that would prevent wild horses and livestock from accessing the spring and wet meadow area. The proposed fence would be designed in a manner that allow for access to the spring by other wildlife, including greater sage-grouse and pronghorn. Other design features would include: marking the fence to reduce bird collisions, minimizing perching sites (if a wooden fence is used), and installing a gate to allow access to adjoining private lands. By excluding livestock and wild horses, the goals of this proposal are to: 1. Increase the amount and quality of green high protein content vegetation in greater sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat; 2. Restore vegetation around Government Creek Spring to provide greater insect quantities for greater sage-grouse to consume during critical developmental stages; 3. Improve the riparian and aquatic habitat surrounding the spring; 4. Improve the water quantity and quality for big game species; 5. Restore the ecosystem surrounding the spring for other bird species; 6. Create a larger fire break to protect important habitat; and 7. Reduce invasive weeds from establishing in disturbed areas. One of the most important habitat types for sage-grouse is wet meadow habitat with lots of forbs. This habitat type provides high nutrient vegetation and insects, which are crucial especially for young chick development. Because greater sage-grouse have high mortality rates and are not long-lived birds, it is important to recruit as many new individuals to the population every year to maintain population numbers. This project would enhance the habitat for greater sage-grouse and help provide more food for developing chicks.

2.1.1.6 Art Spring Riparian Exclosure Art (Maple) Spring is located in the East Tintic Mountains of central Utah within the Fillmore Field Office and within PHMA of the Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Management Area. There is currently one active lek within less than 0.25-miles of the spring. Currently, livestock have open access to the spring and it is significantly degraded. The proposed action is the construction of an approximately 1 to 2 acre

17 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA exclosure fence would protect the spring for the benefit of greater sage-grouse. An alternate water source for livestock would be constructed in conjunction with the installation of the exclosure. The proposed fence would be designed in a manner that allow for access to the spring by other wildlife, including greater sage-grouse and pronghorn. Other design features would include marking the fence to reduce bird collisions, minimizing perching sites (if a wooden fence is used), and installing a gate to allow access to adjoining private lands. It is expected that the exclosure would improve spring, riparian, and meadow habitat conditions for greater sage-grouse as well as a variety of other species. The spring is located within greater sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat and would have immediate benefits for chick development and improve forage availability. Improved management of the spring would further benefit migratory birds, bats, and big game as well.

2.1.1.7 Death Creek Stream and Riparian Fence The Death Creek stream and riparian protection fence is located within PHMA in the Tintic Valley Treatment Focus Area (Fillmore Field Office). Death Creek is a perennial stream that is currently significantly incised and eroded. The proposed action is to construct an approximately 200-foot wide by 0.25-mile long fence around a portion of the creek to protect and begin rehabilitation of the stream channel and riparian zone. The proposed fence would be designed in a manner that allow for access to the spring by other wildlife, including greater sage-grouse and pronghorn. Other design features would include marking the fence to reduce bird collisions, minimizing perching sites (if a wooden fence is used), and installing a gate to allow access to adjoining private lands. Death Creek is located within sage-grouse priority habitat. This portion of the Creek flows through a wider shallow gradient valley. The fence is intended to protect this portion of the stream channel from further mechanical and livestock impacts and begin a long process of rehabilitating the stream channel, riparian habitat and meadow habitat within this shallow gradient valley. Riparian habitats are an important habitat feature in greater sage-grouse biology as well as a variety of other species. Protecting and rehabilitating these habitat features are critical to sustaining and increasing greater sage-grouse numbers.

2.1.1.8 Onaqui East Bench Juniper Management The Onaqui East Bench Juniper Management project is located within the Faust Treatment Focus Area (Salt Lake Field Office) in the northern portion of the analysis area. The Onaqui East Bench site-specific project area is situated within the Sheeprock PHMA. The majority of the acres proposed for treatment have been treated in the past. With the exception of about 25 acres of SITLA, all work would occur on BLM-administered public lands under this specific proposal. Treatment boundaries and methods may be modified as other resource (e.g., cultural, wildlife, recreation) issues and concerns are assessed and evaluated. This project would restore and expand sagebrush habitat in Rush Valley. This site-specific proposed action would utilize mastication and lop and scatter to remove juniper trees on approximately 3,800 acres of sagebrush habitat. Additional benefits as a result of this action would be enhanced ecosystem resistance and resiliency, and a reduction in the risk of high-severity wildland fire. A cultural resource inventory and consultation with SHPO has already been completed on all BLM-managed public lands within this area. Prior to implementing any new treatments, the area would be evaluated to determine if a lands with wilderness characteristics inventory maintenance or update is required. The new proposed project is designed to build upon previous treatments and provide direct benefit to greater sage-grouse by creating and expanding useable habitat that could be immediately occupied following treatment. To accomplish this, juniper trees left from previous bullhog treatments would be

18 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA removed and a small amount of initial treatment would occur. Juniper trees would either be masticated or lopped and scattered depending on density and size. Approximately 2,217 acres of juniper encroached sagebrush were treated previously (mechanically shredded) and have been identified for re-entry (see Appendix A, Map 11). Original thinning specifications were based on tree canopy spacing, which left a substantial amount of trees within sagebrush habitat. Additionally, approximately 583 acres of initial entry has been identified. A portion of these acres may need to be seeded. Treated lands in need of seed would be aerially seeded in the fall with a diverse seed mixture prior to implementation. Approximately 1,088 acres of low-density juniper would be lopped and scattered using hand crews. The new proposed action would remove up to 100 percent of juniper trees within treatment areas. However, juniper trees along drainages and with old-growth characteristics would be left intact. The entire treatment area (footprint) is approximately 3,800 acres with implementation scheduled to begin in the summer of 2017 and continuing for up to two years. Some maintenance activities would be necessary over time to ensure that project objectives are sustained for the long term. The scheduled implementation would be subject to change due to weather, funding, and/or equipment related issues. 2.1.2 Proposed Suite of Treatment Types Subsections 2.1.2.1 through 2.1.2.10 describe the suite of proposed treatment types that may be implemented across the analysis area over the life of this project. Required project design features (mitigation measures) intended to reduce and avoid impacts that would be implemented under the proposed action are described in Section 2.1.4. Monitoring requirements are described in Section 2.1.5. All treatments described below in Subsections 2.1.2.1 to 2.1.2.10 would be subject to completion of cultural resource inventories, consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and maintenance/update of lands with wilderness characteristics inventories, as necessary, prior to implementation.

2.1.2.1 Management of Pinyon and Juniper Trees Where pinyon and juniper poses a fire risk (e.g., hazardous fuels) and threatens sagebrush habitat (e.g., expansion and infilling), trees would be removed, except where avoided for unique characteristics or management needs (e.g., old-growth8, raptor nest trees, some shade trees, bearing trees, erodible soils, or cultural resources). The proposed treatments would be conducted in a phased approach, concentrating on sage-grouse breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats that would have the most immediate positive impacts for the population while ensuring that other resources, permitted uses, and public activities (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation) are considered. Average yearly targets for pinyon/juniper treatments can be found in Table 4 above. Methods for removal of juniper and pinyon would vary depending on tree size, density, and topography. Treatment methods may include mechanical shredding (e.g., mastication/bullhog); hand thinning with chainsaws or other hand tools (lop and scatter); mechanical shearing/pulling; herbicide (to treat sapling pinyon/juniper that may resprout after initial control); or any combination of these methods. In selected locations (e.g., within 3.1 miles of occupied leks), aggressive removal of pinyon/juniper, possibly up to

8 Old growth characteristics include, but are not limited to, the following: rounded canopy rather than pointed; nonsymmetrical tops; deeply furrowed, shaggy bark; twisted trunks or branches; dead branches and spike tops; large lower limbs; and hollow trunks. Tree size is not a good indicator of old-growth. For example, juniper located in unproductive sites can be short in stature and still portray all of the characteristics of old growth, while on productive sites, juniper van be very tall but lack old growth characteristics. For more information see “Old-growth juniper and pinyon woodlands” by Miller, Tausch, and Waichler (1999).

19 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

100 percent, may occur to meet habitat objectives for greater sage-grouse. Following initial treatment, maintenance activities may occur periodically to ensure that project objectives are met and sustained. In particular cases where cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are concerned, treatments would be limited to hand tools (lop and scatter) and/or the use of mechanical shredding equipment only where snowfall is high (minimum snow depth of 2 feet) and allowing for only forward and back movement across the site in order to minimize impact to eligible sites. Another method for pinyon/juniper treatment that may be utilized is chaining. Within the Fillmore Field Office portion of the analysis area, chaining may be utilized to treat both live (“green”) and dead pinyon and juniper trees in areas where this treatment method is found to be suitable. No chaining of live (“green”) trees would occur within the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area. However, chaining of dead pinyon and juniper trees found in areas burned by wildland fire (i.e., fire scars) would be considered. Chaining of dead pinyon/juniper trees found in fire scars in sagebrush habitat would reduce perch sites for predatory birds. In areas where use of heavy equipment is not practical (e.g., slopes greater than 30 percent), trees may be cut with chainsaws, piled, and burned. In mechanically shredded areas (i.e., mastication) where mulch is greater than 4 inches in depth, selective burning of mulch piles may also occur. However, mulch piles identified for treatment by prescribed fire would not be burned for a minimum of 3 years post mastication treatment to allow understory species to respond to the mastication treatment and mulch to cure. Burning of hand piles and/or mulch piles would only occur under conditions that would minimize potential damage to sagebrush (e.g., when there is snow on the ground to minimize fire spread or when sagebrush fuel moisture is high). Prescribed burning within the analysis area would be subject to the requirements found in Section 2.2.3 of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c). Prior to implementing any prescribed burn, a burn plan would be completed and approved (signed) in conjunction with this EA. Within pinyon/juniper treatment areas, seeding would occur where understory vegetation is deficient. Seeding would be done with the most appropriate equipment for the particular soil type and topography and could include aerial broadcast seeding or drilling. Hand planting bare rootstock may also occur where shrubs are lacking. Treated lands in need of seed would be planted with a diverse seed mixture appropriate for the ecological site, preferably during the fall. Where seed is applied aerially, mechanical seedbed preparation or cover treatment (e.g., chain-harrowing) may be required. Native perennial shrubs, grasses, and forbs would be given a strong preference depending on availability and cost; however, introduced perennial species appropriate for the ecological site may also be used (Table 5). While Table 5 lists potential seed mix species, it is not all inclusive. Additional species, especially forbs, may be added as they become more readily available. Seed mixes (pound per acre) would be determined for each treatment method and area and would be adjusted based on funding and availability. Reseeding may occur if seed fails to establish. Additionally, areas that are reseeded or otherwise chemically or mechanically treated to alter vegetation composition would be closed to livestock grazing for a minimum of two complete growing seasons (see Utah BLM Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health; BLM 1997).

Table 5: Potential seed mix

Common Name Plant Type Plant Origin Scientific Name Wyoming sagebrush Shrub Native Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis Black sagebrush Shrub Native Artemisia nova Antelope bitterbrush Shrub Native Purshia tridentata Four-wing saltbush Shrub Native Atriplex confertifolia Stansbury cliffrose Shrub Native Purshia stansburiana

20 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Common Name Plant Type Plant Origin Scientific Name Forage kochia Shrub Introduced Bassia prostrata Sainfoin Forb Introduced Onobrychis viciifolia Small burnet Forb Introduced Sanguisorba minor Western yarrow Forb Native Achillea millefolium Blue flax Forb Native Linum perenne Alfalfa Forb Introduced Medicago sativa Globemallow Forb Native Sphaeralcia grossularifolia or munroana Cicer milkvetch Forb Introduced Astragalus cicer Penstemon Forb Native Penstemon spp. Rocky mountain bee plant Forb Native Cleome serrulata Bluebunch wheatgrass Grass Native Pseudoroegneria spicata Snake River wheatgrass Grass Native Elymus wawawaiensis Western wheatgrass Grass Native Pascopyrum smithii Thickspike wheatgrasas Grass Native Elymus lanceolatus Crested wheatgrass Grass Introduced Agropyron cristatum Russian wildrye Grass Introduced Elymus junceus Indian ricegrass Grass Native Achnatherum hymenoides Sandberg’s bluegrass Grass Native Poa secunda Bottlebrush squirreltail Grass Native Elymus elymoides Needle and thread Grass Native Hesperostipa comata Prairie junegrass Grass Native Koelaria macrantha Sand dropseed Grass Native Sporobolus cryptandrus Siberian wheatgrass Grass Introduced Agropyron fragile Idaho fescue Grass Native Festuca idahoensis Great Basin wildrye Grass Native Lymus cinereus Slender wheatgrass Grass Native Agropyron trachycaulus

Description of Pinyon/Juniper Treatment Methods: Specific pinyon/juniper treatment units would be evaluated to determine the most appropriate treatment method and resource protection measures based on slope, aspect, terrain, soil, vegetation composition and condition, amount of fuel/biomass needed to be removed, overall access on site, visual disturbance, and proximity to roads. The following is a summary of the proposed treatment methods that may be utilized in pinyon/juniper treatment units:  Mastication (bullhog): Pinyon/juniper trees would be removed by mechanical equipment, which grinds up woody plant material. Due to mechanical limitations of the equipment, mastication would be limited to areas with less than 30 percent slope. Trees would be ground/shredded with an attachment mounted on machinery such as front-end loaders, tractors, excavators, or skidders. The machinery may have rubber tires, rubber tracks, or metal tracks. Tree stump height would be less than six inches and the shredded woody material would be scattered over the landscape. Machinery would be parked and serviced daily in small (less than ¼ acre) staging areas accessible by existing roads located on public land in the units designated for mastication.  Mechanical shearing/pulling: Pinyon/juniper would be removed using heaving equipment with a tree-grabbing device furnished with a chain saw, circular saw or a shear (a pinching device designed to cut small trees off at the base). Trees could also be removed by pulling them out of the ground with a trackhoe furnished with a thumb attachment. Sheared or pulled trees would be piled and burned or removed from site and the biomass utilized for various purposes. This type of biomass removal treatment would likely only be used along roadways identified as important for

21 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

fire suppression. Removal of the biomass reduces fuel loading creating safer conditions for suppression resources.  Chaining: Chains would be used to uproot live or dead pinyon/juniper trees, create seedbeds, and cover seed. Chains are pulled behind two tractors travelling parallel to each other, with the chain dragged in a loose, J-shaped, U-shaped, or half circle pattern. Chaining may occur on slopes of up to 30 percent and may occur up, down, or across slope. Machinery would be parked and serviced daily in small (less than ¼ acre) staging areas accessible by existing roads located on public land in the units designated for chaining.  Chain Harrow: A chain harrow consists of a modified anchor chain with material (e.g., railroad rail, rods) added to the chain links for the purpose of increasing soil disturbance/tilling. A modification known as an “Ely Chain” uses 18 inch pieces of railroad rail (70 to 90 pounds/yard) welded perpendicular to each or every other chain link. The chain harrow is attached to a wheeled header bar and pulled behind a tractor. It is typically used for the creation of fuel breaks and greenstrips to remove vegetation and till seed into the soil.  Hand Cutting: Hand cutting treatments would include lop and scatter, or piling. The treatment would be conducted by personnel on foot using hand tools and chainsaws. Crew size would vary but typically ranges from two to 20 people. Stump height of cut trees would be less than six inches and branches left on site would not exceed three feet in height. Lop and scatter would not occur in higher density tree sites (e.g., phase 2 and 3).  Pile Burning/Mulch Burning: Pile and/or mulch burning would be considered in order to manage surface fuel loading. The treatment includes the burning of masticated debris piles and hand-constructed piles of residual biomass (e.g., branches, twigs) resulting from hand cutting. Masticated debris piles consist of shredded tree material, are scattered across the ground, and typically range from 4 to 12 inches in depth. Hand constructed piles are typically no larger than six feet tall and six feet in diameter. Piles created by mechanical shearing or pulling can be as large as 10 feet tall and 12 feet in diameter. Piles are scattered within a treatment area, and the number of piles per acre would vary depending on tree density and the treatment prescription. Pile/mulch burning is expected to be up to 10 percent of each treatment unit. Hand held tools such as flares, drip torches, and/or flammable gel packs may be used to ignite piles. Burning would be conducted under a burn plan, a site-specific legal document that provides the agency administrator the information needed to approve the plan and the burn boss with all the information needed to safely and effectively implement the burn. Multiple factors are considered when determining whether to burn or not. These factors include location, weather conditions, vegetation types, slope, fuel moisture content, risks to property and structures and potential impacts to air quality and land use. Pile/mulch burns would only be conducted in the late fall, winter and spring under low spread potential conditions (e.g., following precipitation, with snow on ground). The objective of pile burning would be to consume 80 to 100 percent of the piled/mulched biomass. o Prescribed burning would be conducted in accordance with the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c), MA-FIRE-4. Specifically, the NEPA document and the Burn Plan would address: 1) why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options; 2) how greater sage-grouse goals and objectives would be met by its use; 3) how the COT Report objectives would be addressed and met; and 4) a risk assessment to address how potential threats to greater sage-grouse habitat would be minimized. See Appendix C for more information.  Seeding: The seeding of native and non-native species may be conducted as a primary or follow up treatment where existing herbaceous understory does not meet requirements outlined in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c) and is not sufficient for natural establishment. The use of non-native species may be considered when one or more of the following criteria are

22 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

met: 1) suitable native species are not available; 2) the natural biological diversity of the treatment area would not be diminished; 3) the use of non-native species would achieve treatment objectives; or 4) the treatment area would not support reestablishment of a species that historically was part of the natural environment. Seeding methods could include ground-based broadcast, drill seeding, or aerial broadcast from a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft. Seeding method would be determined based on terrain, soil type, soil moisture, and seed species. Bare root shrub seedlings would be planted by hand using hand tools or using gas powered augers to dig a 4-inch diameter by 18-inch deep hole. Seedlings may be temporarily fenced or tubed. Fencing would consist of barbwire, chicken wire, construction fence or other type of fencing with t-posts. o Broadcast and Drag: broadcast application of seed (aerially or by ground vehicle) followed by dragging a heavy chain across the seeded area to enhance ground-to-seed contact. Ground-to- seed contact can be a critical factor in successful seeding. o Drill: application of seed by rangeland drills pulled behind a tractor or truck. Seed drills operate on the principle of inserting/drilling the seed into the soil, thereby ensuring proper seeding depth and ground-to-seed contact. o Aerial Broadcast: application by distributing the seed from the air and the seed falling within the application area. Includes the use of helicopter or fixed wing aircraft. o Harrow: application of seed by broadcast followed by enhancement of ground-to-seed contact by pulling a series of spikes or similar ground disturbing implement along the soil surface to cover the seed and smooth the soil. o Disking: preparation of the seedbed by plowing using large metal disks that slice through and turn over an approximate four to six-inch surface layer of turf and/or hardened soil. o Hand: application by scattering seed by hand using either no tools or hand-held spreaders. o Hand Planting of Seedlings: Some smaller parcels within proposed treatment areas may be selected for sagebrush, cliffrose (Purshia stansburiana), and in the higher elevations bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), seedling plantings. Seedlings would be planted by hand in the early spring while soil moisture is adequate for seedling establishment.

2.1.2.2 Fuel Breaks/Greenstrips To minimize fire risk and protect greater sage-grouse habitat, fuel breaks and/or greenstrips may be established along existing roads and around islands of native vegetation. Fuel breaks are a strip or block of land where the vegetation has been reduced, removed, or modified to alter fire behavior (Maestas et al. 2016). Greenstrips are linear strips comprised of fire-resistant perennial vegetation (both native and introduced species) that are utilized in strategic locations to slow the spread and intensity of wildland fire behavior (Maestas et al. 2016). Both strategies would be implemented mechanically using a mower9 or chain-harrow to reduce vegetative cover, followed by planting with fire resistant vegetation. Site location and proposed method would be based on current vegetation community and potential flame lengths; however, fuel break/greenstrip widths would not exceed 300 feet total. These fuelbreaks/greenstrips, in conjunction with the existing road, would provide an adequate defensible area to minimize fire spread with flame lengths under 3 feet, giving firefighters a greater opportunity to halt the spread of a wildfire. Seeding would occur during the fall season, either by drilling and/or broadcast treatment, depending on the seeding requirements of the species selected and site location. Where seed is applied aerially,

9 Potential mower treatments would utilize a rotary mower towed by a rubber tired tractor or a tracked tractor, which would be used to mow shrubs where the vegetative community and terrain allow for the creation of fuel breaks/greenstrips.

23 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA mechanical seedbed preparation or cover treatment may be required, and may include the use of a chain- harrow or other similar implement.

2.1.2.3 Control of Invasive Plants and Noxious Weeds Herbicide applications may be required following treatments to reduce the occurrence of invasive plant species and/or noxious weeds. Noxious weeds or invasive plant species that may occur within the analysis area and/or may be promoted due to proposed activities would be identified and treated with in accordance to the Salt Lake District Five Year Noxious Weed Control Plan (BLM 1996), the Final Programmatic EIS for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (BLM 2007a), and the Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS (BLM 2016a). The primary invasive plant species of concern in the analysis area is cheatgrass. Both pre- and post- emergent herbicides may be used to suppress non-native annuals, including cheatgrass, to assist in the creation of fuel breaks and establishment of desirable perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs in treatment areas. Glyphosate (Roundup® or generic equivalent) may be used to control actively growing cheatgrass. Application rates would range between 16 and 32 ounces per acre. Pre-emergent herbicides such as Plateau® or Open Range G10 (or the generic equivalent; active ingredient imazapic) may be applied aerially or by ground application. Areas selected for imazapic use would be treated at an application rate of 4 to 8 ounces per acre, plus up to 1 quart of surfactant11 per acre. Both glyphosate and imazapic may be used alone or in combination in areas identified for greenstrips, as a follow up treatment after pinyon/juniper removal, and to treat patches (up to 2,500 acres) in degraded rangeland in need of revegetation. The lowest application rate possible would be used to achieve the desired results. Another invasive, noxious weed of concern in the analysis area is knapweed (Centaurea spp.). Knapweed infestations would be inventoried and treated prior to implementation of site-specific projects. Other BLM approved herbicides (e.g., aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, rimsulfuron) may be used to control invasive perennial weeds such as squarerose knapweed and thistle or as a follow up treatment to control pinyon/juniper regrowth. Additionally, treated areas would be monitored for a minimum of 5-years post- treatment and treated as necessary. Any herbicide application would be carefully recorded and documented. Herbicide use information would be reported to the BLM Utah State Office and the BLM Washington Office. A Pesticide Use Proposal would be prepared and approved by the BLM State Office prior to application of the herbicide. The application of herbicide would be performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a Pesticide Applicator licensed by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food.

2.1.2.4 Restoring Perennial Grasses and Forbs in Existing Sagebrush Stands Within existing sagebrush stands where perennial grasses and forbs are lacking, seeding would occur to improve ecosystem resilience and greater sage-grouse brood rearing habitat. Seeding and seedbed preparation would be done with the most appropriate equipment for the particular soil type and topography. Treated lands in need of seed would be planted with a diverse seed mixture, preferably during the fall using rangeland drills, or broadcast aerially by helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft. Where seed is applied aerially, mechanical seedbed preparation or cover treatment may be required. This may include the use of a chain-harrow or other similar implement.

10 Open Range G is a granular form of imazapic that is currently undergoing the approval process to be utilized for rangeland vegetation treatment projects. The use of imazapic herbicide has already been approved by the BLM. 11 Surfactant: a material (e.g., water) that improves the emulsifying, dispersing, spreading, or wetting properties of liquids.

24 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Native perennial grasses and forbs would be given a strong preference depending on availability and cost. However, introduced perennial species appropriate for the ecological site may also be used (Table 5). Reseeding may occur if seed does not establish. The use of herbicide may also be necessary to control cheatgrass (see Subsection 2.1.2.3) and reduce competition for newly seeded perennial species. Selected sagebrush reduction treatments may be proposed in areas where greater sage-grouse habitat assessment information is showing a combination of unsuitable percent cover of sagebrush in proportion to understory perennial grasses and forbs. Because treatments may result in a temporary reduction in sagebrush cover and density, the extent of the treatments, if any, would be based on the potential of the ecological site as well as other sagebrush associated wildlife species (i.e., pygmy rabbit). Treatment methods may include rangeland drills, chain-harrowing, mowing, broadcast seeding, planting, and selective burning (prescribed fire) of small (less than 200 acres) patches of sagebrush. These treatments would provide a means for selective treatment within sagebrush communities. For example, mowing can be used in sagebrush habitats to create mosaic patterns that would diversify sagebrush age classes and provide wildlife with cover and escape zones where sagebrush would remain. Prescribed burning would be conducted in accordance with the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. Specifically, in accordance with MA-FIRE-4, this NEPA document and the Burn Plan would address: 1) why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options; 2) how greater sage-grouse goals and objectives would be met by its use; 3) how the COT Report objectives would be addressed and met; and 4) a risk assessment to address how potential threats to greater sage-grouse habitat would be minimized. See Appendix C in the EA for more information.

2.1.2.5 Sagebrush Restoration Areas of crested wheatgrass (an introduced perennial grass that used in seed mixes during emergency stabilization actions following wildland fires in order to reduce or prevent cheatgrass establishement) and cheatgrass (a non-native, invasive annual grass) monocultures exist in portions of the analysis area. These monocultures lack ecosystem function and contribute to habitat fragmentation due to the absence of native perennial grasses, desirable forbs, and sagebrush. Restoring these communities to meet greater sage-grouse habitat objectives listed in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA may require efforts to control cheatgrass invasion, or reduce monocultures of seeded crested wheatgrass, combined with seeding or hand planting desirable species. Treatments to reduce crested wheatgrass monocultures or control cheatgrass invasion may include mechanical or chemical methods to reduce competition. Following treatment, lands in need of seed would be planted with a diverse seed mixture, preferably during the fall using rangeland drills or broadcast aerially. Hand planting bare root stock sagebrush may be necessary in some areas. Preferably, sagebrush seeds would be collected from remnant stands or nearby communities, propagated at a nursery, and then planted on site. Native perennial forbs would be given a strong preference; however, introduced perennial species appropriate for the ecological site may also be used (Table 5). Reseeding may occur if the initial seeding does not establish successfully. Sagebrush restoration activities would also occur on lands where sagebrush has died off due to juniper and pinyon dominance, in areas previously burned by wildland fire, and/or lands burned by future wildland fire. The analysis area has been subject to numerous wildland fires over the last 30 plus years. In many of these fire scars, sagebrush and desirable perennial grasses and forbs have been completed burned. While many areas have been (or would be) treated under post-fire emergency stabilization efforts, which often include seeding of native and introduced species, post-fire establishment of sagebrush has not been successful in many areas. Additional post-fire restoration actions may be necessary to aid the reestablishment of sagebrush habitat and reduce the impact from non-native and invasive species, such as cheatgrass. Techniques may include, but are not limited to, broadcast seeding and hand planting of

25 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA seedlings. Where seed is applied aerially, mechanical seedbed preparation or cover treatment (e.g., chain- harrowing) may be required

2.1.2.6 Project Route Restoration Some locations within the analysis area are classified as Limited or Designated Routes. In these locations, certain routes are designated for motorized vehicle travel; routes not designated are not open to motorized vehicle travel. During project implementation, designated routes should be used to access treatment areas, as available and practical. In cases where terrain limits access and/or designated routes are not available, non-designated routes may be used during implementation. Additionally, new temporary cross-county paths may be created by equipment and support vehicles during project implementation, as necessary. Such paths would only be allowed after cultural clearance and SHPO consultation has occurred across a given project area, and would avoid all identified historic properties. Non-designated routes and any new cross-country routes created during project implementation would be rehabilitated to prevent further use by motorized vehicles. Potential methods to rehabilitate project related routes may include one or more of the following techniques: vertical mulching (e.g., placement of dead plants, branches, vegetation litter) in such a way as to obscure the route; physically ripping or plowing to make the route impassable; blocking the route with rocks or soil; seeding the route with a seed mix similar to the project; and the installation of signs stating 'No motorized vehicles' to prevent motorized vehicle use. Rehabilitated route closures would be maintained until the evidence of the tracked or rubber tired pathways are obscured by vegetation cover and the route is no longer being used by motorized vehicles.

2.1.2.7 Fencing, Riparian Restoration, Wildlife Water Treatment Fencing: Temporary fences may be installed, as necessary, to protect areas treated with seed from trampling by livestock and/or wild horses for a minimum of two growing seasons. Fences would have gates, comply with the wildlife guidelines set forth in the BLM Fencing Handbook, and be fitted with bird deflectors as appropriate. Any vegetation (e.g., shrubs, trees) that would be removed for fence installation would be done by hand tools without disturbing the herbaceous component of the soil. Installation and maintenance of temporary fences that are needed due to vegetation treatments would be the responsibility of the BLM. Temporary fencing would be removed once treated areas have been rested sufficiently to ensure successful growth of seeded plant species12. No new vehicle access routes would be constructed to facilitate the installation of temporary fences. Riparian Restoration and Protection: Beaver dam analogs13 or other instream structures may be used as aquatic restoration tools to help capture any additional runoff following treatments, create additional wet meadow and lentic habitats, and/or reconnect stream channels to the floodplain in incised channels. Case- by-case dredging/maintenance of existing ponds may occur if undesirable sediment or vegetation build up is evident. Permanent and/or temporary fences (exclosures) may be installed to protect existing water resources (e.g., springs, wet meadows, riparian areas) within the analysis area. Fences would have gates, comply with the wildlife guidelines set forth in the BLM Fencing Handbook, and be fitted with bird deflectors, as appropriate. If exclosure fencing is constructed from wooden materials and located within 1.2 miles of a lek, perch deterrents would be installed to minimize perch sites for birds (predators).

12 If it is determined to be desirable to convert temporary fencing to permanent fencing for livestock management purposes, a separate NEPA analysis and decision would need to be completed. 13 Beaver dam analogues (BDAs) are channel-spanning structures that mimic or reinforce natural beaver dams.

26 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Wildlife Water Developments: In order to offset the impacts of anthropogenic activities and drought on water resources available for wildlife, up to four wildlife water developments may be included in specific locations within the analysis area: Davis Mountain West, Davis Mountain South, Davis Mountain Southeast, and Davis Knolls North. Wildlife water developments would typically consist of BOSS-type tanks (approximately 1,800 gallons in capacity). Developments would be located directly along or near existing access routes; no new access route would be created as a result of wildlife water development installation. Fencing installed to protect new developments would comply with the wildlife guidelines set forth in the BLM Fencing Handbook, and be fitted with bird deflectors, as appropriate.

2.1.2.8 Science and Research Specific project designs may include multi-year investments in science, research, and large-scale experimental activities to remove cheatgrass and other annual weeds through various tools or methods. Science and research may also include undertakings to address the uncertainties identified in the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013). These uncertainties include: 1) the lack of robust, range-wide genetics-based connectivity analysis; 2) the ability to successfully restore lower-elevation and weed-infested habitats being currently limited by a lack of complete understanding of underlying ecological processes, and in some areas because alteration of vegetation, nutrient cycles, topsoil, and living (cryptobiotic) soil crusts has exceeded recovery thresholds (Knick et al. 2003; Pyke 2011); and 3) the largely unknown effect of climate change on the amount and distribution of future habitat. Other potential research opportunities include conducting research on changes in groundwater (spring flow, stream base flow, shallow groundwater, soil moisture) and aquatic vegetation resulting from pinyon and juniper treatments for sage-grouse habitat restoration and/or fire-risk reduction. Two research projects, which may be implemented within the analysis area under this proposal have been proposed by Dr. Kari Veblen with Utah State University’s Department of Wildland Resources and Ecology Center and received preliminary funding for implementation. These research proposals are:  Restoration of grasses and forbs prior to loss of sagebrush plants o This proposal has been selected for approval by the Joint Fire Science Proposal Selection Committee. o This research project proposes to develop the scientific basis for, and identify barriers to, adoption of a restoration approach that targets establishment of native perennial herbs before sagebrush is lost from the system (i.e., in ‘at risk’ systems that have not yet crossed an ecological threshold). o Implementation methods would include: 1) comparing planting of grass and forb seedlings into stands of sagebrush in cool-wet vs. warm-dry sites, and 2) working with managers to identify barriers that must be overcome in order to feasibly implement this approach.  A pre-emptive rangeland restoration approach to improving biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services o This proposal has been selected for approval by the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Proposal Selection Committee. o This research project proposes to develop the scientific basis for a restoration approach that targets establishment of native perennial herbs in ‘at risk’ areas before sagebrush is lost. The overall goal of this research is to test the ecological and socio-economic feasibility of targeting restoration of native grasses and forbs in ‘at risk’ sagebrush stands before sagebrush is lost, and then perform an impact evaluation on how this approach influences ecosystem services such as provision of forage for livestock and habitat for wildlife such as sage-grouse. o Supporting objectives include: 1) determining the best planting microsites in at-risk sagebrush stands, 2) identifying potential socio-economic barriers to adoption of this restoration approach as well as solutions for overcoming those barriers, and 3) building and

27 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

validating a simulation model that evaluates the impacts of this restoration approach on vital ecosystem services such as production of livestock forage, provision of seed sources to maintain and promote native plant communities, and maintenance of cultural landscapes. o Implementation methods would include field experiments, surveys and interviews of managers, and computational models that address feasibility. o Deliverables would include a technical report, a fact sheet, field tours, and webinar. Deliverables would be distributed via the Great Basin Fire Science Exchange.

2.1.2.9 Biomass Removal and Harvest of Woodland Resources Biomass Removal: Biomass may be removed and offered for sale by the BLM or through a stewardship contract. When marketable biomass is cut and removed by the BLM, it may be piled and offered for sale. In the case of a stewardship contract, marketable biomass created by the cutting activity would be available to the contractor to sell as commercial items within the local economy. Products that may be removed under stewardship contracting authority include vegetative material, such as, but not limited to saw logs, firewood, post and poles, biomass, mulch, wood pellets, and Christmas trees. Biomass removal would utilize cut woody material via whole-tree yarding or yarding with tops attached to minimize the amount of slash remaining in units. Most vehicles typically used for extraction of forest products, which have low pressure tires/tracks including all-terrain vehicles, skidders, and feller/bunchers, would be acceptable. Any residual slash (unwanted or unmarketable biomass) would be scattered to reduce visible impacts and aid in soil moisture retention, or piled and burned to reduce the risk of wildland fire. Removal activities would take place so as to reduce impacts on actively growing vegetation and soils. Where necessary, areas would be seeded to facilitate reestablishment of desired plant communities. Harvest of Woodland Resources: When mastication treatment units can be planned multiple years in advance of implementation, units may be open to harvest of woodland resources (e.g., post & pole, cordwood) by the public through the existing permit system. The level of harvest for each unit would be determined in part by the restoration prescription for each treatment focus area. For example, if 100 percent of trees are to be removed in a particular area, then monitoring for resource sustainability would not be required or needed. For other areas, restoration prescriptions would set silvicultural guidelines and areas would be monitored for biomass removal. Forestry product permits would require adherence to all general permit stipulations in the Woodland Products Areas in the Salt Lake Field Office EA (BLM 2014) which are incorporated here by reference, as well as any protection measures identified in this EA. If excessive violations of these stipulations occur, units may be closed to harvest by the public. Units would be flagged and/or signed by BLM staff. In some cases, trees which are intended for retainment may be marked for avoidance.

2.1.2.10 Maintenance Treatments would be maintained, as necessary, so that original objectives may be met or continue to be met. Maintenance of acres treated under this project would be completed within 15 to 20 years of the initial treatment(s) to target pinyon and juniper whips and small trees missed by the initial treatments, to maintain fuel breaks/greenstrips, and to maintain restoration treatments. Maintenance of the previously mentioned treatments may include any of the described actions in single or in any combination. This is necessary so that funds invested in habitat restoration/improvement and resource protection leading toward the attainment of desired conditions would result in long-term improvements. Maintenance of vegetation treatments would be subject to additional NEPA review, as necessary, in order to respond to new issues or changing conditions.

28 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 2.1.3 Implementation Because implementation would occur over the next 15 years, before any project-specific treatment begins, a DNA and associated Decision Record would be prepared to evaluate if existing NEPA adequately analyzes the proposed project specific treatment. Individual projects would be tiered to this EA and would include a project description, applicable protective measures from this EA, as well as any additional mitigation necessary to reduce or eliminate impacts to resources that are of concern. If in the future, the BLM finds that existing analysis is not adequate for a specific proposal, the proposed project would not be authorized under a DNA Decision Record and instead a new EA or EIS would be prepared. During the preparation of DNAs to evaluate each project specific treatment, site-specific proposals and maps would be posted onto the BLM NEPA Register14 for each project phase to allow interested parties to review each treatment phase and provide scoping comments. The exception to the above would be the site-specific projects described in Section 2.1.1 which may be authorized by the Responsible Official, pending a FONSI, under this proposal and implemented upon completion of any outstanding cultural resource, wildlife, and lands with wilderness characteristics inventories, as necessary. No site-specific projects authorized under any decision that may result from this EA shall proceed until completion of applicable inventories and concurrence from SHPO for cultural resource inventories. Each individual treatment phase would be inventoried for cultural resources and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would be completed prior to implementation. Given the scope and schedule of this project, a phased approach as defined in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) is necessary and acceptable by the regulations. Prior to any ground disturbing activities and/or with each phase of the project, an appropriate cultural resource inventory would be conducted to identify and evaluate cultural resources. Potentially adverse effects would be avoided by project design in consultation with the SHPO. No ground disturbing activities would take place without new or adequate Class III inventory. The BLM in consultation with the SHPO would determine if any existing Class III inventory is to be used prior to a ground disturbing treatment. 36 CFR 800.4 (a) (2) and (b) (1) allows for the Agency to determine the level of effort for the identification of historic properties for any project on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, affected Tribes would be offered the opportunity to consult during each phase of this proposal. Lands with wilderness characteristics inventories would be completed for each phase of project specific treatments to evaluate if lands within individual treatment areas possess wilderness characteristics. Inventories would be completed in accordance with BLM Manual 6310 on an on-going basis over the life of this project within the analysis area and prior to authorizing site-specific proposed treatments within individual treatment focus areas. The results of these inventories would be provided to the public in accordance with BLM policy and also would be identified during preparation of DNAs. If lands are found to possess potential wilderness characteristics, proposed treatments in those areas, if and where identified, would be designed by the BLM Interdisciplinary Team in a manner that maintains and/or minimizes impacts to the identified wilderness characteristics. See Table 6 for project design criteria (mitigation measures) that would be applied in areas identified as possessing wilderness characteristics. Migratory bird surveys would be conducted, as necessary, prior to implementation of treatments, if treatments are to occur during the migratory bird breeding season.

14 To review projects in both the Fillmore and Salt Lake Field Offices, visit the BLM NEPA Register. Use the mapping feature or select ‘text search’ and then ‘Utah’ under states(s). From there you can select the specific field office, NEPA document type, fiscal year, and program.

29 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Site-specific project design would be in consultation with the UDWR, NRCS, USFWS, WDARM, tribes, and private landowners. Site-specific treatments would be primarily contracted through UWRI15 for the life-cycle of the project; however, other funding sources and BLM’s internal contracting process may be utilized. The scheduled implementation timeline (15 years) may be subject to change due to weather, funding, and equipment related issues. 2.1.4 Project Design Criteria The project design criteria (protective measures/mitigation measures) listed in Table 6 shall be implemented as a part of all project activities to avoid, reduce, or eliminate environmental impacts to the following resources, uses, and/or considerations:

Table 6: Project Design Criteria (protective/mitigation measures)

Resource Area Protective Measure(s) Air Quality  BLM staff and/or contractors whose activities result in fugitive dust from a road shall minimize fugitive dust to the maximum extent possible by reducing travel speed or using a water hauler to spray road surface.  Prescribed burns shall be conducted in accordance with the Utah Smoke Management Plan and in compliance with Utah Division of Air Quality Standards. Cultural Resources  Project layout and design shall avoid or mitigate, through modified treatment strategies, any cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Modified treatments include limiting pinyon/juniper treatment to the use of hand tools, and limited bullhogging when snowfall is high (minimum snow depth of 2 feet) and allowing for only forward and back movement across the site.  If undiscovered or previously unrecorded sites are found, all activity shall cease immediately and the authorized officer would be contacted.  Each individual treatment phase shall be inventoried for cultural resources and consultation with the SHPO shall be completed prior to implementation.  Affected Tribes shall be offered the opportunity to consult during each phase of this proposal. Floodplains  Project layout and design shall exclude treatments within the floodplains unless treatments in these areas on a case-by-case basis are determined to be beneficial to the aquatic species and habitats that occur there Fuels/Fire  Projects shall be designed in a manner that best meets the goals and objectives of the Management Fire Management Plan.  Prescribed burns shall be conducted by qualified personnel and with a pre-approved burn plan.  Prescribed burns shall be conducted in accordance with the Utah Smoke Management Plan.  Prescribed fires shall be monitored to ensure that objectives are achieved and fire would not exceed the prescription.  Projects shall be designed in a manner that conforms with the Required Design Features for Fire and Fuels as identified in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA: o Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns that most benefit greater sage-grouse habitat. o Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on greater sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and identification of areas utilized locally.

15 Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative Website.

30 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Resource Area Protective Measure(s) o Use burning prescriptions which minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of annual grass invasion). o Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner that promotes use by greater sage-grouse. o Power-wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities, prior to entering the area, to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species. o Design vegetation treatments in areas of high fire frequency that facilitate firefighter safety, reduce the potential acres burned, and reduce the fire risk to greater sage- grouse habitat. Additionally, develop maps for greater sage-grouse habitat which spatially display existing fuels treatments that can be used to assist suppression activities. o As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs or one of that referenced in land use planning documentation. o Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and recreational areas. o Reduce the risk of vehicle- or human-caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species by installing fuel breaks and/or planting perennial vegetation (e.g., greenstrips) paralleling road rights-of-way. o Strategically place and maintain pre-treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing and herbicide application) to aid in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near PHMA or important restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made). Greater Sage-  In PHMA/GHMA, limit noise from discrete anthropogenic disturbances, whether during Grouse Habitat construction, operation, or maintenance, to not exceed 10 decibels above ambient sound levels at occupied leks from 2 hours before to 2 hours after official sunrise and sunset during breeding season (e.g., while males are strutting). Limit project related noise in other PHMA habitats and seasons where it would be expected to reduce functionality of habitats that support associated greater sage-grouse populations.  In PHMA, in coordination with the appropriate State of Utah agency, apply seasonal restrictions during the period specified below to manage discretionary discrete anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., mechanical vegetation treatments) and uses on public lands to prevent disturbance to greater sage-grouse populations and habitat during seasonal life cycle periods as follows: o In breeding (leks), nesting and early brood-rearing habitat from February 15 to June 15 o In brood-rearing habitat from April 15 to August 15 o In winter habitat from November 15 to March 15  Seasonal restrictions for greater sage-grouse habitat means that no treatments (i.e., ground disturbing activities) shall be implemented in a habitat type during the listed time-period (dates), unless a specific exception has been granted in consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, as discussed below. o With regard to seasonal restrictions, specific time and distance determinations would be based on site-specific conditions and may be modified due to documented local variations (e.g., higher/lower elevations) or annual climactic fluctuations (e.g., early/late spring and long and/or heavy winter) in order to better protect greater sage-grouse, in coordination with the appropriate State of Utah agency. Invasive  Noxious or invasive weed species that may be promoted due to the proposed activity Species/Noxious would be identified and treated. Measures would be taken to prevent introduction or

31 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Resource Area Protective Measure(s) Weeds spread of weeds by ensuring all equipment used on the project is cleaned and free of any dirt and debris that could harbor weed seeds and be introduced into the analysis area.  Identify and treat weeds that establish at equipment sites.  Prioritize weed infestations for treatment in project operating areas and along access routes.  Project staging areas shall be weed free and travel through weed infested areas would be avoided or minimized.  To prevent conditions favoring weed establishment, reestablish vegetation on bare ground caused by project disturbance as soon as possible using either natural recovery or active restoration, including seeding.  Apply the least amount of herbicide needed to achieve the desired results.  Follow herbicide product label for use and storage.  Licensed applicators would apply the herbicide.  Apply herbicide in favorable weather conditions to minimize drift.  Notify permittees of the herbicide treatment project to improve coordination and avoid potential conflicts and safety concerns during implementation of the treatment.  Post signs noting exclusion areas and the duration of exclusion, if necessary. An exclusion area would be defined as an area temporarily closed to access following application of herbicide for the protection of public health and safety. The length of exclusion would be dependent upon the type and application rate of herbicide used.  Use protective equipment as directed by the product label.  Application of the herbicide shall follow the requirements printed on the herbicide label to eliminate risk to human health and the ecological site. Lands/Access  Any routes created or non-designated routes used during implementation shall be rehabilitated to prevent further use by motorized vehicles. Various rehabilitation techniques such as vertical mulch, ripping or obliterating routes, blocking with soil or rocks, and seeding would be used to prevent further use of non-designated and new routes that were used during project implementation. Some areas may require the installation of signs stating 'closed to motorized vehicles' to prevent off-highway vehicle use until the evidence of the tracked or rubber tired pathways are obscured by vegetation cover. Lands with  Maintenance, updating, or re-inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics Wilderness inventories shall be completed for each phase of project specific treatments to evaluate Characteristics if lands within individual treatment areas possess wilderness characteristics. Inventories shall be maintained, updated, or re-inventoried on an on-going basis over the life of this project within the analysis area and prior to authorizing site-specific proposed treatments within individual treatment focus areas. The results of these inventories shall be provided to the public in accordance with BLM policy and also would be identified during preparation of DNAs. If lands are found to possess potential wilderness characteristics, proposed treatments in those areas, if and where identified, shall be designed by the BLM Interdisciplinary Team in a manner that maintains and/or minimizes impacts to the identified wilderness characteristics.  In areas identified as possessing wilderness characteristics, one or more of the following protective measures and design criteria shall be applied to maintain or minimize impacts to these characteristics, as necessary: o Naturalness: to maintain and/or minimize impacts to the naturalness criteria, the work of humans must be substantially unnoticeable to the average visitor. Specific design criteria may include but are not limited to: the use of rubber tired machines to avoid ruts in the soil, hand thinning, seasonal restrictions, seeding, limiting the size of treatment area, and/or design features to avoid patterns, lines, and/or textures on the landscape.

32 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Resource Area Protective Measure(s) o Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude: to maintain and/or minimize impacts to the outstanding opportunities for solitude criteria visitors must be able to avoid sights sounds and evidence of other people in the area and the opportunity must exist for the visitor to find seclusion. Specific design criteria may include but are not limited to: limiting the size of treatment area, configuration of treatment, and/or topographic and vegetative screening considerations. o Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: to maintain and/or minimize impacts to the outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation criteria, the area must provide dispersed, undeveloped recreation which does not require facilities, motor vehicles, motorized equipment or mechanized transport. Specific design criteria may include but is not limited to: avoiding new route creation, restoring project related linear travel disturbances via blocking or obscuring with rocks, soil or vegetation, physically ripping or plowing, seeding, and marking with signs. Livestock Grazing  Areas that are reseeded as part of a treatment to alter vegetation composition, or otherwise chemically or mechanically altered, shall be closed to livestock grazing for a minimum of two complete growing seasons (Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands, Utah State Office 1997).  Rangelands that are burned, either by wildfire or prescribed fire, shall be ungrazed for a minimum of one complete growing season (Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands, Utah State Office 1997).  Grazing deferral would be accomplished through program decision or letter of agreement.  Exclosures and temporary fences that are needed due to the vegetation and/or restoration treatments (e.g., riparian exclosures) are the responsibility of the BLM.  Barb-wire gates are required to allow access for man on foot or horseback for each mile of temporary fence construction. The barbed-wire fence is limited to 3 barbed wires plus a bottom smooth wire and the barbed-wire gates are limited to 6 barbed wires. Wires for the proposed fence are above ground level as stated: 15 inches smooth wire, 22 inches, 30 inches, and 38 inches barbed-wire.  Range improvement projects that are required to support livestock grazing during post- treatment grazing closures would be developed and analyzed through a separate NEPA analysis.  Designated areas shall be left untreated for thermal cover usage by livestock. Migratory Birds  Project planning, coordination, and implementation shall be carried out consistent with BLM responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  Project areas shall be surveyed for raptor nests, as necessary, if activities would occur during nesting season.  Apply a 0.5-mile buffer to active raptor nest sites between March 1 and July 15 or until nest is determined to be non-active or unsuccessful.  Apply a 0.5-mile buffer to active golden eagle nest between January 1 and August 30 or until nest is determined to be non-active or unsuccessful.  Avoid activities during the migratory bird breeding season, typically between March15 and July 15. If treatments must be implemented during this timeframe, survey shall be completed by wildlife staff to identify any nesting birds. However, dates may vary depending upon the species and current environmental conditions. National Historic  National historic trail inventories would be conducted as necessary depending on Trails project locations.  All treatments shall be designed to not impact any identifiable historic trail sections or sites.  Coordination with the National Park Service trail administration office and Oregon- California Trail Association shall be conducted as necessary.

33 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Resource Area Protective Measure(s) Paleontology  If paleontological resources are found, all project activity shall cease and the authorized officer would be contacted immediately. Property Boundary  Cadastral surveyors shall be notified during the development of each project phase to Evaluation identify survey markers, bearing trees, and land ownership boundaries. Cadastral surveys would be conducted prior to implementation to verify property boundary and associated markers.  Project work shall not disturb or destroy cadastral survey markers or bearing trees. Treatments shall be designed to avoid disturbing all cadastral survey markers and bearing trees.  Project work shall not disturb or destroy property boundary fences.  Property boundaries and cadastral survey markers shall be inspected following treatments. Rangeland Health  Rangelands that have been burned, reseeded or otherwise treated to alter vegetation Standards, Soil, composition shall be closed to livestock grazing as follows; (1) burned rangelands, Vegetation whether by wildfire or prescribed burning, shall be ungrazed for a minimum of one Excluding Special complete growing season following the burn; (2) rangelands that have been reseeded or Status Species otherwise chemically or mechanically treated shall be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons (Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands, Utah State Office 1997).  Rangelands that meet the criteria discussed above shall be protected from grazing by avoidance, fencing, or a combination of the two. Any fencing installed shall comply with the wildlife guidelines set forth in the Fencing BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1 and be fitted with bird deflectors, as appropriate.  Mechanical treatments (e.g., mastication) shall not occur on steep slopes (30 percent or greater) or within fragile soils.  In accordance with MA-VEG-2 of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA, vegetation treatments shall avoid removing old-growth pinyon/juniper stands. See Miller et al. 1999 for additional information on old-growth characteristics.  Equipment shall not be used in a manner that creates ruts or driven across wet/saturated soils.  Seed mixes shall be certified weed free and include native or introduced species conducive to the ecological sites. Recreation  Public access shall continue to be allowed during implementation.  No new roads shall be constructed as a part of this project.  Impacts to dispersed recreation, such as dispersed camping sites, should be minimized through project design.  The BLM shall notify holders of Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) of planned treatments. The BLM shall work in coordination with SRP holders to ensure that proposed treatments are designed to minimize impacts to permitted recreational activities.  The BLM shall provide staff and contractors with information (e.g., GIS shapefiles) regarding existing trails used by the public and SRP holders to minimize impacts during implementation.  Public outreach efforts, including signage, news articles and brochures would be utilized to inform the public regarding the nature, extent, timing and location of treatments. Such outreach would help people avoid areas slated for treatment if they so desired; it would also allow people to observe the treatments or treated areas if that activity fit into their desired recreation experiences. Threatened,  Project planning, consultation, and implementation shall be carried out consistent with Endangered, BLM responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Candidate, or  Project planning, coordination, and implementation shall be carried out with BLM Policy Special Status 6840, Special Status Species Management.

34 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Resource Area Protective Measure(s) Animal Species  Surveys to identify active Pygmy rabbit (BLM Special Status Species) burrow complexes shall occur prior to implementing ground disturbing treatment in areas identified as habitat for Pygmy rabbits.  Apply a 100 meter (328 foot) buffer around active Pygmy Rabbit burrow complexes.  Surveys to identify kit fox (BLM Special Status Species) burrows shall occur prior to implementing ground disturbing treatments in areas of known kit fox habitat.  Kit fox burrows identified during pre-treatment surveys shall be identified and flagged for avoidance. Threatened,  There are no known populations threatened, endangered, candidate, or BLM special Endangered, status plant species within the analysis area. However, if any plant species are added to Candidate or the BLM special status plant species list or other federal list in the future, population Special Status surveys shall be conducted prior to treatment implementation. Plant Species  If populations of threatened, endangered, candidate, or BLM special status plant species are found in the future, treatments shall be designed to avoid or minimize disturbance in occupied habitat (e.g., avoidance, no use of heavy equipment, buffer zones, etc.).  If treatments occur in potential habitat for Pohl’s milkvetch, a survey for presence shall be required and treatments shall be designed to avoid or minimize disturbance in occupied habitat (e.g., avoidance, no use of heavy equipment, buffer zones, etc.). Wastes (hazardous  Fluids used by mechanical equipment shall be stored in original containers and be or solid) managed in accordance with labels.  Spills that reach the thresholds identified in Utah Administrative Code R315-15-9.1 (b) (25 gallons or greater or smaller releases that pose a potential threat to human health or the environment) shall be cleaned up in accordance with Utah Administrative Code R315-15-9.3. Small leaks and drips from vehicles are considered de minimis and are not subject to the release clean-up provisions of Utah Administrative Code R315-15-9. Water  BLM Utah Riparian Management Policy (UT-IM-2005-091) states that there shall be no Resources/Quality; new surface disturbing activities within 100 meters of riparian areas unless there are no Riparian Areas alternatives, the disturbance can be mitigated, or treatments would benefit and enhance riparian areas (e.g., incised channels with juniper encroachment).  Water from springs and streams within the analysis area shall not be used for watering roads, cleaning equipment or other uses related to this project without a valid water right.  Driving in stream drainages and dry washes shall be avoided.  Permanent fencing (exclosures) installed to protect riparian areas shall comply with the wildlife guidelines set forth in the Fencing BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1 and be fitted with bird deflectors. Fences shall also be fitted with gates to allow access to adjoining private lands, as necessary.  Perch deterents shall be installed on permanent wooden fences, if installed within 1.2 miles of leks, to prevent birds from perching. Wildlife, Excluding  Buffers shall be placed around wildlife corridors and drainages; however, exceptions to Special Status these buffers can be made if there are no alternatives, the disturbance can be mitigated, Species or would benefit and enhance these areas.  Restrict ground disturbing activity in mule deer winter range between December 1 and April 15.  Specific exceptions to the above stated restrictions may be granted by the BLM if it can be shown that the proposed activity would not seriously disturb the wildlife habitat values being protected.

35 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 2.1.5 Monitoring The following lists monitoring protocols that would be implemented as a part of the proposed action. Monitoring would be performed by BLM resource specialists and/or BLM (or BLM-approved) monitoring crews under the direct supervision of BLM specialists. Monitoring would be performed in accordance with individual program requirements and would typically be performed both pre- and post- treatment.  Air Quality: Monitoring of equipment shall occur if equipment is causing air quality concerns. If there is a concern, action would be taken to reduce particulate matter release (i.e., fugitive dust) including reducing travel speeds and saturating road surfaces.  Cultural Resources: Cultural resource areas identified during pre-treatment cultural resource inventories and avoided during project implementation would be revisited post-treatment, and a determination would be made as to effectiveness of avoidance/protection.  Fuels/Fire Management: Monitoring would be conducted by the West Desert District fuels program prior to treatment implementation and 1, 3, and 5 years post treatment to determine treatment effects and vegetation response. Monitoring methods may include permanent plots, photo points, and both qualitative and quantitative assessments.  Greater Sage-Grouse: Monitoring of greater sage-grouse habitat would be conducted by the BLM (or BLM-approved entities) and would be performed in accordance with the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA, WO-IM-2016-144 (Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse [including the Bi- State Distinct Population Segment) Habitat Assessment Policy, and the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Technical Reference 6710-1; Stiver et al. 2015).  Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds: Monitoring would be conducted prior to treatment implementation and for up to five years post treatment to determine treatment effects and vegetation response. Monitoring methods may include permanent plots, photo points and both qualitative and quantitative assessments.  Lands/Access: Monitoring of non-designated routes and routes/paths created by cross-country travel would be conducted by the BLM prior to treatment implementation and for up to five years post treatment to determine treatment effects and vegetation response. Monitoring methods may include permanent plots, photo points and both qualitative and quantitative assessments. Motor vehicle use on paths created during project implementation would be monitored on a routine basis to insure they are not being used by the public, and until such time that the paths are obscured and use is not noticeable.  Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Monitor motor vehicle use on paths created during project implementation to insure they are not being used by the public. If treatments occur in an area found to possess wilderness characteristics, monitor treatment implementation to ensure that wilderness characteristics are maintained, or impacts are minimized, in accordance with project design criteria (protective measures). Monitoring of treatment implementation would generally consist of a pre-treatment site visit, a site visit while the treatment is being implemented, an immediate post-treatment site visit to review completed work, and a site visit approximately 1- year post treatment to review any impacts on wilderness characteristics.  Livestock Grazing: Monitoring of livestock use of the allotments would be captured in annual billings and actual use reports. Range supervision site visits would be conducted by the BLM to determine if livestock are making use of treated areas in accordance with any grazing program decision or letter of agreement.  Migratory Birds: If treatments are implemented during migratory bird breeding and nesting season, then pre-treatment surveys would be conducted to identify nest locations for avoidance. Avoided nest locations identified during pre-treatment surveys would be revisited after the completion of ground disturbing activities and a determination would be made as to effectiveness of project implementation and nest avoidance.

36 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

 Property Boundary Evaluation: Cadastral survey markers would be identified by BLM cadastral surveyors prior to project implementation so that they can be marked for avoidance and would be inspected after project treatments are completed to ensure that none were damaged.  Rangeland Health Standards, Soil, Vegetation Excluding Special Status Species, and Wetlands/Riparian Zones: Monitoring of vegetation would be conducted by the BLM specialists and technicians using methods established by Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM), Proper Functioning Condition, Rangeland Health, rangeland trend protocols, and Utah fuels monitoring protocols.  Recreation: Monitoring of trails utilized by special recreation permit holders may be recommended if treatments occur in the vicinity of trails.  Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species: Monitoring of species pre- and post-treatment monitoring may be recommended if treatment areas are near populations of interest.  Wastes (hazardous or solid): If a spill occurs that meets the thresholds provided in Utah Administrative Code R315-15-9, monitoring of equipment and spill cleanup would occur in accordance with Utah Administrative Code R315-15-9.3. Notification to the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality would also occur. 2.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, there would be no habitat restoration or hazardous fuels treatments completed in the analysis area as a result of this proposal. The public lands within the analysis area would continue under current management, including existing NEPA decisions (as applicable),by the BLM and environmental conditions would continue in their current state as described in Chapter 3 of this EA. 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated The following alternatives were considered but not carried forward for analysis in the EA. They were brought forward as possible alternatives by the public during the scoping period. No additional alternatives were identified by the BLM. Reduce or Eliminate Livestock Grazing: This alternative was proposed by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance during scoping. They proposed both a long-term reduction in grazing (e.g., reduction in livestock number, acres available for grazing, and/or season of use) and the permanent removal of livestock within the analysis area. The BLM did not fully evaluate these alternatives and provides the following rationale:  As described in Section 3.11, the analysis area is overlapped by 56 livestock grazing allotments. Changing the status of a grazing allotment from “available” to “unavailable” would be inconsistent with both the House Range Resource Area and Pony Express RMPs, which have identified these allotments as available for livestock grazing (BLM 1987 and 1990, respectively). Under 43 CFR 1610.5-3, “all actions approved or authorized by the BLM must conform to the existing land use plan.” Actions out of conformance with the RMPs would require a land use plan amendment; therefore, changing the status of a grazing allotment from “available” to “unavailable” (aka “permanently closing”) is outside the scope of this EA.  Reducing the level of authorized grazing is outside the scope of this EA and does not meet the purpose and need for this proposal. Animal Unit Months (AUMs) for grazing are authorized by the BLM during consideration of a term livestock grazing permit. This separate NEPA analysis considers the direct, indirect and cumulative effects from actions including: AUMs, season of use, pasture rotation, and range improvements (including fencing). As a part of this process, the BLM completes an allotment evaluation, and standards and guidelines determination based on Utah’s rangeland health standards.

37 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

No treatments within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: This alternative was proposed by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance during scoping. They proposed that no treatments occur within areas identified as being lands with wilderness characteristics or that may be identified during future inventories. The BLM did not fully evaluate this alternative and provides the following rationale:  A no-action alternative, in which identified lands with wilderness characteristics would not be treated, is considered.  This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of this project to improve and/or maintain suitable and functional sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate wildlife species at a landscape-level to ensure the long-term viability and persistence of sage- grouse, minimize key threats to sagebrush habitat, and reduce wildland fire risks. Treatments within areas identified as possessing wilderness characteristics are permitted under existing law, regulation, and policy. If lands are found to possess potential wilderness characteristics, proposed treatments in those areas, if and where identified, shall be designed by the BLM Interdisciplinary Team in a manner that maintains and/or minimizes impacts to the identified wilderness characteristics and implements the required design criteria (mitigation measures) identified in Table 6. No treatments within lands proposed as wilderness by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance: This alternative was proposed by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance during scoping. They proposed that no treatments occur within areas that they have proposed for wilderness designated in their proposed America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. This includes two areas within the analysis area, the Simpson Mountains and Big Hollow in the south-eastern portion of the Stansbury Mountains. The BLM did not fully evaluate this alternative and provides the following rationale:  A no-action alternative, in which areas proposed for wilderness designation by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in their proposed America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act would not be treated, is considered.  This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of this project to improve and/or maintain suitable and functional sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate wildlife species at a landscape-level to ensure the long-term viability and persistence of sage- grouse, minimize key threats to sagebrush habitat, and reduce wildland fire risks. The lands identified by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance for potential wilderness designation are not located within a Congressionally-designated Wilderness and are not located in an area identified as a Wilderness Study Area. The lands in question are to be managed by the BLM in accordance with existing law, regulation, and policy and the existing land use plans.

38 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3 presents the potentially affected existing environment (i.e., physical, biological, social, and economic values and resources) of the analysis area as identified in the IDT Checklist (Appendix B) and presented in Section 1.8. This chapter provides the baseline for comparison of impacts/environmental consequences described in Chapter 4. 3.1 General Setting The analysis area is located in west-central Utah within the Great Basin Ecoregion. Elevations range from approximately 4,500 feet above mean sea level in Tooele Valley, to over 9,200 feet above mean sea level at Black Crook Peak in the Sheeprock Mountains. The analysis area is generally bounded by Tooele Valley on the north; the Oquirrh Mountains on the northeast; Fivemile Pass, the Thorpe Hills, and the East Tintic Mountains on the east; Juab Valley, Sage Valley, and the Gilson Mountains on the southeast; the Little Sahara National Recreation Area on the south; Dugway Valley to the southwest; the Dugway Proving Grounds and Skull Valley to the west; and the Stansbury Mountains to the northwest. Rush and Tintic valleys, the Sheeprock, Onaqui, Simpson, and West Tintic mountain ranges, and the western portion of the East Tintic Mountains and Tooele Valley are contained within the boundaries of the analysis area. Prominent shrublands and semi-desert areas represent the floor of ancient Lake Bonneville. The area also consists of gently sloping terraces, alluvial fans, rolling uplands, and mountains. Soils on lake terraces, alluvial fans, and associated mountains and foot slopes are silt loams, loams, and sandy loams, that are cobbly, gravelly, or bouldery in some areas. The climate is semi-arid, with a yearly average maximum temperature of 63 degrees Fahrenheit and yearly average minimum of 32 degrees Fahrenheit (as reported at Vernon, Utah). The analysis area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool winters. The average annual precipitation is 10.24 inches, with the highest amount being in the spring and fall months. Average snowfall is 36.2 inches (Wester Regional Climate Center 2016). 3.1.1 Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis The BLM is required to address specific elements of the environment that are subject to requirements in statute or regulation or by executive order. As presented in Section 1.8 and in the IDT Checklist (see Appendix B), only those resources or uses that have been identified as a potential impact are carried forward for detailed analysis. Resources that are not present or would not be impacted to a degree that requires detailed analysis are described in the IDT checklist. 3.2 Greater Sage-Grouse Greater sage-grouse is a State of Utah and BLM sensitive species, and are classified as an upland game species by the UDWR. Greater sage-grouse are considered a sagebrush-obligate species in that they are dependent on sagebrush ecosystem values and function to meet their life requirements and require large, intact, interconnected expanses of sagebrush shrubland to exist (Connelly et al. 2004; Wisdom et al. 2011). As a landscape-scale species, they move between habitats seasonally and generally require contiguous winter, breeding, nesting, and summering habitats to sustain a population (Connelly et al. 2011). Diverse sagebrush habitats provide the majority of greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, fall/winter cover, and forage year-round. Populations of greater sage-grouse move between seasonal ranges in response to habitat distribution and seasonal availability of resources (Connelly et al. 2004). Connectivity between populations and habitats is an important predictor of population persistence; whereas, lek activity was lower or not present in leks with smaller populations and limited connectivity to neighboring populations (Knick et al. 2013).

39 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

During the spring breeding season, male greater sage-grouse congregate to perform courtship displays to attract females on areas called leks. Male greater sage-grouse begin gathering near leks in late winter and will stay on leks through spring. Leks are frequently located in open sites, surrounded by dense sagebrush cover, and the same lek sites are used year after year (Connelly et al. 2011). Leks are an indication of nearby nesting habitat (Bradbury et al. 1989; Fedy et al. 2012) and early brood-rearing habitat. Preliminary analyses being completed using data from a number of Utah populations suggest that 3.1- mile to 4.3-mile lek buffers would include at least 90 percent of nests (Dahlgren et al. unpublished) due to strong site fidelity. Female greater sage-grouse are ground nesters and frequently nest under shrubs and show a preference for sites under sagebrush plants that have large canopies. The canopies provide overhead cover and a herbaceous understory, thus providing lateral cover and allowing birds to be hidden from view (Bunnell 2000). Quality and quantity of habitat reduces predation pressure and is essential for greater sage-grouse population stability. In Utah, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats typically include sagebrush canopy cover ranging between 10 and 50 percent (Rasmussen and Griner 1938), with herbaceous understory for nesting cover. Chick survival is associated with higher grass and forb understory cover because chicks eat insects for their first three weeks and mostly forbs until they are three months old (Barnett and Crawford 1994; Gregg et al. 1994; Connelly et al. 2004; Casazza et al. 2011). In general, greater sage-grouse have small clutch sizes and low nest success compared with other upland bird species; hence, populations may be less able to recover from population declines as quickly as those of most other game birds (Schroeder 1997). As herbaceous understory in sagebrush habitats begin to dry out in mid-summer, greater sage-grouse move to where the herbaceous understory is green such as meadows, riparian areas, and wetlands. Depending on the population, greener areas may be in higher elevations or in valleys where succulent forbs are present (Bunnell 2000). In the summer, greater sage-grouse broods occupy a variety of habitats including sagebrush, relatively small burned areas within sagebrush, wet meadows, farmland, and other irrigated areas adjacent to sagebrush habitats (Connelly et al. 1988). In the winter, greater sage-grouse rely almost entirely on sagebrush for food (Dahlgreen et al. 2015) and cover. From mid-September into November, greater sage-grouse prefer areas with relatively dense canopy cover and forbs that are still green. During winter, greater sage-grouse rely almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves and congregate where sagebrush is available above the snow (Crawford et al. 2004; Schroeder et al. 1999). 3.2.1 Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Description The Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Area (see Appendix A, Map 1) is approximately 978,887 acres and is managed by six Federal and State agencies and private landowners (Table 1). The BLM is the largest land manager at approximately 524,726 acres. Within the population area, there are approximately 646,553 acres of PHMA and 184,550 acres of GHMA (see Appendix A, Map 2). These are further broke down into Treatment Focus Areas for management purposes (see Appendix A, Map 3). The population area also encompasses the Sheeprocks SGMA identified by the UDWR. Within the greater sage-grouse population area, vegetation ranges from low-elevation (5,200 feet) Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) stands dominated with an understory of cheatgrass or areas converted to agricultural to high-elevation (8,000 feet) diverse mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) communities. There are 10 known leks within the Sheeprocks greater sage-grouse population area. Lek counts conducted from 2004 to 2013 estimated a population between 200 and 760 birds (50 to 190 males). In 2015, there were only 23 males counted (UDWR unpublished in Chalek and Messmer 2016). This population area is on the eastern edge of Tooele and Juab Counties and falls within Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Management Zone III (Stiver et al. 2006). The Sheeprocks population is a

40 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA relatively isolated population and may encompass two lek complexes that have distinct home ranges (Robinson 2007). This population’s primary threats are cheatgrass invasion, wildfire, pinyon/juniper encroachment, localized recreational impacts, predation, and localized wild horse impacts. Currently, greater sage-grouse populations in the analysis area are in a significant decline and management hardtriggers defined by the Utah Greater-Sage Grouse ARMPA have been tripped (i.e., Lambda16 < 1 in 8 years of a 10-year window). Given the severity of declining greater sage-grouse trends in population and the concern of possible localized extirpation, translocation of captured greater sage- grouse from two other Utah populations (i.e., Box Elder and Parker Mountain) to three leks within the analysis area was performed by UDWR, BLM, Utah State University, and other partners in 2016 to augment numbers and bolster reproduction. The translocation project is scheduled to capture and release more greater sage-grouse in 2017 and 2019. All birds are radioed collared and a Utah State University research project is being conducted to investigate and track seasonal individual movements and landscape use; nesting and reproduction; survivorship; and habitat characteristics (Chalek and Messmer 2016). This information will be useful in identifying and implementing future vegetation treatments to improve sagebrush habitat conditions for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate wildlife species. Historically, grazing was the primary use in the area and continues to occur throughout the population area from spring to fall. Greater sage-grouse hunting was discontinued in the early 1990s due to decreasing lek counts. Wild horses use portions of the northwest portion of the area. Increasing human populations in Utah Valley and adjacent areas contribute to increasing recreational use of the miles of roads that transect the landscape. Due to the prevalence of cheatgrass at lower elevations, wildland fire has impacted the area and is a future concern. Other disturbances include various right-of-ways with train tracks, power lines, roads, and pipelines. 3.2.2 Desired Conditions As described above, greater sage-grouse require habitat with an overstory of sagebrush and a robust understory of large perennial grasses, with access to meadow/riparian habitats to meet their nesting, brood-rearing, fall and winter year-round cover and forage needs. Goals, Objectives, and Management Actions are identified within Section 2.1.1 Special Status Species in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c). Goal SSS-1 states “Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in collaboration with other conservation partners.” Specific habitat objectives provided by the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA are summarized in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Habitat Objectives for the Sheeprock Greater Sage-Grouse Population Area (BLM 2015c)

Attribute Indicators Desired Conditions Breeding and Nesting (February 15 – June 15) Trees absent or uncommon on shrub/grassland Lek Proximity to trees ecological sites within 1.8 miles (approx. 3 Security kilometers) of occupied leks. Proximity of sagebrush to leks Has adjacent sagebrush cover. >80% of the mapped nesting habitat meets the Cover % of seasonal habitat meeting desired conditions recommended vegetation characteristics,

16 Lamda is the population change from a given Year 1 to the following Year 2 by dividing the total PHMA males counted in Year 2 by the total males counted in Year 1. If the result equals one (1) there was no change in the population level. A lamda that exceeds one (>1) means the population is growing. A lamda that is less than one (<1) indicates a declining population (BLM 2015c, Appendix I).

41 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Attribute Indicators Desired Conditions where appropriate (relative to ecological site potential, etc.). Sagebrush cover >15% Total shrub cover 15-35% Sagebrush height >12 inches (30 cm) >50% in spreading (applicable to the specific sagebrush types prone to columnar vs. Predominant sagebrush shape spreading shape e.g., Wyoming, not black Sage) Perennial grass cover (such as native bunchgrasses, rhizomatous grasses called for on applicable >10% ecological site descriptions, or other perennial grasses that provide similar functionality Perennial grass and forb height (includes residual Provide overhead and lateral concealment from grasses) predators. Perennial forb canopy cover >5% Brood-Rearing/Summer (April 15-August 15) >40% of the mapped brood-rearing/summer habitat meets recommended habitat % of Seasonal habitat meeting desired condition characteristics where appropriate (relative to ecological site potential, etc.) Sagebrush cover >10% Cover Total shrub cover 10-30% Sagebrush height >12 inches (30 cm) Perennial grass cover and forbs >15% Riparian areas/mesic meadows Proper Functioning Condition Preferred forbs are common with several Upland and riparian perennial forb availability preferred species present Winter (November 15-March 15) >80% of the mapped wintering habitat meets % of seasonal habitat meeting desired conditions winter habitat characteristics where appropriate Cover and (relative to ecological site, etc.). Food Sagebrush cover above snow >10% Sagebrush height above snow >10 inches (25 cm)

3.3 Migratory Birds A diverse variety of migratory bird species use various habitats within or reasonable near the analysis area for breeding, nesting, and foraging. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 with eagle species afforded additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Under Executive Order 13186, federal agencies are responsible for implementing the provisions of the MBTA by promoting conservation principles and management practices. Federal agencies must ensure that federal actions are evaluated for potential impacts on migratory birds. Review of the USFWS IPaC Information, Planning, Conservation System website (2016) identified 28 migratory birds of concern that may occur and/or potentially be affected by activities within or reasonably near actions proposed within the analysis area. This is not an exhaustive list but does provide an adequate cross section of species and habitats representative of the analysis area. Table 8 lists those species and

42 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA provides additional BLM, USFWS, and UDWR status information. The analysis area falls within USFWS Bird Conservation Region 9.

Table 8: Migratory birds that may occur within the analysis area

Species Names Season Habitat Description BLM USFWS UDWR American Bittern Breeding Marshes, reedy lakes n/a BCC SGCN (Botaurus lentiginous) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Rivers and large lakes; migration and SGCN Wintering SSS BCC leucocephalus) wintering, mountains and open country SS Black-rosey Finch Open mountains, foothills, plains, Year-round n/a BCC SGCN (Leucosticte atrat) deserts, open country Brewer’s Sparrow Desert, Shrubland/ chaparral; Strongly Breeding n/a BCC n/a (Spizella breweri) associated with sagebrush Burrowing Owl (Athene SGCN Breeding Desert, grassland, savanna; burrows SSS BCC cuncicularia) SS Calliope Hummingbird Desert, forest edge; open shrubby Breeding n/a BCC n/a (Stellula calliope) montane forests, mountain meadows Cassin’s Finch Open conifer forest; may winter at lower Year-round n/a BCC n/a (Carpodacus cassinii) elevation scrub Eared Grebe (Podiceps Breeding Prairie lakes, ponds n/a BCC n/a nigricollis) Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo SGCN Year-round Desert, cliffs, open country SSS BCC regalis) SS Flammulated Owl (Otus Open conifer forest, standing snag, Breeding n/a BCC SGCN flammeolus) hollow tree Fox Sparrow (Passerella Dense thickets in conifer and mixed Breeding n/a BCC n/a iliaca) woodlands Golden Eagle (Aquila Open to semi open country, cliffs, Year-round SSS BCC SGCN chrysaetos) desert to alpine Pinyon-juniper woodlands, scrub oak, Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior) Breeding n/a n/a n/a brushy slopes SGCN Greater Sage-grouse Year-round Sagebrush plains SSS BCC SS Lewis’s Woodpecker Open, burned, or logged forests, SGCN (Melanerpes Breeding usually of ponderosa pine or oak, river SSS BCC SS Urophasianus) groves, oak savanna Loggerhead Shrike Open country with scattered trees; Year-round n/a BCC n/a (Lanius ludovicianus) suitable hunting perches Long-billed Curlew Breeding Rangeland, grassland SSS BCC SS (Numenius americanus) Olive-sided Flycatcher Breeding Various forest and woodland habitat n/a BCC SGCN (Contopus cooperi) Peregrine Falcon (Falco Open country from mountains to coast, Year-round n/a BCC SGCN peregrinus) cliffs Pinyon Jay (Gymnorhinus Year-round Pinyon-juniper woodland n/a BCC n/a cyanocephalus) Sage Thrasher Breeding Sagebrush, mesas n/a BCC n/a (Oreoscoptes montanus)

43 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Species Names Season Habitat Description BLM USFWS UDWR Short-eared Owl (Asio Grasslands, marshes, dunes; Roosts Wintering SSS BCC n/a flammeus) on ground Snowy Plover (Charadrius Beaches, sandy flats, alkaline Breeding SSS BCC SGCN alexandrines) lakeshores Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo Open hills, plains, grasslands, Breeding n/a BCC n/a swainsoni) agriculture Virginia’s Warbler Pinyon-juniper, brushy slopes, oak Breeding n/a BCC n/a (Vermivora virginae) canyons Western Grebe (Aechmophorus Breeding Rushy lakes n/a BCC n/a occidentalis) Williams Sapsucker Breeding Coniferous forests n/a BCC n/a (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) Willow Flycatcher SGCN Breeding Bushes, willow thickets n/a BCC (Empidonax trallii) SS Western Yellow-billed Riparian woodlands (primarily SGCN Cuckoo (Coccyzus Breeding SSS BCC cottonwoods) SS americanus)* Table 8 Notes: SSS = BLM Utah Special Status Species; BCC = USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern; Region 9 (USFWS 2008); SGCN = Utah Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2015a); SS = Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2015c).* = Yellow-billed Cuckoo is a federally listed “Threatened” species and discussed further in Section 3.4 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species. Habitat descriptions in Table 8 come from: Peterson 2010 and NatureServe 2015. 3.3.1 Species That May Benefit from Focused Greater Sage-Grouse Management Applying the greater sage-grouse umbrella strategy, the following species from Table 8 occur within the analysis area and are anticipated to benefit from improved sagebrush/grass composition, structure, and distribution and from overall conservation practices afforded to greater sage-grouse. Therefore no species specific discussions regarding the following species is carried forward within the EA (Chapter 4):: American bittern, bald eagle, black-rosey finch, Brewer’s sparrow, calliope hummingbird, Cassin’s finch, eared grebe, flammulated owl, fox sparrow, golden eagle, Lewis’s woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, olive- sided flycatcher, peregrine falcon, sage thrasher, short-eared owl, snowy plover, Swainson’s hawk, western grebe, Williams sapsucker, willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. For the remaining species that may be negatively affected by vegetation treatments, see subsection 3.3.2 below. 3.3.2 Species That May Be Negatively Affected by Focused Greater Sage-Grouse Management The species discussed below are those that occur within the analysis area that may be negatively impacted from greater sage-grouse habitat focused management to improve composition, structure, and distribution of sagebrush/grass habitat (see Chapter 4 for more details on potential impacts). This is not an exhaustive list, but does provide an adequate cross section for other species that may be associated with those habitats as well. Burrowing Owls: The burrowing owl is small terrestrial crepuscular owl that nests and roosts in underground burrows in open and short-grass habitats. It is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America, found in open areas with short vegetation and bare ground in desert, grassland, and shrub-steppe environments. Burrowing owls are opportunistic feeders, primarily taking arthropods, small mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The forage in a variety of habitats, including cropland,

44 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA pasture, prairie dog colonies, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated areas. Vegetation greater than 3.3 feet (1 meter) tall may be too tall for burrowing owls to locate or catch prey. They have a moderate to high site fidelity to general breeding areas and to particular nest burrows (Klute et al. 2003). Burrowing owls require a mammal burrow or natural cavity surrounded by sparse vegetation. They use a wide variety of arid and semi-arid environments, with well-drained, level to gently sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground. Nesting habitat consists of open areas with mammal burrows (Klute et al. 2003). Recommended habitat features include large, contiguous areas of treeless, native grasslands. However, because burrowing owls forage over tall grass and nest and roost in short grass, a mosaic of grassland habitats are important (Klute et al. 2003). Ferruginous Hawk: The ferruginous hawk is large member of the Buteo family of hawks that can be found in the analysis area. Habitat can be characterized as flat and rolling terrain in grassland or shrub steppe comprising of grasslands, agriculture lands, sagebrush/saltbush/greasewood shrub lands, and at the periphery of pinyon-juniper forests. During winter, ferruginous hawks use open farmlands, grasslands, deserts, and other arid regions. Nesting starts generally in March or April depending on latitude. Nest substrates vary throughout its range but show a propensity for trees and shrubs but will also use cliffs, utility structures, and ground outcrops. Bulky sticks (e.g., sagebrush) are used for nest construction and through time nests become very large. Primary prey items are small mammals such as rabbits, prairie dogs, and ground squirrels (Parrish et al. 1999). Gray Vireo: The gray vireo is a warbler-sized, migratory passerine, considered to be an obligate of semi mature, relatively weed-free, pinyon-juniper, juniper, or oak woodlands that are relatively “open” with a shrubby understory. Woodlands with moderate to steep slopes appear to be a critical factor. Elevation does not appear to be a critical factor as long as the preferred habitat type is present. Proximity to water is not essential. The gray vireo is a lower canopy gleaning insectivore, foraging for insects just above ground level to about 10-feet (Parrish et al. 2002). This species is not identified on the USFWS Birds of Conservation list for Region 9; the Utah Greatest Species of Concern list; nor the BLM Special Status Species list. It is being discussed because it was identified as one out of 28 migratory bird species identified through review of the USFWS Region 6, IPaC Information, Planning, Conservation System website, that may occur within the analysis area. Although they are not on any of the above lists, they are protected by the MBTA. Long-billed Curlew: Long-billed curlew is the largest North American shorebird. Their habitat is some of the simplest, most open habitat available, avoiding trees, tall weedy vegetation and tall dense shrubs during the breeding season (Fellows and Jones 2009). Nesting habitat requirements include: short grass (less than 12 inches (30 centimeters) tall), a bare ground component, shade, and abundant vertebrate prey (Parrish et al. 2002). Cheatgrass is an invasive grass found throughout the breeding range of long-billed curlews (Fellows and Jones 2009) and is found throughout the lower elevations of the analysis area. Pinyon Jay: The pinyon jay is a gregarious, robin-sized bird common to pinyon-juniper forests of Utah (UDWR 2015a), but also use scrub oak and sagebrush (NatureServe 2015). They are often found in large loose flocks with each flock having their established home range, but may become somewhat nomadic and move long distances when food is scarce. Their diet consists primarily of pinyon and other pine seed, but also includes berries, small seeds, grains, and insects. Nests are located in trees, usually conifers, about 5 to 30 feet off the ground (UDWR 2015a). Virginia’s Warbler: The Virginia’s warbler is a small, migratory passerine. In Utah, the primary breeding habitat is oak with the secondary breeding habitat as pinyon-juniper. Typically this species requires scrubby hillsides where a herbaceous or woody understory is well developed. Lower mountain habitats with dense stands of Gambel’s oak and relatively high slope are preferred for breeding, although mountain mahogany, riparian areas, ponderosa pine forests, and pinyon-juniper woodlands, all with shrubby under stories, are also used for breeding (Parrish et al. 2002).

45 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 3.4 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or Special Status Animal Species BLM Manual 6840 provides policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM Special Status Species and the ecosystems upon which they depend on BLM-administered lands. BLM Special Status Species are: (1) species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act and (2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species Act, which are designated as BLM sensitive by the State Director(s). All Federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting are conserved as BLM sensitive species. BLM special status terrestrial wildlife species within the analysis area are also discussed above in Section 3.3. Other species of concern not discussed above but identified as a BLM special status species that may be affected by proposed actions include kit fox and pygmy rabbit that do or have the potential occur within the analysis area. Table 9 lists threatened, endangered, candidate, or special status species located within Utah.

Table 9: Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species that may occur within the analysis area. Federal BLM Utah Species Name Habitat Description Status Status Status Birds Rivers and large lakes; migration and wintering, mountains SGCN Bald eagle n/a SSS and open country SS SGCN Burrowing owl Desert, grassland, savanna; burrows n/a SSS SS California Condor Small (~72) population has been established in northern SGCN (Gymnogyps Arizona and southern Utah since 1996 through releases of E, EX SSS SS californicus) captive-reared birds. Found statewide in suitable grassland and shrub-steppe habitats, usually in lower elevations (<7,000’). Found in grassland and shrub-steppe habitats. Juniper trees are the SGCN Ferruginous hawk n/a SSS primary nesting substrate in Utah, but will also nest on the SS ground or power line structures. Preys primarily on rabbits and ground squirrels. Golden eagle Open to semi open country, cliffs, desert to alpine n/a SSS SGCN A sagebrush obligate species dependent on sagebrush SGCN Greater sage-grouse ecosystems for breeding, brood rearing, and winter n/a SSS SS survival. Primary breeding habitat is open ponderosa pine forest with a shrub/grass understory. Secondary breeding habitat SGCN Lewis’ woodpecker n/a SSS includes aspen patches surrounded by shrubs, and riparian SS cottonwood bottoms. Long-billed curlew Rangeland,, grassland n/a SSS SS Grasslands, marshes, and dunes. Roosts on ground, rarely Short-eared owl n/a SSS in trees. Nests on coastal beaches, and inland at salt flats, playas, Snowy plover n/a SSS SGCN river sandbars, alkaline lakes, and agricultural ponds. Prefers thick riparian vegetative communities with dense Western Yellow-billed SGCN overstory of mature trees. No critical habitat within or T SSS cuckoo SS reasonably near the analysis area.

46 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Federal BLM Utah Species Name Habitat Description Status Status Status Mammals The species often roosts and forms maternity colonies in massive sandstone cliffs near bodies of open water in a variety of habitats. It is presumed that big free-tailed bats migrate out of Utah for the winter. Generally considered Big Free-Tailed Bat rare in Utah, although they can be locally common. SGCN (Nyctinomops n/a SSS Distribution is widespread, but discontinuous, from western SS macrotis) North America to South America. Capture records in Utah are primarily from the southern half of the state. However, in recent years, capture and acoustic records have expanded the known range over much of eastern Utah. Found in isolated habitat islands in desert areas of the Dark kangaroo mouse Great Basin. Habitat generally consists of sandy, semi- SGCN (Microdipodops desert shrubland with sparse vegetative cover. In Utah, the n/a SSS SS megacephalus) species is most often found in stabilized dunes found along the margins of historical Lake Bonneville. Uncommon in Utah. Abundance varies locally. Found a Fringed myotis (Myotis variety of habitats most often in desert and woodland areas. SGCN n/a SSS thysanodes) Maternity roosts have been reported in caves, mines, and SS buildings. The species hibernates in caves and crevices. Kit fox (Vulpes Found in desert areas dominated by sagebrush, desert SGCN n/a SSS macrotis) scrub, or grasslands. SS Pygmy rabbits are considered a sagebrush obligate requiring areas with tall dense sagebrush. Utah’s known Pygmy rabbit pygmy rabbit distribution can be divided into 5 core areas SGCN (Brachylagus n/a SSS that appear geographically separated from each other: Rich SS idahoensis) County; Box Elder County; Ibapah Valley; Southern Great Basin; and valleys of the Sevier and Awapa Plateaus. Associated with cliffs and rocky escarpments, where it roosts in cracks and crevices, probably singly or in small Spotted bat (Euderma SGCN groups. Wintering habits are unknown. This species is likely n/a SSS maculatum) SS present statewide, although it is most prevalent in the extreme southern portions of Utah. Townsend’s big-eared Generally rare in Utah, but found throughout the State. Use SGCN bat (Corynorhinus caves and mines year- round both for maternity colonies n/a SSS SS townsendii) and hibernacula. Extremely rare. Roosts in the foliage of deciduous trees, Western red bat with most records from riparian areas. The historical SGCN n/a SSS (Lasiurus blossevillii) records in Utah occur in a north–south band from extreme SS north-central Utah to the extreme southwest. Table 9 Notes: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; P = Proposed; EX = Experimental population; SSS = BLM Utah Special Status Species; SGCN = Utah Species of Greatest Conservation Need (UDWR 2015a); SS = Utah Sensitive Species (UDWR 2015c). Habitat descriptions in Table 9 come from: UDWR 2015a; UDWR 2005; Peterson 2010; UDWR website; USFWS Region 6 website; and NatureServe 2015. Kit Fox: The kit fox is the smallest member of the canid family in North America. They are a highly specialized animal adapted to desert and semi-arid areas of western North America. In Utah, kit foxes live

47 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA in cold desert regions at elevations below 5,500 feet. These desert areas tend to be cold in the winter and hot in the summer with under 10 inches of precipitation annually (UDWR 2010). Kit fox habitat is characterized sagebrush, desert scrub, or grasslands (UDWR 2015a). These low growing shrubby communities provide excellent cover for the kit fox. They are opportunistic omnivores. Black-tailed jackrabbits, cottontails and kangaroo rats are the main food items eaten but they also eat grasshoppers, horned toads, lizards, rodents, and ground nesting birds, grasses and fruits. Water is obtained from the body fluids of their prey. Kit foxes live in dens dug in the desert soil. Kit foxes have definite preferences and permanent ties to specific den sites. Habitat loss and disturbance are the biggest threats to kit fox populations (UDWR 2010). Pygmy Rabbit: Smallest of all North American rabbits, they are about half the mass of a mountain cottontail. Pygmy rabbits are considered a sagebrush obligate requiring areas with tall dense sagebrush. They primarily eat sagebrush, but other vegetation is also consumed (UDWR 2015a). The presence/or absence is not known within the analysis area, but it is generally accepted that because it is a sagebrush obligate, it habitat range overlaps with the greater sage-grouse. In Utah, their population status is unknown, but it is likely that while current distribution is similar to historical range, abundance has decreased (UDWR 2015a). 3.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species Wildlife excluding special status species represents the majority of sagebrush-steppe ecosystem fauna found within the analysis area. The analysis area serves as habitat for a multitude of wildlife species ranging from big game, small game and non-game species such as pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus Canadensis nelsoni), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), great basin rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus lutosus), coyote (Canis latrans), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and great basin collared lizard (Crotaphytus bicinctores). It can be suspected that possibly over 300 other species exist within the analysis area. These populations more than likely fluctuate with the availability and productivity of habitat quality/quantity influenced by land management practices, drought, wildfire, predation, and human disturbance for example. Big game species such as mule deer, elk, and pronghorn are an important species because of hunting and viewing which is a highly pursued activity in Utah. The success of big game species can be attributed to habitat conditions, the availability of resources, and the level of human disturbance activities. 3.5.1 Mule Deer Summarized from the Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan (UDWR 2014), Mule deer are adaptable to a wide variety of habitats throughout their range. Deer eat a wide variety of plants including browse, forbs and grasses. Deer are especially reliant on shrubs for forage during critical winter months. Fawn production is closely tied to the abundance of succulent, green forage during the spring and summer months. Habitat also includes a distribution of thick brush and trees that are used for escape cover, whereas interspersed openings provide forage and feeding areas. The size and condition of mule deer populations are primarily determined by the quantity and quality of habitat. Lack of quality habitat has been associated with decreased survival and recruitment of fawns, increased age at first reproduction, decreased reproductive output, and decreased survival by adults. Threats to the quality and quantity of mule deer habitat can be limited by a variety of factors that include encroachment of pinyon and juniper forests that chokes out understory forbs and shrubs and increases catastrophic wildfire; and annual weeds such as cheatgrass that alter natural fire cycles by increasing fire frequencies, often resulting in shrublands being converted to annual grasslands. Primary issue is the loss and degradation of habitat. Applicable UDWR Habitat Goals and Objectives:

48 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

 Habitat Management Goal: Conserve, improve, and restore mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges.  Objective 1: Maintain mule deer habitat throughout the state by protecting and enhancing existing crucial habitats and mitigating for losses due to natural and human impacts.  Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range by 2019. 3.5.2 Elk Summarized from the Utah Elk Management Plan (UDWR 2015b), the Rocky Mountain Elk was designated as Utah’s state animal in 1971. Healthy and productive elk herds require high amounts of quality habitat. Elk are a generalist ungulate, and have a varied diet which consists of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The percentage of each food type can vary based on availability. This flexible diet allows elk to live in a variety of habitat types including all of Utah’s mountains as well as some of the low deserts. Although elk inhabit most habitat types in Utah, they prefer to spend their summers at high elevations in aspen conifer forests. Elk spend the winter months at mid to low elevation habitats that contain mountain shrub and sagebrush communities. The UDWR has a long history of restoring and enhancing elk habitat in Utah. The habitat section, habitat council, watershed restoration initiative, and many conservation partners have provided leadership and funding to improve elk habitats. These projects have included pinyon/juniper removal, controlled burns, reseeding efforts after wildfires, conifer thinning, etc., which have allowed for increased perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs to be established for the benefit of elk and other wildlife. Water is also an important component of elk habitat, and the lack of sufficient water distribution could limit the number of elk in certain areas of Utah. Primary issue is the amount of quality habitat. Applicable UDWR Habitat Goals and Objectives:  Habitat Management Goal: Conserve and improve elk habitat throughout the state.  Objective 1: Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock.  Objective 2: Reduce adverse impacts to elk herds and elk habitat. 3.5.3 Pronghorn Summarized from the Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan (UDWR 2009), in Utah nearly all pronghorn populations occur in shrub-steppe habitat. Large expanses of open, low rolling or flat terrain characterize the topography of most of those habitats. Of particular importance in sustaining pronghorn populations is a strong forb component in the vegetative mix. The presence of succulent forbs is essential to lactating does and thus fawn survival during the spring and early summer. High quality browse, protruding above snow level, is especially critical to winter survival of pronghorn. Although pronghorn obtain much of the water needs when forbs are readily available, free water sources are important to long- term population viability. A critical limiting factor in much of Utah’s pronghorn habitat is the lack of succulent forbs and grasses on spring/summer ranges. Applicable UDWR Habitat Goals and Objectives:  Habitat Management Goal: Assure sufficient habitat is available to sustain healthy and productive pronghorn populations.  Objective: Maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of pronghorn habitat to allow populations to increase. 3.6 Fuels/Fire Management Pinyon and juniper woodlands have increased substantially throughout the analysis area over the past 130 to 150 years. Miller et al. 2008, found that 99 percent of the trees in the East Tintic Mountains, which are on the eastern edge of the analysis area, established less than 140 years ago (Miller et al. 2008). Historic photos, taken either within or adjacent to the analysis area, show few trees on the landscape during early

49 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA settlement (see Appendix D.1: Historical Photographs, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7). Without disturbance such as fire or fire surrogate treatments these woodlands will continue to mature and expand leading to increased fuel loading and nearly closed canopy conditions within the next 50 years (Miller et al. 2008). Fire plays a critical role in shaping vegetative composition and structure. Fire suppression throughout the Great Basin has contributed to higher densities of trees and shrubs, increased ladder fuels and excessive fuel loading which has pushed some ecosystems fire regimes outside their historic range of variability. Juniper and pinyon trees once held to lower densities by more frequent fires, have expanded in range and moved into areas once dominated by shrubs, forbs and grasses (Tausch et al. 2009). As a result, these areas are prone to larger, higher-intensity wildfires than experienced historically. Areas that have been disturbed contain a component of exotic annual grass (e.g., cheatgrass) that accelerates the spread of wildfire growth and increases the likelihood of a frequent wildfire return interval. Wildland fire, conifer encroachment, and exotic annual grasses have all been identified as ‘present and widespread’ threats to the Sheeprocks greater sage-grouse population (see COT Report (USFWS 2013) and Utah Greater Sage- Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015c)). 3.6.1 Fire History The occurrence of wildland fire varies from year-to-year. Fire frequency and size depend on a range of abiotic and biotic factors, including elevation, topography, seasonal weather patterns, vegetative composition and structure, fuel moisture content, and fuel continuity. Numerous wildland fires have occurred within the analysis area over the past 30 years, especially within Juab County. Table 10 shows a breakdown of fire size and number of fires greater than 1 acre burned, within (wholly or partially) the analysis area since the mid-1970s (see Appendix A, Map 12). While most of these fires have been controlled while still small in size, fire size and occurrence continues to increase, placing fire fighters and resources, especially priority habitat for greater sage-grouse, at risk. Three wildfires larger than 100 acres occurred within the analysis area during the 2016 fire season: North Moore Fire (1,414 acres) in June; Railroad Fire (153 acres) in August; and the West Government Creek Fire (4,338 acres) in September.

Table 10: Number of fires larger than 1 acres within (wholly or partially) the analysis area since the mid-1970s Fire Size (acres) Number of Fires 1 to 49 36 50 to 99 9 100 to 499 27 500 to 999 16 1,000 to 4,999 47 5,000 to 9,999 16 10,000+ 16 Total Fires >1 acre 167

3.6.2 Past Fuels and Vegetation Treatments The West Desert District has implemented approximately 54,000 acres of fuels and vegetation treatments within the analysis area since 2004 (see Appendix A, Map 13). Some of these previously implemented acres are re-treatments of acreage that had been treated at least once before (e.g., second entry into areas that had prior fuels treatments). Past treatments have included mastication, lop & scatter, harrowing, disking, mowing, biomass removal, herbicide application, prescribed burning, and seeding. These treatments generally focused on reducing the quantity, depth, and both vertical and horizontal continuity

50 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA of fuels to mitigate potential fire behavior and severity. However; these treatments also provided some direct and indirect benefits to sagebrush habitat by removing expanding and infilling juniper, increasing the diversity and productivity of native plant understory, controlling invasive species, and improving soil site stability and hydrologic function. 3.6.3 Fire Regime/Condition Class A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993, Brown 1995). Fire regimes are used as part of the fire regime condition class (FRCC) discussion to describe fire frequency (average number of years between fires) and fire severity (effect of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation: low, mixed, or stand replacement). These regimes represent fire intervals prior to Euro-American settlement and are calculated and classified by analyzing natural vegetation and known fire cycles (Hann and Bunnell 2001). The analysis area is characterized primarily by fire regime groups III, IV, and V (see Table 11). A general description of each fire regime group is provided in Table 12. FRCC is a classification system that describes the amount of departure an area or landscape has experienced from its historic regime to the present condition (Hann and Bunnell 2001). It is used to classify existing ecosystems by looking at the condition of ecosystem components. Departures from the historic fire regimes are caused by fire exclusion, timber harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects and disease, and other management activities. Wildland fire and fuels management works towards modifying fire behavior to protect identified values at risk from wildfire. The condition class in the analysis area varies across the landscape with all three condition classes (1, 2, and 3) present (see Table 11). A general description of each condition class is provided in Table 13.

Table 11: Fire Regime and Condition Class acreage within the analysis area (LANDFIRE)

Fire Regime Conditions Class Acres 1 2 712 1 3 356 3 1 42,293 3 2 79,930 3 3 13,280 4 2 322,687 4 3 373,269 5 2 46,934 5 3 90,708

Table 12: General description of the five fire regime groups (Hann and Bunnell 2001) Fire Regime Natural Historic Frequency Severity Group (Fire Return Interval) I Frequent (0-35 years) Low II Frequent (0-35 years) Stand replacement III Less Frequent (35-100 years) Mixed IV Less Frequent (35-100 years) Stand replacement V Infrequent (> 100 years) Stand replacement

51 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Table 13: General description of the three fire regime condition classes (Hann and Bunnell 2001) Condition Departure from Description Class HRV or NRV Vegetation composition, structure, and fuels are similar to those of the historic regime and do not pre-dispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem None, Minimal, components. Wildland fires are characteristic of the historical fire regime behavior, 1 Low severity, and patterns. Disturbance agents, native species habitats, and hydrologic functions are within the historical range of variability. Smoke production potential is low in volume. Vegetation composition, structure, and fuels have moderate departure from the historic regime and predispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Wildland fires are moderately uncharacteristic compared to the 2 Moderate historical fire regime behaviors, severity, and patterns. Disturbance agents, native species habitats, and hydrologic functions are outside the historical range of variability. Smoke production potential has increased moderately in volume and duration. Vegetation composition, structure, and fuels have high departure from the historic regime and predispose the system to high risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Wildland fires are highly uncharacteristic compared to the historical fire 3 High regime behaviors, severity, and patterns. Disturbance agents, native species habitats, and hydrologic functions are substantially outside the historical range of variability. Smoke production potential has increased with risks of high volume production of long duration.

3.6.4 Communities at Risk (Wildland Urban Interface) There are numerous wildland urban interface (WUI) communities both within and near the analysis area. The intermixed landscape of public, state, and private lands means wildland fires have the potential to spread onto private property, destroying homes and valued landscapes. The BLM coordinates with other federal, state, county, and local agencies, and participates in proactive community projects to reduce wildfire risks and damages. Table 14 lists the eight communities within the analysis area that are included on the most recent Communities at Risk list published in 2016 by the Utah FF&SL. The “Overall Score” represents the sum of multiple risk factors analyzed for each community (e.g., fire history, local vegetation, and firefighting capabilities). The overall score can range from 0 (no risk) to 12 (extreme risk).

Table 14: Communities at Risk within the analysis area (Utah FF&SL 2016)

Community Name County Overall Risk Score Big Hollow Tooele 9 Lofgreen Tooele 8 Ophir Tooele 10 Rush Valley/Clover Tooele 10 South Willow Tooele 8 Stockton Tooele 9 Terra Tooele 10 Tintic Junction Juab 7

52 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 3.6.5 Trends Over the past century, the combination of wildfire suppression, climate change, and shifting land use patterns has altered the natural cycle and role of fire and reduced the frequency of small, low-intensity wildland fires. This has resulted in increased fuel loading and changes in vegetation community composition and structure. The main changes in what were historically sagebrush dominated shrub lands is the presence of cheatgrass in the understory and expansion and infilling of pinyon and juniper. Wildland fires, when they do occur in these areas, are larger in size, burn with greater intensities that put firefighters at risk, and are more difficult to control. In areas of cheatgrass dominance fires burn more frequently, are fast moving, and grow large quickly because fuels are continuous, fine, and flashy. 3.7 Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species The dominant land cover type in the analysis area is sagebrush steppe, which occupies over 42 percent of the analysis area. Pinyon/juniper woodlands are the second most dominant land cover type comprising over 24 percent of the analysis area. Due to fire, cheatgrass invasion, and conifer expansion and infilling, sagebrush is declining. Vegetation treatments are helping to curb these threats and restore sagebrush on the landscape. The acreages of all of the vegetative communities present within the analysis area are shown in Table 15. Complete descriptions of each vegetative community can be found on the LANDFIRE website. There are a variety of perennial grasses present in the area including: bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), needle-and-thread grass (Hespoerostipa comata), muttongrass (Poa fendleriana), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Introduced grass species include crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and Russian wildrye (Elymus junceus). The exotic annual cheatgrass is present throughout much of the area. Dominant shrubs are Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). Other shrubs in the area include rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa spp.), low rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Stansbury cliffrose (Pursia stansburiana), horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa). In association with the grasses and shrubs, common forb species include longleaf phlox (Phlox longifolia), buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), tapertip onion (Allium acuminatum), long-leaf hawksbeard (Crepis acuminata), and globemallow (Sphaeralcea spp.).

Table 15: Vegetative classifications within the analysis area (Landfire.gov) Landfire Vegetation Classification Acres Percent (%) Sagebrush Steppe 416,148 42.5 Pinyon Juniper Woodland 236,736 24.2 Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual Grassland 119,845 12.2 Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 76,662 7.8 Agriculture/Developed 30,991 3.2 Greasewood Flat 23,588 2.4 Introduced Upland Vegetation-Grassland and Forbland 15,909 1.6 Grassland 13,931 1.4 Semi Desert Shrub Steppe 13,152 1.3 Mountain Mohagony Woodland 8,819 <1 Oak Shrubland 8,372 <1 Misc. Forest/Woodland 5,327 <1

53 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Landfire Vegetation Classification Acres Percent (%) Shrublands 2,968 <1 Misc. Water, Barren, Quarry, etc. 2,557 <1 Riparian Shrub, Forest Woodland 1,405 <1 Mesic Meadow 1,337 <1 Herbaceous 776 <1 Mixed Desert Scrub 515 <1 Sparsely Vegetated 235 <1 Total 979,274 100

3.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds “Invasive species” include plants able to establish on a site where they were not present in the original plant composition, and are of particular concern following a disturbance. Invasive species aggressively outcompete native species within a community and often alter the physical and biotic components enough to deteriorate the entire ecological community. They are often exotic species that do not have naturally occurring, local predators. Invasive species make efficient use of natural resources difficult and may interfere with management objectives for that site. “Noxious weeds” are a subset of invasive species, specified by federal or State laws as being especially undesirable, troublesome, or difficult to control. Noxious weeds grow and spread in places where they interfere with the growth and production of desired species. The diversity of noxious and invasive weeds may indicate the effectiveness of current management efforts or may reflect new pressures on the land. Indicators of potential infestation areas include site disturbance, such as wildfire, road construction, and overgrazing. Many noxious and invasive weeds are aggressive early successional species that colonize recently disturbed sites. Human-caused disturbances are generally responsible for most weed infestations. Below is a brief description of the noxious and invasive weeds that may occur in the analysis area. The analysis area is near the location where Squarerose knapweed was inadvertently introduced into the State of Utah in the 1930’s. Left untreated, even after early detection, this species invaded and degraded approximately 200,000 acres of rangeland. This plant is now listed as a noxious weed and is aggressively treated in the area, mainly through the efforts of the Squarerose Cooperative Weed Management Area. Because the proposed action is a ground or land disturbing project it could have the potential for increasing the area of infestation of Squarerose knapweed. Cheatgrass also exists in portions of the analysis area and has invaded disturbed sites. As native species lose dominance in the ecosystem, invasive species such as cheatgrass, are provided an avenue to gain dominance in the system (Prevey et al. 2010). Cheatgrass then provides a fine fuel with great horizontal continuity that creates different fire regimes and behavior than native fuels would. Cheatgrass germinates early in the season, before the majority of native perennials have come out of dormancy. Cheatgrass often becomes established in the understory of a Sagebrush or Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub system and then gains dominance once a disturbance, such as fire, temporarily eliminates the native overstory competition. 3.9 Woodlands/Forestry Within the Basin and Range province, pinyon and juniper woodlands generally occupy mountains, plateaus and other higher-elevation terrain (Tueller et al. 1979); the distribution of woodlands in the West Desert follows this same pattern. Singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) are the dominant tree species in these woodlands; however, some two-needle pinyon (Pinyon edulis) and Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) occur. A large hybrid zone between singleleaf and two-needle pinyon occurs in the mountains of the West Desert due to its location along the

54 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA boundary of the Great Basin on the west and Colorado Plateau/Rocky Mountains to the east. There are isolated patches of Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) and big tooth maple (Acer grandidentatum). Curl-leaf mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia stansburniana), and other rangeland shrubs occur throughout woodlands in the analysis area. Pinyon/juniper woodlands in Great Basin are characterized by long fire rotations (greater than 400 years; [Bauer and Weisberg 2009; Romme et al. 2009]); stand dynamics are more influenced by climate, insects, and disease, than fire (Romme et al. 2009). Woodlands have expanded all across the west (Romme et al. 2009); expansion of pinyon/juniper woodlands in the Great Basin is generally by infilling (Weisberg et al. 2007). Using LANDFIRE landcover data (us_130evt; LANDFIRE 2012), the analysis area contains approximately 235,960 acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands with approximately 146,512 acres (62 percent) on BLM-managed public lands. An additional approximately 12,146 acres of other forests types (e.g., cottonwood, willow, mixed conifer, aspen) are less common, with only 5,298 acres of these forest types occurring on public lands. This layer utilized imagery from 2010 and misses more recent fires and other vegetation treatments which resulted in type conversion to grassland or sagebrush. There are three established woodcutting units on BLM-managed public lands in the analysis area: Boulter Wash (233 acres), Hill Springs (240 acres), and Cottonwood Canyon (201 acres). Additional units have been proposed. The Fillmore Field Office does not have established woodcutting units; however, permits wood cutting in areas within the field office where not prohibited by the House Range RMP. The West Desert District fills requests for cordwood, post and poles, specialty wood, Christmas trees, wildlings, and pinyon nuts. Further, the two field offices serve 86.8 percent of the population (2010 census) of the state of Utah. Requests for permits for forestry resources have increased over the past five years. 3.10 Soils Soils of the analysis area have been studied, mapped, and described as part of three official soil surveys, completed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS):  Fairfield-Nephi Area, Parts of Juab, Sanpete, and Utah Counties, Utah  Tooele Area, Utah - Tooele County & Parts of Box Elder, Davis & Juab Counties, Utah, and Parts of White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada  West Millard-Juab Area, Utah - Parts of Millard and Juab Counties, Utah Each of the surveys describes soil map units, their individual components, and provide interpretive information on soil use and management. Table 16 lists the major soil map units within the analysis area. Map units that contain two or more different soils are listed as associations or complexes. Specific soil descriptions are available in published and electronic form through the NRCS Web Soil Survey. Soil series descriptions can also be found at the NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification website and by clicking the hyperlinks provided in Table 16 for each soil series. The majority of the soils in the analysis area are formed in alluvium, colluvium, and residuum derived from limestone, sandstone, quartzite, igneous rock, sedimentary rock, and lacustrine deposits. Soils occur primarily on alluvial fans, lake terraces, hills, and mountainsides. The majority of individual soils within the analysis area has a low-to-medium potential for surface soil erosion, and are moderately to excessively well-drained due to the presence of some rock fragment in the soil horizon. Rock fragments help to stabilize soils and allow water to penetrate faster by creating macro pores and acting as a buffer to wind to minimize wind erosion.

55 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Table 16: Major soil map units within the analysis area

Map Unit Name Map Symbol

Abela very gravelly loam 2 Amtoft-Rock outcrop complex AcF Borvant cobbly & gravelly loams BgC, 7 Doyce loam 15 Fontreen-Borvant complex FfD Hiko Peak gravelly & stone sandy loams 21, HdE Hiko Peak-Taylorsflat complex 24 Jericho gravelly fine sandy loam JaD Kapod cobbly loam 35 Lodar-Lundy-Rock outcrop association 38 Lodar-Rock outcrop complex LdF Podmor-Onaqui-Rock outcrop association 47 Reywat-Broad-Rock outcrop association 48 Reywat-Rock outcrop complex ReF Saxby-Rock outcrop complex SdE Scalade-Jericho-Medbum association 55 Spager gravelly loam SoD Taylorsflat loam 64 Timpie silt loam 66 Truesdale fine sandy loam TdB Yeates Hollow cobbly loam 71

3.11 Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Health Standards The analysis area intersects all or portions of 56 livestock grazing allotments (see Appendix A, Map 14). Rangelands are grazed during every season throughout the year by cattle, sheep and both domestic and wild horses, with seasons of use varying by allotment in accordance with each Allotment Management Plan (e.g., winter grazing only, rest one year, etc.). The allotments permitted use, including animal unit month (AUM) allocations, and acres of the allotment that fall within the analysis area shown in Table 17 and Table 18, for the FFO and the SLFO, respectively. An AUM is defined as the amount of forage needed to feed one cow with a calf less than six months old for one month. Rangeland developments are present throughout the analysis area. These range improvements include vegetation treatments, wells, pipelines, troughs, ponds, fences, gates, cattleguards, corrals, and exclosures. Other structures could include weirs and weather monitoring stations. Livestock grazing developments that are on public land are authorized through range improvement permits or assignment of range improvements. There may be similar developments on private land within the grazing allotments that are owned and funded by the private land owner but used in association with their grazing operation on BLM. Grazing systems vary throughout the analysis area and include season-long and deferred/rest rotation. Rangeland Health Assessments are often associated with allotment grazing permit renewals. The purpose of these assessments is to determine the functionality of rangelands and to help determine if the BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health are being met. The four standards for BLM-administered public lands in Utah area: 1) upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity; 2) riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition; 3) desired species are maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved; and 4) BLM shall apply and comply with water quality standards established by the state.

56 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Table 17: Permitted use by grazing allotments administered by the BLM Fillmore Field Office Active Acres within Allotment Name Number Kind Season of Use AUMs Analysis Area 12 B 52 Cattle 5/1-5/31 7 213 Boulter 2,650 Sheep 5/1-6/10 715 4,145 Broad Canyon 10 Cattle 11/1-12/31 20 416 21 Cattle 11/1-11/15 Cherry Creek 313 Cattle 11/16-4/30 1,900 124 292 Cattle 5/1-5/31 684S, 1,146C Cattle/Sheep 11/1-4/30 Death Canyon 193 Cattle 10/30-11/8, 5/8-5/15 5,226 30,867 70 Cattle 5/5-5/15 Desert Mountain 416 Cattle 11/16-4/30 1,997 23,727 2,378 Sheep 5/1-6/30 Diamond Spring 576 10,406 59 Cattle 5/1-9/30 Ferner Dog Valley 342 Cattle 6/1-10/16 1,429 15,442 Garrett 52 Cattle 11/1-4/30 63 2,022 Gilson 1,101 Sheep 11/1-5/3 1,212 6,010 Jenny Lind 24 Cattle 5/21-10/5 108 1,819 Kimball Creek 806 Cattle 6/1-8/29 2,184 23,763 Lunt 15 Cattle 4/1-6/15 38 6,095 9/1-12/15 Mcintyre 689 Cattle 4,545 63,546 2/15-5/31 241 Cattle 11/1-4/30 Meadow Creek 193 Cattle 11/9-11/12, 5/4-5/7 1,322 16,458 70 Cattle 5/1-5/4 Nelson 130 Cattle 5/1-9/21 522 30 Nephi Bench 120 Cattle 10/22-1/14 248 1,886 Paint Mine 424 Cattle 10/16-12/31 1,074 3,196 905 Sheep 5/1-6/20 Rattlesnake Peak 274 6,049 75 Cattle 7/1-9/30 406 Sheep 5/1-5/30 Riley Spring 269 5,917 50 Cattle 11/1-3/15 Rocky Ford 259 Cattle 5/16-12/31 1,952 5,072 Sabie Mountain 376 Cattle 5/21-10/5 1,681 17,090 Sage Valley #17 242 Cattle 11/1-3/31 1,201 4,431 Shearing 4,324 Sheep 4/15-4/30 455 13,270 Sheep Rock 403 Cattle 5/21-10/5 1,567 25,113 12 Cattle 5/1-10/30 1582 Sheep 5/1-5/15 Spring Canyon 632 194 62 Cattle 6/1-8/31 60 Cattle 6/1-12/27

57 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Active Acres within Allotment Name Number Kind Season of Use AUMs Analysis Area Stone Quarry 750 Sheep 5/1-5/31, 11/1-11/15 225 2,133 Tintic Junction 29 C, 4 H Cattle/Horse 6/1-10/31 101 1,974 Tintic Pasture 120 Cattle 4/1-10/31 840 1,709 21 Sheep 5/1-6/20 Treasure Hill 7 1,406 2 Cattle 5/20-7/10 West Mona 239 Cattle 4/11-6/30 638 13,838

Table 18: Permitted use by grazing allotments administered by the BLM Salt Lake Field Office Active Acres within Allotment Name Number Kind Season of Use AUMs Analysis Area Ajax 82 Cattle 2/1-3/31 162 4,392 Boulter Wash 386 Cattle 11/16-5/31 2,509 38,693 2,250 Sheep 4/20-5/29 592 Broad Canyon 381 1,000 Sheep 5/30-6/15 112 Cottonwood East 117 Cattle 5/16-10-15 587 12,358 Cottonwood West 48 Cattle 5/15-10/15 243 10,604 Deseret-Rush Valley 1,554 Sheep 11/21-3/23 1,266 24,636 30 Cattle 5/1-6/15 45 East Onaqui R.C.A. 10,209 95 Cattle 11/1-4/30 568 Faust Rest Area 2 Cattle 12/1-1/31 4 21 Government Creek 750 Cattle 5/16-10/15 3,756 50,218 340 Sheep 1/16-2/25 92 Grantsville Scs 30 Cattle 11/15-4/15 152 5,595 29 Cattle 12/1-2/28 86 Hill Spring 36 Cattle 5/16-9/15 146 2,211 360 Sheep 11/15-4/10 348 Indian Springs 13,343 294 Cattle 11/15-4/10 1,421 30 Cattle 11/16-12/15 30 Mercur Can-W. Ophir 29 Cattle 3/20-5/31 70 22,447 788 Sheep 11/16-5/31 1,022 269 Cattle 5/16-9/30 1,199 Onaqui Mountain East 32,347 30 Cattle 6/16-9/30 106 Onaqui Mountain West 228 Cattle 5/16-10/15 1,146 24,583 54 Cattle 6/1-10/5 225 Ophir Canyon 30 411 Sheep 6/1-11/15 454 None Pony Express Trail Trailing Only. n/a n/a 29,077 Alloted None Rush Lake n/a n/a n/a 19,113 Alloted 45 Cattle 4/16-5/15 44 South Clover 20,733 27 Cattle 11/1-12/15 40

58 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Active Acres within Allotment Name Number Kind Season of Use AUMs Analysis Area South Deseret 83 Cattle 11/1-12/31 166 2,515 723 Cattle 11/1-4/30 4,302 South Skull Valley 93 Cattle 11/1-2/28 367 25,272 3,800 Sheep 11/1-4/30 4,522 Stockton 1,000 Sheep 4/16-9/15 262 2,810 2,029 Sheep 11/1-4/30 2,414 Toplift-Vernon Hill 43,545 275 Cattle 11/1-4/30 1,637 20 Cattle 12/1-1/30 40 Vernon 2,993 95 Cattle 11/1-2/1 145 3,090 Sheep 11/16-12/10 508 West Lookout Pass 3,075 Sheep 4/1-4/10 202 18,705 2,571 Sheep 4/11-5/15 592

3.12 Water Resources/Quality The majority of watersheds within the analysis area are intermittent or ephemeral drainages. The majority of springs and much of the surface water has developed water rights. Water is typically used for livestock watering, agricultural, mining, or domestic use. The national hydrography dataset classifies approximately 112 miles of perennial streams within the analysis area, approximately 32 miles of which occur on BLM-administered public lands. While there are misclassifications in this dataset, it does provide a good representation of the limited water resources in the area. The State of Utah, Division of Water Quality (UDWQ), has designated beneficial uses for, and determined the condition of, perennial water sources in the analysis area (and all of Utah), as found in its Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report (UDWQ 2016). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the State of Utah, through the UDWQ, to submit a list biennially to the USEPA that identified waterbodies that does not meet the state’s water quality standards. Watersheds with designated beneficial uses and current water quality standards status (303(d) list) are listed in Table 19. None of the perennial water sources on BLM-administered public lands within the analysis area are known to support fisheries. There is potential for amphibians or aquatic mollusks, but none of these are known to be sensitive species.

Table 19: State of Utah, Division of Water Quality 303(d) listed perennial water sources within the analysis area (UDWQ 2016) Impaired Watershed Status Impaired Parameter Beneficial Uses Vernon Creek and tributaries 2B, 3A, 4 Not supporting, TMDL needed pH Faust Creek and tributaries 3A Not supporting, TMDL needed temperature All others perennial water sources n/a Insufficient data n/a within the analysis area Table 19 Notes: 2B: protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. 3A: Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life. 4: protected for agricultural uses. TMDL: total maximum daily loads.

59 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 3.13 Wetlands/Riparian Zones Riparian and wetland zones occur throughout the analysis area and are associated with perennial and ephemeral water flow. Vegetation types include numerous woody species such as willow species (Salix spp.), woods rose (Rosa woodsii), and golden currant (Ribes aureum) and understory grasses and grass- like species such as sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncaceae spp.), horsetails (Equisetum spp.), and watercress (Nasturtium spp.). Riparian/wetland areas serve key functions within the watersheds. They are watering sources for wildlife including avian, mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, and insects/macro invertebrates. Many species rely on riparian areas for breeding or other key points in their life cycles. These areas are also watering sources and highly productive foraging areas for domestic livestock. Riparian and wetland plants can establish themselves associated with human created developments such as ditches, canals, and ponds. BLM Utah’s Standards for Rangeland Health requires that riparian areas must be in, or making progress toward, being in proper function condition (PFC). BLM has conducted monitoring of water resource and riparian conditions in the analysis area through proper functioning condition protocols (PFC), multiple indicator monitoring (MIM), and aquatic assessment, inventory, and monitoring (AIM). All of these survey methods are used to determine if riparian areas are in proper functioning condition. Proper functioning conditions (PFC) protocol assessments are the most comprehensive dataset for the analysis area, but consist of qualitative data and some areas have not been reassessed in over 20 years. Proper functioning condition (PFC) assessments utilize an interdisciplinary team to assess hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology of riparian areas to make a determination of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), Functioning at Risk (FAR), or Not Functioning (NF). The qualitative PFC protocol assessments can be used as an initial assessment which helps guide future monitoring. A quantitative monitoring protocol, Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM), was developed in response to recommendations from a study team examining the use of stubble height for managing riparian areas by federal agencies (University of Idaho Stubble Height Review Team 2004). The MIM protocol incorporates several existing procedures (e.g. greenline vegetation, pebble counts, stubble height) into a single method that yields statistically defendable results (Cowley et al. 2005). This method includes protocols for measuring 10 indicators: three short term and seven long-term indicators. Some or all of these indicators may be measured dependent upon site potential and resource priorities. This method is currently used by BLM, Forest Service, and NRCS to monitor impacts from livestock and other large herbivores on wadeable streams. Additionally, the BLM has initiated a new aquatic and terrestrial monitoring program, Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM), which similar to MIM takes quantitative measurements but includes additional instream habitat characteristics that are not captured by MIM. Aquatic AIM monitoring consist of 11 core indicators and 6 covariates which represent a consistent, quantitative approach for determining the attainment of BLM land health standards for perennial wadeable streams and rivers (Miller et al. 2014). These indicators are applicable across ecosystems, management objectives and agencies (BLM 2016c). 3.13.1 Proper Functioning Condition Protocol Assessment Data Lentic: There are multiple springs in the analysis area. The majority of springs have been developed and piped to provide water to range improvement projects throughout the area. Both natural springs which still have riparian vegetation and developed ponds and impoundments are included in assessments to determine if the riparian vegetation is in proper functioning condition. Table 20 shows results of PFC protocol assessments on lentic systems in the analysis area. Overall, lentic areas were determined to be in PFC, other than in the Kimball Creek allotment where sites were determined to be NF or FAR.

60 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Table 20: Lentic PFC protocol assessments within the analysis area Size Condition Allotment Date Site Name Trend Comments (acres) Assessment Spring source is located at Kinney Spring. Source of approx. three Kinney Static or upward Indian Springs 2008 0.5 PFC mile pipeline. Range Spring toward potential Improvement is functioning. Spring is not dewatered. Kinney Spring Static to no Indian Springs 2008 Pipeline 0.25 PFC Developed in 1970 apparent overflow Pond Simpson Spring water Static or Indian Springs 2008 0.25 PFC Developed in 1993 development downward pond

Complex of springs. Coyote Static or upward Indian Springs 2008 0.25 PFC Developed in past with 2 Spring #1 toward potential small ponds.

Complex of springs. Coyote Static or upward Indian Springs 2008 0.1 PFC Developed in past with 1 Spring #2 toward potential small pond

Complex of springs. Coyote Static or upward Indian Springs 2008 0.25 PFC Developed in past with 1 Spring #3 toward potential small pond

Antelope Death Canyon 2 PFC Spring Small spring / seep Death Canyon 2000 Willow Spring 0.1 PFC mostly developed. Little

grazing use Unnamed Cottonwood East 2005 1 PFC spring Small spring / seep McIntyre 2001 Love Colony 4 PFC mostly developed. Little

grazing use Kessler Kimball Creek 0.25 NF Spring Kimball Creek 2005 Maple Spring 0.5 FAR Recommend fencing

Kimball Creek 2005 Mud Spring 0.5 FAR Downward Recommend fencing

61 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Lotic: There are multiple streams (e.g., creeks) within the analysis area. Table 21 shows results of PFC protocol assessments on lotic systems in the analysis area.

Table 21: Lotic PFC protocol assessments within the analysis area

Length Condition Allotment Date Site Name Site ID Trend Comments (miles) Assessment Deeply Indian IS-R7 Reach Static to Indian Springs 2008 0.03 FAR incised, small Creek A upward head-cut Indian IS-R7 Reach Static to Indian Springs 2008 0.27 PFC Creek B upward Indian IS-R7 Reach Static to Indian Springs 2008 0.1 PFC Creek C upward Indian IS-R7 Reach Static to Indian Springs 2008 0.02 PFC Creek D upward Indian IS-R7 Reach Static to Indian Springs 2008 0.07 PFC Creek E upward Road crossing is causing Indian IS-R7 Reach Static to water to Indian Springs 2008 0.12 FAR Creek F upward depart from channel. 2016 AIM site Road crossing is causing Indian IS-R7 Reach Static to Indian Springs 2008 0.24 FAR water to Creek G upward depart from channel Government Aspen Inside 1993 PFC Upward Creek Creek exclosure Government Aspen Outside 1993 FAR Static 2016 AIM site Creek Creek exclosure Government 1993 Judd Creek Lower reach 2 NF Downward Creek Dry in 2016 Government 1993 Judd Creek Upper reach 2 PFC Static for AIM Creek monitoring Government tributary to 1993 2 PFC Static 2016 AIM site Creek Judd Creek Death Death Canyon 2000 0.5 PFC Not perennial Creek Heavy deer Upper Judd Death Canyon 2000 Upper Reach 0.25 FAR Upward browse and Creek road impacts Not perennial. Lower Judd Marginal Death Canyon 2000 Lower Reach 4 PFC Creek riparian due to limited water

62 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Length Condition Allotment Date Site Name Site ID Trend Comments (miles) Assessment available.

Pole Cottonwood East 2005 Reach 1 0.75 PFC Canyon Pole Cottonwood East 2005 Reach 2 0.75 PFC Canyon Drainage No primarily Cherry McIntyre 2001 0.25 FAR apparent private, small Creek trend portion of BLM Death Sabie Mountain 2001 Upper 0.25 PFC Not perennial. Creek Death Sabie Mountain Lower reach 2.5 FAR Creek Lower reach Not McIntyre 2001 Devil Creek 0.5 FAR #1 apparent Middle reach Sabie Mountain Devil Creek 1 PFC #2 Upper reach Sabie Mountain Devil Creek 0.5 PFC #2 Rattlesnake Peak Birch Creek 1 PFC MIM site

Rattlesnake Peak Birch Creek 2 PFC

Tanner Shearing 2.25 PFC Creek In old incised Kimball Creek 2005 Birch Creek Reach 2 1 FAR Upward gully Kimball Creek Birch Creek Reach 4 1.5 FAR

Kimball Creek Hop Creek Reach 1 0.75 PFC

Kimball Creek Hop Creek Reach 2 1.25 FAR

Recovering Kimball Kimball Creek 2005 0.75 FAR Upward from fire and Creek flooding Grazing Whitmore pressure and Ferner Dog Valley 2011 Canyon Reach 1 1 FAR Downward minimal Creek riparian vegetation Sevier Leamington Not Rocky Ford 2002 3 PFC River Canyon apparent

The total area surveyed was not recorded for some of the older assessments, but if we assume the sites without a length measurement are the average length of 1 mile a summary of condition of lotic sites

63 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA within the allotment can be made (see Table 22). The majority (63 percent) of stream miles surveyed were determined to be in properly functioning condition.

Table 22: PFC assessment results for surveyed streams by miles and percent of total miles surveyed

Data Type PFC FAR NF Lotic (miles) 21.21 10.39 2 Lotic (percent) 63% 31% 6% Lentic (acres) 8.7 1.25 0.25 Lentic (percent) 85% 12% 2%

3.13.2. Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) Data Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) sites have been established on two streams within the analysis area. MIM sites are intended to be repeatable, quantifiable monitoring of representative stream reaches. Data from MIM can also be used to determine is sites are in proper functioning condition and if land health standards are being met. From the PFC protocol assessment, Birch Creek was determined to be in proper functioning condition. The MIM data from 2008 supports this determination, but shows areas of concern or a possible downward trend. Stubble height is moderate to low, but stream bank cover and bank alterations are in good condition (see Table 23). Bank stability is very low at one site (12 percent stable) but in good condition (98 percent) stable at another. Cow Hollow appears to be in properly functioning condition within the exclosure but may be considered functioning at risk outside of the exclosure due to the wetland vegetation condition of early seral status and low stability rating (see Table 23).

Table 23: Available MIM data for Birch Creek and Cow Hollow sites within the analysis area Data Cow Hollow Cow Birch Creek Birch Creek Indicators Type exclosure Hollow Reach 2 Up Upper 2 Allotment Name n/a Sheep Rock Sheep Rock Rattlesnake Peak Rattlesnake Peak Year Monitored n/a 2011 2011 2008 2008 Stubble Height (in) mean 4.1

Streambank alteration (%) mean 35 56 3

Greenline to Greenline Width length 0.85 1.01 1.52 1.24 (m)

Streambank Cover (%) mean 93 92 79 100 Streambank Stability (%) mean 88 81 12 98 Seral Status category Early Mid

Wetland Rating category Good Fair Fair Good Vegetation Stability category Mid Low Mid Mid

3.13.3 Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Monitoring Data Aquatic Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) surveys began in the West Desert District in 2016. Data collected include biodiversity and riparian habitat quality, water quality, and watershed function and instream habitat quality metrics. Reference conditions by ecoregion have been established which collected data can be compared with to assist in making a determination of the condition of the habitat. Three sites were selected within the analysis area Indian Canyon, within the Indian Springs allotment, and Judd Creek tributary and Aspen Creek, within the Government Creek allotment. An additional site was

64 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA visited on Judd Creek but was dry and not surveyed. Table 24, Table 25, and Table 26 present AIM data collected during the 2016 field season at the three locations listed above. Where variables that can be related to expected reference condition for a site are presented in Table 24, Table 25; sites labeled (a) are within the range of values for reference sites, (b) show moderate departure from reference values, and (c) major departure, as presented below. Water quality measurements for Aspen Creek and Judd Creek tributary are considered to have a high departure from reference condition, while Indian Creek is considered to be within the range of reference condition for most water quality metrics. For all categories of AIM data collected at these sites, Aspen Creek and Judd Creek tributary had high or moderate departure from reference condition while Indian Creek met reference conditions for water quality metrics, but had moderate to high departure for riparian and instream habitat quality. This indicates that these sites are functioning at risk or not functioning. This is similar to or a decline in condition from the PFC protocol assessments at these sites.

Table 24: Biodiversity and riparian habitat quality data collected at aquatic AIM stream sites

Indicators Aspen Creek Judd Creek Tributary Indian Creek Date 8/10/2016 8/9/2016 9/13/2016 Ecoregion Hybrid 10 SouthernXericBasin SouthernXericBasin SouthernXericBasin % Overhead Cover 61.1b 57b 88.2a Bank Overhead Cover 66.3b 61.0c 80.0b Veg Complexity 0.68b 1.15a 0.93b Invasive Invert Sp P TBD A OE_Macroinvertebrate 0.33c TBD 0.77b

Table 25: Water quality data collected at aquatic AIM stream sites

Indicators Aspen Creek Judd Creek Tributary Indian Creek Total Nitrogen 1762.7c 572.1c 62.3a Total Phosphorous 551.4c 223.5c 13.3a Specific Conductance 560.0c 350.4c 413.3b pH 7.73a 8.03a 8.21a Instant Temp C 22.8b 21.2b 13.4a

Table 26: Watershed function and instream habitat quality data collected at aquatic AIM stream sites

Indicators Aspen Creek Indian Creek Judd Creek Tributary Percent Fines (%) 84.3c 98.4c 38.1a Bank Cover (%) 19c 14c 12c Bank Stability (%) 6c 21c 0c Bank Cover/Stability (%) 6c 7c 0c Instream Habitat Complexity 0.11c 0.70a 0.42b

65 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 3.14 Cultural Resources Previous investigations of the surrounding and immediate area indicate the presence of significant cultural resources within the proposed analysis area. A cultural resource may be defined as prehistoric and historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that represent past human activities. Human occupation of the study area spans the last 10,000 to 12,000 years. The cultural sequence represented potentially includes Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Shoshone, Freemont, Paiute, and historic European cultures. The remote nature of much of the Sheeprocks analysis area leaves many questions as to the breadth and depth of historic properties present. Those sites and cultural materials known to exist are often subject to impacts from catastrophic fire and grazing. Nonetheless, these sites and artifacts are valued not only by the scientific community, but also Native American Tribes, private organizations, the local community, and interested parties worldwide for their scientific, religious, cultural, and recreational significance. Natural processes, including erosion, fire, decay of organic material and destruction by animals native to the area can result in adverse impacts to cultural resources. Over time, these natural processes have the potential to alter or completely destroy an archaeological site. Human activities, intentional or not, can greatly alter the rate at which sites are impacted in both positive and negative ways. Intentional activities, such as vandalism, looting, or improper management of the local environment can increase the rate at which sites are destroyed. However, purposeful and scientifically sound management of surrounding resources can result in improved preservation of these non-renewable resources. The management of cultural resources on federal lands is mandated by a series of laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), among others. Prior to an undertaking, these laws require an investigation to identify cultural resources, evaluate their significance and assess potential impacts. Numerous Class III inventories have been completed and received concurrence from SHPO as a result of previously implemented projects across the analysis area. These previously completed inventories are on file with the BLM and SHPO. 3.15 Recreation Principle recreational activities within the analysis area are OHV riding, camping, hunting, target shooting, viewing historic sites, and wildlife/wild horse viewing. Developed recreation sites managed by the BLM in the area include Simpson Springs Campground, Clover Spring Campground, and the Little Sahara National Recreation Area. Other developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities exist on National Forest System lands within the analysis area. Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) within the analysis area included the Sheeprock/Tintic SRMA (Fillmore Field Office) and the Simpson Springs SRMA (Salt Lake Field Office). The Pony Express National Historic Trail also bisects the analysis area, passing between the Onaqui and Sheeprock Mountains at Lookout Pass. Within the Sheeprock/Tintic SRMA, three competitive motorcycle racing groups are permitted each year under BLM-issued Special Recreation Permits (SRPs). These three groups (Firebirds, Surgarloafers, and Sage Riders) have held competitive racing events in this SRMA over the past 50 years, and have a network of trails that they use to piece together race trails for their races each spring, with each group utilizing approximately 90 miles of existing roads and trails for each event. These events are publicly advertised by each group. Camping during the permitted events is dispersed, but they also have areas that they use as the pit row area, and most of the racers and their families camp around the pit row area. In 2016, one of the racing clubs proposed holding a fall race in the area; however, the event was cancelled. There is potential for a fall race in the future. A commercial wilderness therapy program for at-risk youth operates in the analysis area under a BLM- issued SRP in both the Fillmore and Salt Lake field offices, primarily in the Onaqui Mountains, Simpson

66 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Mountains, Sheeprock Mountains, and Keg Mountains. This program takes small groups of students, accompanied by staff guides and licensed counselors, into a primitive camping and backpacking environment where students learn primitive living skills while receiving professional mental health intervention for behavioral and substance-abuse issues. 3.16 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics In accordance with BLM policy Manual 6310, Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory of BLM Lands, Section 201 of FLPMA requires the BLM to maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values, which includes wilderness characteristics. It also provides that the preparation and maintenance of the inventory shall not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of public lands. Regardless of past inventory, the BLM must maintain and update as necessary, its inventory of wilderness resources on public lands. In some circumstances conditions relating to wilderness characteristics may have changed over time, and an area that was once determined to lack wilderness characteristics may now possess them. The BLM will determine when it is necessary to update its wilderness characteristics inventory. Per BLM Manual 6310, for an area of land to contain wilderness character, it must be roadless and comprise over 5,000 acres of contiguous BLM surface lands. State or private lands are not included in making this acreage determination. A roadless area of less than 5,000 acres can possess wilderness characteristics if it is contiguous with another area that has already been determined to possess wilderness character, such as designated Wilderness or a Wilderness Study Area, neither of which currently exist within the analysis area of this document. The word ‘roadless’ refers to the absence of roads that have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road. An area possessing wilderness character must appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, and any work of human beings must be substantially unnoticeable. Examples of human-made features that may be considered substantially unnoticeable in certain cases are: trails, trail signs, bridges, fire breaks, pit toilets, fisheries enhancement facilities, fire rings, historic properties, archaeological resources, hitching posts, snow gauges, water quantity and quality measuring devices, research monitoring markers and devices, minor radio repeater sites, air quality monitoring devices, fencing, spring developments, barely visible linear disturbances, and stock ponds. The review of human impacts would assess the presence or absence of apparent naturalness (i.e., do the works of humans appear to be substantially unnoticeable to the average visitor?). There is an important difference between an area’s natural integrity and its apparent naturalness as explained below. Natural integrity refers to the presence or absence of ecosystems that are relatively unaffected by modern human activities. Apparent naturalness refers to whether or not an area looks natural to the average visitor who is not familiar with the biological composition of natural ecosystems versus human-affected ecosystems. Caution should be used in assessing the effect of relatively minor human impacts on naturalness. Some human works are acceptable so long as they are substantially unnoticeable. Avoid an overly strict approach to assessing naturalness. For example, the presence of a water trough is a relatively minor human impact on naturalness, and may be considered substantially unnoticeable. For an area to possess wilderness character, it must further possess outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. The word “or” in this sentence means that an area only has to possess one or the other. The area does not have to possess outstanding opportunities for both elements, nor does it need to have outstanding opportunities on every acre, even when an area is contiguous to lands with identified wilderness characteristics. In most cases, the two opportunities can be expected to go hand-in-hand. An outstanding opportunity for solitude, however, may be present in an area offering only limited primitive recreation potential. Also, an area may be so attractive for primitive recreation that it would be difficult to maintain an opportunity for solitude. Each area must be assessed on

67 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA its own merits or in combination with any contiguous lands possessing wilderness character as to whether an outstanding opportunity exists. In making the determination of whether or not the area has outstanding opportunities for solitude, BLM must consider factors that influence solitude only as they affect a visitor’s opportunity to avoid the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people in the area. BLM only considers the impacts of sights and sounds from outside the inventory area on the opportunity for solitude if these impacts are pervasive and omnipresent. Factors or elements influencing solitude may include size, configuration, topographic and vegetative screening, and ability of the visitor to find seclusion. It is the combination of these and similar elements upon which an overall solitude determination would be made. It may be difficult, for example, to avoid the sights and sounds of people in some areas unless the area is relatively large. Outstanding opportunities for solitude can be found in areas lacking vegetation or topographic screening. A small area could also provide opportunities for solitude if, due to topography or vegetation, visitors can screen themselves from one another. When making a determination whether or not the area offers an outstanding opportunity for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, BLM would consider those activities that provide dispersed, undeveloped recreation which do not require facilities, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanized transport. Some examples of primitive and unconfined types of recreation include hiking; backpacking; fishing; hunting; spelunking; horseback riding; climbing; river running; cross-country skiing; snowshoeing; dog sledding; photography; bird watching; canoeing; kayaking; sailing; and sightseeing for botanical, zoological, or geological features. An area may possess outstanding opportunities for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation through either the diversity in primitive and unconfined recreational activities possible in the area or the outstanding quality of one opportunity. When size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities criteria are met, then BLM determines if the area contains ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Supplemental values are not required to be present in order for an area to be identified as lands with wilderness characteristics, but their presence should be documented where they exist. 3.16.1 Current Status of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Inventories

3.16.1.1 Fillmore Field Office Table 27 lists the lands with wilderness characteristics inventory units located in the Fillmore Field Office that are within the analysis area for the proposed project.

Table 27: Lands with wilderness characteristics inventory units located within the Fillmore Field Office portion of the analysis area

Unit Name Unit Number Acreage Inventory Date Wilderness Character Erickson Knoll UT-050-97 16,128 1979 No (No name listed) UT-050-98 5,487 1979 No

Old River Bed UT-050-100 13,945 1979 No South Simpson Mountains UT-050-101 21,043 1979 No Meadow Creek UT-050-101A 5,842 1979 No (No name listed) UT-050-102 9,236 1979 No (No name listed) UT-050-103 17,872 1979 No UT-050-106 25,400 1979 No West Desert Mountain UT-050-106_A 4,493 2016 No Desert Mountain East UT-050-109 13,080 1979 No

68 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Unit Name Unit Number Acreage Inventory Date Wilderness Character Cherry Creek UT-050-188 11,244 1979 No (No name listed) UT-050-189 6,971 1979 No Sheep Rocks UT-050-190 20,360 1979 No Maple Peak UT-050-191 31,691 1979 No (No name listed) UT-050-194 22,985 1979 No Tintic Station UT-050-194A 5,520 1979 No Jericho Ridge UT-050-195 6,001 1979 No Tanner Creek UT-050-196 8,720 1979 No Furner Ridge UT-050-198 40,560 1979 No UT-050-199 38,983 1979 No UT-050-199_A 25,005 2014 No (No name listed) UT-050-199_B 5,756 2014 No UT-050-199_C 2,195 2014 No UT-050-200 12,987 1979 No (No name listed) UT-050-200 12,444 2014 No UT-050-201 21,760 1979 No UT-050-201_A 1,494 2014 n/a Long Ridge UT-050-201_B 11,262 2014 n/a UT-050-201_C 11,084 2014 No UT-050-202 5,547 1979 No UT-050-202_A 1,687 2014 No (No name listed) UT-050-202_B 1,125 2014 No UT-050-202_C 3,473 2014 No (No name listed) UT-050-205 16,504 1979 No

All of the units listed in Table 27 were originally inventoried in 1979 by the BLM. A few of the units have been re-inventoried as other projects have been proposed in the past. Below are the results of the units that have been re-inventoried. Unit UT-050-106: In 2016, a desktop inventory was completed and the unit was divided into sub-units A, B and C due to County Class B roads and/or rights-of-way. Unit A was the only sub-unit potentially impacted by the project and it did not meet the size criteria, so a field inventory was not completed. Unit UT-050-199: In 2014, the unit was re-inventoried and divided into sub-units A, B and C due to County Class B roads and/or rights -of-way. Unit A and B were field inventoried and a determination was made that they did not contain wilderness characteristics. Unit C did not meet the size criteria, so a field inventory was not completed. Unit UT-050-201: In 2014, a desktop inventory was completed and the unit was divided into sub-units A, B, and C due to County Class roads and/or rights -of-way. Unit C was the only sub-unit potentially impacted by the a proposed project. Unit C did not meet the size criteria, so a field inventory was not completed. Unit UT-050-202: In 2014, a desktop inventory was completed and the unit was divided into sub-units A, B and C due to County Class B roads and/or rights -of-way. None of the sub-units met the size criteria, so a field inventory was not completed.

69 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

3.16.1.2 Salt Lake Field Office Within the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area, there are three units of land under BLM surface administration that may still contain at least 5,000 acres or more of contiguous, roadless lands. The three units in question were previously identified and inventoried for wilderness characteristics by BLM following the passage of FLPMA, as indicated in Table 28. In the Onaqui Mountains, an area of contiguous BLM-managed surface land was last inventoried for wilderness character in 1979 as the Onaqui Mountains Unit, UT-020-111. This inventory was conducted in accordance with the guidance contained in the BLM Wilderness Inventory Handbook dated Sept. 27, 1978. The inventory policy and procedures established in the 1978 handbook were different and did not conform with the current policy standards and procedures set forth in BLM Manual 6310. In 1979, inventory unit UT-020-111 comprised 60, 018 acres of contiguous BLM surface lands generally located south of State Route 196, west of State Route 36, east of the Terra to Lookout Pass maintained road, and north of the Pony Express Road, in Townships 6, 7, and 8 South, Ranges 5, 6, and 7 West, Salt Lake Meridian.

Table 28: Lands with wilderness characteristics inventoried units within the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area Unit Name Unit Number Acreage Inventory Date Wilderness Character Onaqui Mountains UT-020-111 60,018 1979 No North Simpson Mountains UT-020-153 25,003 1979 No South Simpson Mountains UT-020-136, UT-050-101 21,043 1979 No

BLM evaluators initially determined that parts of the Onaqui Mountains unit were essentially natural and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation existed in portions of the unit. The unit was recommended for further intensive inventory to determine the boundaries of any areas that might possess wilderness character. The results of the 1979 intensive inventory were that the Onaqui Mountains, UT- 020-111, lacked wilderness character throughout the unit. BLM evaluators determined there was a lack of naturalness in a majority of the acreage due to the existence of two water developments, livestock fences, a network of primitive roads and “ways”, and the presence of a powerline in the eastern portion of the unit. Human impacts or improvements, primarily from livestock grazing, were considered substantially noticeable within a majority of the unit. Areas that still possessed naturalness were identified in several canyons but were all determined to be under the 5000 acres size threshold to be considered individually for wilderness character. In the Simpson Mountains, two separate areas of BLM-managed surface land were last inventoried for wilderness character in 1979 as the North Simpson Mountains (UT-020-153) comprising 25,003 BLM acres, and the South Simpson Mountains comprising 21,043 BLM acres (UT-020-136 and UT-050-101; two separate units were analyzed together because a contiguous area was bisected by a field office boundary). This inventory was conducted in accordance with the guidance contained in the BLM Wilderness Inventory Handbook dated Sept. 27, 1978. The policy and procedures established in the 1978 handbook were different and did not conform to the current policy standards and procedures set forth in BLM Manual 6310. The results of the 1979 BLM inventory for both the North Simpson Mountains and the South Simpsons Mountains were that neither area possessed wilderness character primarily due to each area lacking naturalness and outstanding opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation because human imprints on the landscape from roads, mining, recreation, and livestock grazing were considered substantially noticeable by the inventory team.

70 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

3.16.1.3 Summary Since the implementation in 2012 of the new BLM policy on Inventorying Lands With Wilderness Character – Manual 6310, updates to lands with wilderness character inventories in the analysis area have not yet been conducted on the Salt Lake Field Office side of the analysis area (Onaqui Mountains or Simpson Mountains). Inventory updates have been completed for four units on the Fillmore Field Office side, as discussed in Subsection 3.16.1.1. Complete inventories are located at the Fillmore and Salt Lake field offices if more details are needed. Currently, there are 779,300 acres of BLM–administered public lands in the West Desert District that have been identified as possessing wilderness character in the form of either Congressionally-designated Wilderness (i.e., Cedar Mountains Wilderness), Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), or Wilderness Inventory Areas (WIA)17. Currently, there are none of these types of public lands identified within the analysis area. In 2008, the Fillmore Field Office completed a wilderness characteristics review for a unit called “Lion Peak” (also know as South Simpson Mountains) as identified in the Utah Wilderness Coalition’s America’s Red Rock Wilderness Bill (HR-1919) and submitted to the BLM by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance for inventory review. A BLM IDT reviewed the proponents submission and found that approximately 6,096 acres possessed wilderness characteristics; although 130 acres are state lands and would be excluded, bringing the total acres to 5,939. However, the unit inventoried by the Fillmore Field Office is split into two non-contiguous pieces, one 4,712 acres and one 1,357 acres. Because of this, the unit, as evaluated, does not meet the size criteria of no less than 5,000 acres that are contiguous. Taking in the area located directly north in the Salt Lake Field Office, the unit would likely be larger than 5,000 acres; however, the Salt Lake Field Office has yet to conduct a wilderness characteristics review for that portion of the South Simpson Mountains unit. The Fillmore Field Office review only considered lands managed by that office. Until an inventory is completed on the Salt Lake Field Office side of the unit, the wilderness characteristics review is incomplete. 3.17 Air Quality/Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.17.1 Air Quality Air quality regulations for the analysis fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and designated six common pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, in order to improve air quality throughout the country. These criteria pollutants are: lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM). The EPA established standards for each pollutant that must not be exceeded. If the air quality in a geographic area meets the NAAQS, it is called an attainment area; areas that do not meet the NAAQS are called nonattainment areas and must develop comprehensive state plans to reduce pollutant concentrations to a safe level. Utah County is a non-attainment area for both PM2.5 and PM10; the most south-southeastern portion of Utah County is located within the analysis area. In addition, a portion of Tooele County, generally north of Stockton and east of the Stansbury Mountains, is also located within a non-attainment area for PM2.5.

17 A Wilderness Inventory Area (also know as lands with wilderness characteristics) is an area that has been surveyed in accordance with BLM Manual 6310 and was found ot possess wilderness characteristics.

71 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

This includes the very northern portion of the analysis area. There are no other areas of non-attainment within the analysis area. Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of extremely tiny particles of solid or semi-solid material suspended in the atmosphere and is divided into two categories: PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 is a particulate less than ten micrometers in diameter, which is about one-seventh the width of a strand of human hair. PM2.5, or fine particulate, is a subset of PM10 that measures 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less. The coarse fraction of PM10, that which is larger than 2.5 microns, is typically made up of “fugitive dust” (sand and dirt blown by winds from roadways, fields, and construction sites) and contains large amounts of silicate (sand-like) material. Primary PM2.5 is directly emitted into the atmosphere from combustion sources such as fly ash from power plants, carbon black from cars and trucks, and soot from fireplaces and woodstoves. These particles are so small that they can become imbedded in human lung tissue, exacerbating respiratory diseases and cardiovascular problems. Other negative effects are reduced visibility and accelerated deterioration of buildings. The majority of Utah’s PM2.5 is called secondary aerosol, meaning that it is not emitted directly as a particle, but is produced when gasses such as Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), NOx, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react with other gasses in the atmosphere, such as ammonia, to become tiny particles. Wintertime temperature inversions not only provide ideal conditions for the creation of secondary aerosols, they also act to trap air in valleys long enough for concentrations of PM2.5 to build up to levels that can be unhealthy. The smallest of particles that make up PM2.5 are major contributors to visibility impairment in both urban and rural areas. The analysis area is located within Utah Smoke Management Airsheds 1 (Tooele County-portion) and 8 (Juab and Utah counties). There are no Class I airsheds located within or in the vicinity of the analysis area. 3.17.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change

3.17.2.1 General Description Greenhouse gases are compounds in the atmosphere that absorb infrared radiation and re-radiate a portion of that radiation back to the earth’s surface, thus trapping heat and warming the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases have the potential to affect climate patterns, which in turn could affect resource management. The most important naturally occurring greenhouse gas compounds are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are produced naturally by the following processes: respiration and other physiological processes of plants, animals, and microorganisms; decomposition of organic matter; volcanic and geothermal activity; naturally occurring wildfires; and natural chemical reactions in soil and water. Ozone is not released directly by natural sources but forms during complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere among organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of ultraviolet radiation. While water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, its concentration in the atmosphere is primarily a result and not a cause of changes in surface and lower atmospheric temperature conditions. Although naturally present in the atmosphere, concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are also produced by industrial processes, transportation technology, urban development, agricultural practices, and other human activity. In 2013 (the most recent year for which state data has been tabulated), Utah statewide greenhouse gas emissions totaled 66.4 million metric tonnes18 of carbon dioxide equivalents (USEIA 2015). This was 0.9

18 1 metric tonne equals 1.1 US tons.

72 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA percent of 2014 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (USEIA 2015). The major sectors contributing to Utah’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 were as follows (USEIA 2015): Electric power generation (53 percent); Transportation (25 percent); Industrial processes (13 percent); Commercial sector (4 percent); and Residential (6 percent). Sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the analysis area include wildfires and prescribed burns, vehicles (including off-highway vehicles [OHV]), agriculture, military operations, construction and operation for mineral and energy development, and grazing animals. Climate change is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and persist for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity (IPCC 2007).” The earth has a natural greenhouse effect, wherein naturally occurring gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide absorb and retain heat. Climate change is caused in part by the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere beyond naturally occurring levels. Over time the amount of energy sent from the sun to the earth’s surface should be approximately the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the earth’s surface roughly constant. Increased levels of greenhouse gases trap more heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape back into space.

3.17.2.2 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change in the Great Basin Over the last century average temperatures within the Great Basin have increased 0.6 to 1.1 °F. Increased precipitation has been documented across the Great Basin (6 to 16 percent), along with changes in species distribution and populations. Snowpack has been documented to be on the decline since 1950. The earlier arrival of spring runoff, greater frequencies and intensities of wildland fire and invasion of non-native species such as cheatgrass are attributable to global climate change. Winter temperatures have risen faster than any other season (Chambers 2008, Dugelby 2011). In the Central Basin and Range ecoregion, models suggest there is no strong trend toward either wetter or drier conditions either in the near future, through the 2020s, or in the long term, through the 2050s. However, models show significant increases in maximum monthly temperatures by 2020, primarily in the summer months (July to September). The highest maximum temperature increase projected is 6°F (3.3°C). These increases are predicted to occur mostly in the southern and northeastern edges of the ecoregion (Comer et al. 2012). Forecasts for 2060 predict substantial increases in maximum temperature for all months. Similar to forecasts for 2020, the greatest increases are predicted during the summer months and along the southern and northeastern edges of the ecoregion (Comer et al. 2012). Based on quantitative data that measure climate change over the past 100 years, climate change and its effects are expected to continue. Over the past 100 years, annual temperature and precipitation have increased, and climate models predict that this trend will continue into the future. Extreme weather events such as severe drought and intense rainfall are expected to increase in frequency in the future as well (NCSL 2008). The ecoregional climate change assessments indicate that the overall potential change in greater sage- grouse habitat in the population areas from the current status is moderately low to moderately high in the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion. Areas that are projected to experience the most change are located in the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion, including the Sheeprocks Population Area. Noticeable changes in climate (high to very high) are expected in isolated locations distributed throughout ecoregion. Under natural conditions, moderate fire return intervals and low-intensity fires promoted the mixed composition of sagebrush habitat required by greater sage-grouse. However, in conjunction with climate change and the expansion of invasive annual species, wildfire now covers larger areas more frequently,

73 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA reducing habitat quality and quantity (Connelly and Braun 1997; Connelly et al. 2000; Nelle et al. 2000; Fischer et al. 1996). Invasive species occurrences and fire history are often linked and have been estimated to contribute to an increase in pinyon/juniper woodlands in the Intermountain West (Miller and Tausch 2002). Pinyon/Juniper expansion and infilling within sagebrush communities generally decreases forb availability due to moisture depletion (Bates et al. 2000). In Wyoming big sagebrush communities, invasion by annual grasses or weeds (e.g., cheatgrass and medusahead) is the greatest threat, because these fuels increase the fire frequency from greater than 100 years to less than 10 years (Whisenant 1990). While the cause of woodland expansion into the sagebrush-steppe over the last 150 years has been debated by researchers, it has been found to be most likely the result of altered fire regimes, grazing, and climatic changes (Miller et al. 2011; Miller et al. 2017). Miller et al. (2011) found that expansion and contraction of pinyon/juniper has occurred for millennia; however, research also shows that this process cannot be separated from anthropogenic factors (i.e., altered fire regimes). As a result, to bolster movement of extant population of at-risk species, such as the greater sage-grouse, and increase their ability to adapt to changing climatic conditions, targeting expanding and infilling pinyon and juniper for strategic removal may continue to be one of the best methods (Miller et al. 2017).

Fire historically has played a natural role and is not considered a net source of CO2 in sagebrush ecosystems, when a healthy sagebrush ecosystem returns to the post-fire environment. However, wildfires have become more severe and frequent in the Great Basin due to encroaching woody biomass and invading cheatgrass, leading to several million metric tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year as a result of wildland fire (SageSTEP 2014). According to researchers, in a 2.5 acre plot of healthy sagebrush-steppe habitat, approximately 5 metric tonnes of carbon is stored in above ground biomass and over 35 metric tonnes of organic carbon is stored underground (Bradley et al. 2006; Rau et al. 2011; SageSTEP 2014). Depending upon tree density, pinyon/juniper woodlands can contain up to 60 metric tonnes of carbon aboveground (per 2.5 acre) and approximately 51 to 53 metric tonnes underground (Rau et al. 2012). Conversely, a 2.5 acre plot of cheatgrass dominated land contains less than 1 metric tonne of aboveground carbon and approximately 30 metric tonnes belowground (Rau et al. 2011; SageSTEP 2014). When wildfire occurs in sagebrush-steppe systems and the landscape converts to cheatgrass, aboveground biomass releases approximately 3 to 6 metric tonnes of carbon per 2.5 acres, in addition to approximately 5 to 7 metric tonnes of carbon emitted from soil (SageSTEP 2014). Direct combustion of aboveground biomass and surface soils in high-density pinyon/juniper woodlands can account for 9 to 39 metric tonnes of carbon being released per 2.5 acres. Post-fire, carbon continues to be lost in burned woodlands as remaining biomass, roots, and soil organic carbon decompose in the years post-fire (Rau et al. 2012). Overall, SageSTEP (2014) research found that each year, 8 to 20 million metric tonnes of CO2 is released due to wildland fires and land conversion to cheatgrass. When healthy sagebrush-steppe ecosystems are burned by high-severity wildfire and converted to cheatgrass, these critical ecosystems switch from being a carbon sink to being a source of carbon to the atmosphere.

74 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Chapter 4 presents the potential environmental consequences or effects of each alternative on the affected resources discussed in Chapter 3. The intent is to provide the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the effect of each alternative. The potential consequences or impacts of each alternative are addressed in the same order of resource topics in Chapter 3. This parallel organization allows readers to compare existing resource conditions (Chapter 3) with potential impacts (Chapter 4). 4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts This chapter describes the potential direct, indirect, and residual effects to resources that may result from the proposed action or alternatives, as well as identifies the potential monitoring needs associated with the specific resources. In the development of the environmental analyses that follow, the best available science was considered for each resource area and is documented in the project record. Consistency with the land use plans, as amended (see Section 1.3), was built into the project design and the analyses. The environmental analyses incorporate issues identified through the scoping process. An environmental effect, impact, or consequence is defined as a modification of or change in the existing environment brought about by the action taken. In this document, the word “adverse” is used in characterizing minor (non-significant) detrimental effects to a resource, and “negligible” is used in characterizing minor (non- significant) detrimental effects to a resource that are generally undetectable. “Beneficial” effects would have a positive effect on the resource. In this document, the terms “effect” and “impact” are used synonymously. Assessment of effects can be for short-term (generally considered during project implementation) or the long-term. Effects fall into two categories, direct (caused by the action, same time and place) and indirect (caused by the action, but later in time or further in distance). 4.2 Greater Sage-Grouse 4.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The proposed action is designed to reduce potential fire impacts and improve the composition, structure, and distribution of sagebrush habitat to benefit greater sage-grouse populations in the analysis area. As the proposed activities would occur primarily in fall and winter, rather than in lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing seasons, greater sage-grouse mortalities, displacement, nest abandonment, or brood disturbance is not likely to occur (see Table 6). Overall, the proposed actions would provide long-term beneficial effects to sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse habitat by minimizing the key threats of fire, conifer encroachment, and invasive species. Greater sage-grouse avoid areas with as little as 4 percent tree cover (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Removing encroaching pinyon and juniper from the sagebrush steppe, reduces hazardous fuels and increases ecosystem function and resiliency by promoting the growth of sagebrush, perennial grasses, and forbs that greater sage-grouse depend upon for food and cover. In addition, habitat fragmentation would be reduced creating larger sagebrush patch size, travel corridors and linkages between greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats. Collectively, these treatment actions combined with land management conservation practices to further avoid and minimize any direct/indirect impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat would also benefit the diversity of other species that occur within the analysis area. The proposed action would result in a net conservation gain for greater sage-grouse and would be in conformance with the Utah Greater Sage Grouse ARMPA. 4.2.2 Alternative B – No-Action The no-action alternative would not provide for proactive management to contribute towards improving the composition, structure, and distribution of the sagebrush ecosystem. There would be no improvemnt to nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat for greater sage-grouse. A reduction in cheatgrass or expanding and infilling pinyon/juniper would not be achieved under this alternative. Pinyon and juniper would continue to grow and expand within sagebrush ecological sites, resulting in decreased production,

75 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA vigor and diversity of grass, forb and shrub species leading to further ecosystem degradation. The risk of fire and cheatgrass invasion would remain high. Three of the key threats to greater sage-grouse habitat (i.e., wildfire, conifer expansion, and cheatgrass invasion) would not be diminished and would likely increase over time. Greater sage-grouse would receive no benefit from the no-action alternative and the habitat objectives outlined in the Utah Greater Sage Grouse ARMPA would not be achieved. While vegetation treatments may occur on adjacent lands (e.g, USFS, private, and State), the BLM is the largest land manager in the analysis area. The absence of land management on BLM-administered public land above that currently occurring would likely sustain the current downward trend in the Sheeprocks greater sage-grouse population and have a critical impact to the continued their existence in the analysis area. Overall, improved health, resistance, and resiliency of public lands would not occur and species that would benefit from increased conservation for greater sage-grouse would not be experienced. 4.3 Migratory Birds 4.3.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The habitat within the analysis area supports a variety of neo-tropical birds and raptors. The actions that are proposed primarily for the greater sage-grouse are intended to substantially improve and increase the composition, structure, and distribution of the sagebrush ecosystem. The most substantial impacts would be noticed by the reduction in pinyon and juniper trees which would potentially adversely affect those species associated with pinyon/juniper habitat and substantially benefit those species that are associated sagebrush/grass habitats. Although pinyon and juniper would be highly targeted, the locations of the targeted stands would be largely on slopes less than 30 percent slope where pinyon/juniper expansion and infilling has most notably occurred overtime and where a remnant sagebrush understory still exists. These stands would allow for mastication machinery to access treatment areas on slopes less than 30 percent To a lesser extent, pinyon and juniper on slopes greater than 30 percent would be lop and scattered depending on the landscape need to improve habitat connectivity and travel corridors between seasonal habitats (i.e., nesting/winter range) and important landscape features (e.g., meadow, riparian, and wetland habitats) to benefit greater sage-grouse. This strategy would result in large acreages of pinyon and juniper being cleared on slopes less than 30 percent and less acreage or none being cleared on slopes greater than 30 percent. However, not all the pinyon and juniper would be removed and stands on steeper slopes (greater than 30 percent) would largely be untouched resulting in large intact pinyon/juniper stands remaining. Applying the greater sage-grouse umbrella strategy, those species associated with shrub/steppe communities (i.e., Brewer’s sparrow, sage-thrasher, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle) would benefit greatly by the increased distribution and availability of cover, water, and forage resources. See Table 29. Species associated more with juniper habitats (i.e., gray vireo, pinyon jay, and Virginia’s warbler) would experience reduced overall acreage of juniper that could equate to reduced nesting, cover, and forage resources. The magnitude of the effect of reduced juniper habitat on these species is largely unknown; however, large acreages of juniper would be left on slopes greater than 30 percent that is intended to support those species and provide a management balance. For raptor species (i.e., Ferruginous hawk), juniper nesting substrate would be reduced, however, pre-treatment surveys would be conducted to locate nest trees and assure that they are retained and appropriate buffers applied. See Table 29. Within the analysis area, large areas are dominated by invasive grasses (e.g., cheatgrass) and seeded monocultures of crested wheatgrass. Restoring the sagebrush/grass community would be a priority to reduce the risk of wildfire and improve sagebrush community composition, structure, and distribution for the greater sage-grouse. Species associated with open grassland environments (i.e., long-billed curlews and burrowing owls) may be negatively affected by restoration activities and resulting rehabilitation. However, less than suitable greater sage-grouse habitats (e.g., shadscale community and cheatgrass) exist adjacent to the sagebrush zone and the analysis area. Although some individuals would be displaced, the

76 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA amount of suitable habitat for grassland or more open environment species does exist with the immediate area and therefore any substantial population impacts are not anticipated. Overall, given the goals and objectives of the vegetation treatments, it is anticipated that the magnitude and the duration of the effects would not contribute or trigger any population declines for any given species and would largely be beneficial. When these benefits are combined with additional conservation measures from the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA for other land use activities (e.g., mining, recreation, grazing etc.) the benefits are further amplified.

Table 29: Impact potential of the proposed action on migratory birds that may occur within the analysis area Effect Species Names Potential Beneficial Impact Potential Adverse Impact Determination American Bittern Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Bald Eagle Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Black-rosey Finch Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Overall improved conservation of Brewer’s Sparrow No Impact N/A sagebrush community Range alteration and burrow Burrowing Owl Improved conservation overall N/A impacts Calliope Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Hummingbird Cassin’s Finch Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Eared Grebe Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Ferruginous Hawk Overall improved range and forage Loss of nesting substrate N/A Flammulated Owl Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Fox Sparrow Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Golden Eagle Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Gray Vireo Overall improved conservation Reduced juniper habitat N/A Greater Sage- Improved sagebrush community No Impact N/A grouse composition, structure, and distribution Lewis’s Woodpecker Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Loggerhead Shrike Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Alteration of cheatgrass and Long-billed Curlew Overall improved conservation N/A open grassland habitats Olive-sided Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Flycatcher Peregrine Falcon Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Pinyon Jay Overall improved conservation Reduced juniper habitat N/A Overall improved conservation of Sage Thrasher No Impact N/A sagebrush community Short-eared Owl Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Snowy Plover Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Swainson’s Hawk Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Negative: reduced juniper habitat; Virginia’s Warbler No Impact N/A Benefit: overall improved conservation Western Grebe Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Williams Sapsucker Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Willow Flycatcher Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Western Yellow- Overall improved conservation No Impact No Effect

77 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Effect Species Names Potential Beneficial Impact Potential Adverse Impact Determination billed Cuckoo

4.3.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative it can be anticipated that much of the current land management practices would continue. Therefore many of the benefits (e.g., improved cover, forage, and space) provided by improved conservation for greater sage-grouse would not be experienced by other birds associated with sagebrush/grass environments (i.e., Brewer’s sparrow, sage-thrasher, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle). However, those species associated with juniper habitat types (i.e., gray vireo and pinyon jay) would continue to benefit by the increasing encroachment of the juniper community and those species associated with more grass dominated open environments (i.e., burrowing owl and long-billed curlew) would continue to thrive as they currently are and possibly benefit by the increased occurrence of wildfire and the spread of cheatgrass and other invasive species; however, this does not meet any BLM land use management goals of providing healthier and more resistant and resilient landscapes. 4.4 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species 4.4.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Table 30 provides information on potential beneficial and/or negative impacts from the proposed action on threatened, endangered, candidate, or special status animal species that may occur within the analysis area. Additional information on potential impacts to threatened, endangered, candidate, or special status bird species can be found in Subsection 4.3.1 Migratory Birds. Additional information on kit fox and pygmy rabbit is provided below. Kit Fox: Kit fox are a BLM special status species that is known to occur within the analysis area. Of concern is the potential destruction of burrows. Burrows are essential in the life of kit foxes and individuals show a high fidelity for traditional burrows. Destruction of burrows could affect species numbers substantially and need to be avoided. Pre-activity surveys may need to be conducted to determine if kit fox burrows occur within the analysis area and avoidance measures taken to protect these habitat features and reduce disturbance. However, overall kit fox should benefit by improved sagebrush community health in that prey species should be more available as well as lower risk of habitat alteration from wildfire and spread of invasive species. When these benefits are combined with additional conservation measures from the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA for other land use activities (e.g., mining, recreation, grazing etc.) the benefits are further amplified. Additional conservation practices imposed by the Utah Greater Sage Grouse ARMPA for the benefit of sage-grouse would be used to guide land use practices and activities within the analysis area. When these improved conservation measures are applied, the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project/activities within the analysis area would be further mitigated; therefore it is anticipated that the cumulative impacts would overall be beneficial for kit and its prey species by improving the health, resistance, and resiliency of the landscape. Pygmy Rabbit: The pygmy rabbit is a sagebrush obligate species. It is believed that pygmy rabbit does not occur within the analysis area, however because it is a sagebrush obligate species and its range commonly overlaps with greater sage-grouse and their numbers tend to be low, so affording them consideration is appropriate. In applying the greater sage-grouse umbrella strategy, improving the composition, structure, and distribution of the sagebrush ecosystem for greater sage-grouse would overall benefit this species. Additionally, if pygmy rabbit burrow complexes are found within an area designated for treatment, a 100-meter no treatment buffer would be applied around the extent of the complex, mitigating any potential for adverse impact to these burrow complexes. When these benefits are combined

78 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA with additional conservation measures from the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA for other land use activities (e.g., mining, recreation, grazing etc.) the benefits are further amplified.

Table 30: Impact potential of the proposed action on threatened, endangered, candidate, or special status animal species that may occur within the analysis area Effect Species Name Potential Beneficial Impact Potential Adverse Impact Determination Birds Bald eagle Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Range alteration and burrow Burrowing owl Improved conservation overall N/A impacts California Condor No Impact No Impact N/A

Ferruginous hawk Overall improved range and forage Loss of nesting substrate N/A Golden eagle Overall improved range and forage No Impact N/A Improved sagebrush community Greater sage-grouse No Impact N/A composition, structure, and distribution Lewis’ woodpecker No Impact No Impact N/A Associated with cheatgrass Long-billed curlew Overall improved conservation N/A and perennial grass habitats Short-eared owl Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Snowy plover Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Western Yellow-billed Overall improved conservation No Impact No Effect cuckoo Mammals Big Free-Tailed Bat No Impact No Impact N/A Dark kangaroo mouse Overall improved conservation No Impact N/A Fringed myotis No Impact No Impact N/A No Impact (if burrow are Kit fox Overall improved conservation N/A identified and avoided) No Impact (if burrow Pygmy rabbit Overall improved conservation complexes are surveyed and N/A avoided) Spotted bat No Impact No Impact N/A Townsend’s big-eared No Impact No Impact N/A bat Western red bat No Impact No Impact N/A

4.4.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, it can be anticipated that much of the current land management practices would continue. Therefore, many of the benefits (e.g., improved cover, forage, and space) provided by improved conversation for greater sage-grouse for kit foxes and pygmy rabbit would not be experienced. While vegetation treatments may occur on adjacent lands (e.g., private and State), the BLM is the largest land manager. The absence of land management on BLM-managed public land above that currently occurring, would likely sustain the current conditions. Overall, improved health, resistance, and resiliency of public lands would not occur and species that would benefit from increased conservation for greater sage-grouse would not be experienced.

79 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 4.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species 4.5.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Wildlife excluding special status species represents the majority of sagebrush-steppe ecosystem fauna found within the analysis area. It is not anticipated the vegetation treatments and the improving the composition, structure, and distribution of the sagebrush ecosystem for the benefit of greater sage-grouse would have any negative impacts on these species. Rather, by improving cover, water, and forage, it is speculated that these species would benefit overall and that wildlife species diversity would improve in the long-term by improving wildlife habitat and improving vegetation species diversity. It can be anticipated that project implementation, human activity, and machinery may physically kill smaller less mobile species (e.g., snakes) whereas those species that are more adaptable and mobile (e.g., big game) would be temporarily displace to avoid treatment activities and noise. It is expected that once activities ceased, the mobile species would move back into the area. Further proposed actions to improve sagebrush community composition, structure, and distribution would complement UDWR big game management goals and objectives. Overall, given the goals and objectives of the vegetation treatments, it is anticipated that the magnitude and the duration of the effects would not contribute or trigger any population declines and would largely be beneficial. When these benefits are combined with additional conservation measures for other land use activities (e.g., mining, recreation, grazing etc.) the benefits are further amplified. 4.5.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, it can be anticipated that much of the current land management practices would continue. Therefore many of the benefits (e.g., improved cover, forage, and space) provided by improved conservation for greater sage-grouse for would not be experienced by wildlife, excluding special status species. Further, pinyon and juniper would continue to expand and infill into the sagebrush habitat zone and sustain a decline in the production, vigor and diversity of grass, forb and shrub species within this habitat type. In that, forage values would continue to decline in terms of both nutrition and palatability and changes in the sagebrush community composition and structure would affect species richness and diversity within the analysis area. While vegetation treatments may occur on adjacent lands (i.e., private and State), the BLM is the largest land manager. The absence of land management on BLM-managed public land above that currently occurring would likely sustain the current vegetation trends and risks of wildfire and spread of invasive species. Overall, improved health, resistance, and resiliency of public lands would not occur and species that would benefit from increased conservation for greater sage-grouse would not be experienced. 4.6 Fuels/Fire Management 4.6.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Treatments identified under the proposed action would mitigate the three key threats to sagebrush habitat: fire, invasive species, and conifer expansion and infilling. Treatments would provide disturbance under controlled conditions, consequently protecting soil and water resources compared to the effects of large wildfires. Treatments would reduce hazardous fuel loads by breaking up the tree canopy continuity and vertical arrangement of the ladder fuels. Overall, the threat of a wildfire event negatively impacting private property, firefighter and public safety, and natural resources would be diminished. Changes in the structure and composition of vegetation would reduce fire behavior and promote ecosystem health and resiliency. Susceptibility to cheatgrass dominance following wildfire would decrease. Firefighters would have a higher probability of success due to reduced fire line intensity and flame lengths. The proposed

80 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA treatment areas would provide better escape routes and more opportunities to use a variety of firefighting strategies and tactics. Treatments in and around the sagebrush areas would help protect this sensitive habitat type and would reduce the threat of large scale wildfires. The treatments would also effectively return these areas to a fire regime closer to the historical range and desired future condition (Fire Regime Condition Class 2) and move the area toward meeting habitat objectives defined in the Utah Greater Sage- Grouse ARMPA (see Table 7). 4.6.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, keys threats to sagebrush habitat (fire, invasive species, and conifer encroachment) would not be mitigated. Large contiguous areas with heavy fuel loading would persist and increase throughout the analysis area. Suppression actions, firefighter exposure, and suppression strategies and tactics would remain the same. Existing and accumulating surface fuels would lead to a greater probability of high intensity, wildfire with negative consequences to natural resources and residents in the area. The analysis area would remain in an altered state outside of the historical fire regime and condition class. If a wildland fire were to occur in the analysis area, invasive plant and weed species (e.g., cheatgrass) would likely proliferate, further shortening fire return intervals. Community members and private landowners may accomplish fire hazard reduction work independently of BLM actions. However, the prevalence of BLM-managed public land in the analysis area would allow a large fire hazard to remain unchecked. Pinyon/juniper expansion and infilling would persist and continue to degrade ecological resources necessary to other biotic components of the system. As a result, sagebrush would decline and native plant diversity and abundance may decrease over time with invasive weedy species potentially increasing. Fuel loading would continue to increase, escalating the likelihood of high-severity wildfire and the potential for resource degradation due to cheatgrass dominance. The analysis area represents one of the best opportunities within the West Desert District to proactively manage vegetation, improve habitat, and reduce the risk to greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. To not implement proactive treatments under these circumstances would not be in the best interest of the BLM and may jeopardize partnerships where the BLM has worked with the UDWR, NRCS, and Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative to identify and fund projects in areas where greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat could be severely damaged or lost to wildland fire. By not completing projects on public lands, resources would continue to be at risk from wildfire, the momentum developed by partners to work together may be jeopardized, and funding sources may be lost or used elsewhere. 4.7 Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species 4.7.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The initial impacts of the proposed action would include the removal or reduction of primarily juniper (very limited pinyon) from approximately 11,500 acres within the Fillmore Field Office in the Cow Hollow and Cherry Creek drainages and approximately 10,877 acres within Salt Lake Field Office in South Willow Creek, Erickson Pass, East Onaqui Mountains, and Little Valley, as described in Section 2.1.1. After these initial site-specific juniper treatments, pinyon/juniper treatments would continue to occur on portions of the 19 treatment focus areas, resulting in the reduction of expanding and infilling pinyon/juniper, and restoration of sagebrush habitat, on up to another approximately 77,600 acres of public lands. Additionally, the three initial riparian exclosures would reduce livestock/wild horse access to riparian vegetation (e.g., browsing, trampling) and increase the amount of wet meadow habitat and vegetation which is important forage for greater sage-grouse in brood-rearing habitat. Research in Utah has found that when juniper/pinyon cover exceeds 20 percent, there is a corresponding 50 percent decrease in shrub cover, and when juniper/pinyon cover exceeds 40 percent, there is a 50

81 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA percent decrease in perennial herbaceous plants (Bybee et al. 2016). By decreasing juniper/pinyon cover, herbaceous perennial plants are released from competition for resources, which leads to increased cover (Roundy et al. 2014) and productivity. These types of results are the expected outcome and have been observed on mastication treatments implemented within the analysis area. For example, in the Lofgreen project area, bluebunch wheatgrass cover was 4.0 percent prior to tree thinning but increase to 15.3 percent by three years post-treatment (see Appendix D.2: Monitoring Photographs and Data, Figure 8. Figure 9, and Figure 10). Similarly, at the East Onaqui project site prior to mastication, bluebunch wheatgrass cover averaged 3.5 percent. Two years following treatment, bluebunch wheatgrass cover increased to 31.3 percent (see Appendix D.2, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14).

Figure 1: Additional days of soil water availability in spring following conifer removal, by phase (Roundy et al. 2014)19 Increasing perennial grass and forb cover has been identified as key to maintaining or restoring ecosystem resiliency (Chambers et al. 2014). Bybee et al. (2016) concluded that shredding alone or seeding and then shredding trees facilitates greater resilience to ecosystem disturbance and greater resistance to invasive plants and wildfire due to increases in perennial herbaceous cover. Mastication treatments throughout the analysis area have increased resistance and resilience by removing trees and promoting perennial understory species (see Appendix D.2, Figure 15 and Figure 16). For example, the Berry Fire (2015) occurred within the Clover project area, which had been seeded and masticated in 2004. A follow up treatment was done in 2009 to remove more trees. Because the site was dominated by perennial grasses and forbs rather than trees at the time of the fire, fire behavior and severity were moderate to low and the area did not require any fire rehabilitation efforts to restore the vegetation and protect the soils (see Appendix D.2, Figure 17 and Figure 18). Removal of juniper and pinyon increases the amount of soil water availability to understory vegetation. As a result, plant vigor and productivity increase. Tree removal decreases canopy interception, reduces water loss through transpiration and can increase infiltration into soils. Roundy et al. (2014) found in their SageSTEP research that removing trees where

19 Roundy et al. (2014) includes data from two SageSTEP monitoring sites located within and adjacent to the analysis area: Onaqui (within; 6 years of data collection) and Stansbury (adjacent; 3 years of data collection).

82 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA they dominate (Phase 3 stands) can add up to three weeks of available soil moisture in the spring (see Figure 1). In addition to benefitting perennial grasses and forbs, additional soil moisture may result in increased leader growth, seed production, and vigor of sagebrush following tree removal (see Appendix D.2, Figure 19). Natural recovery of sagebrush has been documented within the analysis area following mastication treatments. In three sites (Onaqui, Government Creek, James Ranch) 5 to 7 years after treatment sagebrush seedlings averaged over 1,200 per acre in treated sites versus 90 in untreated sites (see Appendix D.2, Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22). In these treated areas there was enough sagebrush present to regenerate on its own. In the adjacent untreated control plots there was abundant sagebrush but very little recruitment occurring. Where sagebrush is absent or nearly absent, sagebrush seeding or seedling planting may be needed. This could occur following fire, in pinyon/juniper dominated stands, in existing crested wheatgrass monocultures. Planting sagebrush in sites dominated by crested wheatgrass would help the rangelands more closely reflect what is expected for those ecological sites. In contrast, some sagebrush stands are also nearly monocultures, with few perennial grasses and forbs in the understory. Improving the understory by seeding perennial grasses and forbs would increase diversity and improve the ecological function and resiliency of these sagebrush communities. Treatments would also focus on reducing cheatgrass cover in sagebrush habitat by herbicide application. A reduction of cheatgrass would decrease the risk of fire in the ecosystem. Minimizing cheatgrass would also reduce resource competition between cheatgrass and perennial grasses and forbs. This reduced competition would allow desired perennial species to thrive which would provide long-term health and stability to these sites. The potential effects to desirable vegetation from the application of herbicides was analyzed in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Final Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007a) and the Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2016a) , which are hereby incorporated by reference. The use of chemical treatments, either pre-emergent or post-emergent, on invasive plants or noxious weeds would be designed to achieve the desired level of control with the least amount of impacts to desired resources. Herbicides have the potential to harm non-target plants with the degree of damage dependent upon (but not limited to) the herbicide used, herbicide selectivity, application method, application rate, concentration, relative toxicity to plants, likelihood of exposure, timing, environmental conditions during application and plant phenology. Herbicides treatments affect non-target plants through direct application, overspray, off-site movement and unintended accidental spills. Potential impacts include mortality, reduced productivity, and abnormal growth. Certain plants or groups of plants are more susceptible to specific herbicides, and collateral damage to non-target plants would depend upon their susceptibility to a particular herbicide. Measures taken to limit exposure such as selective application methods (e.g., spot applications, wiping, and hand directed spraying), maximum and typical application rates (that are often less than the maximum allowed on the label, droplet size and drift reduction agents, and application restrictions based on environmental conditions (wind speed, precipitation, temperature, etc.), all reduce the off-target movement of herbicides. Project design criteria (Table 6) are designed to minimize risk to non-target plants. Herbicide treatments to control invasive plants would not affect plant communities to the extent that one community changes into another. The establishment of fuel breaks/greenstrips is also proposed. These strategically placed fuel breaks/greenstrips would alter existing vegetation through mowing, harrowing, and/or seeding fire resistant plants. Fuel breaks/greenstrips modify fire behavior by altering fuel composition (reducing more flammable vegetation and seed more fire resistant species), structure (e.g., reducing vegetation height and

83 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA size), and continuity (reducing the density of vegetation). This provides fire suppression resources anchor points and safer condition for which to fight fires. Fuel breaks/greenstrips help slow fire progression, and in some cases stop fires altogether, which would allow adjacent sagebrush communities to remain intact. So while fuel breaks and greenstrips may temporarily reduce some vegetation due to mowing or harrowing, and remove some sagebrush, the resulting modification in fire behavior and defensible space for fire suppression greatly increases the chances for keeping fire smaller and reducing the amount of sagebrush loss due to natural and human-caused wildland fires. 4.7.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, pinyon/juniper stands would continue to expand into areas currently occupied by sagebrush steppe. Sagebrush would continue to decline due to tree dominance. Resource availability, particularly soil moisture, would continue to decline limiting the productivity and vigor of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Where there is a degraded herbaceous understory or where cheatgrass is common, invasive plant species may dominate following wildfire. Eradicating these species would require intensive control efforts and money. Less sagebrush habitat would be treated to reduce cheatgrass and to improve perennial herbaceous plants. Untreated sites would be more susceptible to conversion to annual grasslands and would require more intensive stabilization and rehabilitation efforts following wildfire. No proactive efforts to prevent the spread of wildfire would be implemented, putting more areas at risk to wildfire spread. Though suppression efforts would remain the same, more area would be susceptible to fire spread due to prevalence and fuel loading of cheatgrass. No fuel breaks would be established and acres burned would likely be greater. Less sagebrush steppe vegetation would be restored with an herbaceous understory of grasses and forbs, and a decrease in perennial understory would result in lower ecosystem resistance and resiliency. 4.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds 4.8.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Under the proposed action, vegetative treatments would occur by machinery (e.g., tractor mounted sprayer, aerially sprayed/dispersed) and hand (e.g., backpack sprayer). Vehicles, equipment, and people have the potential to transport vegetative parts or seeds to new locations, a negligible effect. Vegetative treatments can create conditions that favor early successional species, which can lead to a competitive advantage for invasive plant species such as cheatgrass. Hand thinning would be anticipated to have less potential for increasing these species as there is a minimal amount of surface disturbance. The vegetation treatments methods proposed under the proposed action could potentially enhance the ability of noxious weeds and/or invasive grasses to establish or become a denser population that already exists. Of particular concern would be the potential of an increase in squarerose knapweed infestation or expansion of cheatgrass invasion. During and following implementation, grazing animals may be temporarily displaced. Areas that livestock would be displaced into are already available for livestock grazing. Wild horses are not confined to fenced allotments or pastures and have the potential to transfer seed or vegetative material throughout the planning area regardless of whether treatments occur. Transfer of seed or vegetative material by livestock or horses would be a negligible effect in the short term, but could result in the establishment of invasive species which could increase in extent over time. Treating cheatgrass (and other invasive plants/noxious weeds) with herbicide, followed by seeding, could decrease this invasive plant and allow other more desirable species to become established in the plant community.

84 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Weed prevention measures (see Table 6) would be followed to minimize the spread of populations of noxious/invasive weeds. Invasive weeds would be inventoried, treated, and monitored to control unwanted vegetation and reduce hazardous fuels. Prior to any project initiation, an initial inventory for invasive species/noxious weeds would be conducted and treatment of any infestation found prior to disturbing activity taking place would occur. A monitoring and treatment plan would be implemented for each site-specific project after completion to prevent infestation from reestablishing within the analysis area. Each field office would be responsible for all documentation, such as Pesticide Use Proposals, for work that would be completed with the field office boundaries. The potential effects to invasive plants and noxious weeds from the application of herbicides was analyzed in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Final Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007a) and the Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2016a) , which are hereby incorporated by reference. Under the proposed action, herbicide applications are proposed within the analysis area. The use of chemical treatments, either pre-emergent or post-emergent, on invasive plants or noxious weeds would be designed to achieve the desired level of control with the least amount of impacts to desired resources. Herbicides have the potential to harm non-target plants with the degree of damage dependent upon (but not limited to) the herbicide used, herbicide selectivity, application method, application rate, concentration, relative toxicity to plants, likelihood of exposure, timing, environmental conditions during application and plant phenology. Herbicides treatments affect non-target plants through direct application, overspray, off-site movement and unintended accidental spills. Potential impacts include mortality, reduced productivity, and abnormal growth. Certain plants or groups of plants are more susceptible to specific herbicides, and collateral damage to non-target plants would depend upon their susceptibility to a particular herbicide. Seeding of areas treated with chemicals is designed to establish perennial vegetation that would enhance the native vegetation community’s ability to compete against possible future invasions of undesirable vegetation. 4.8.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, ecosystem resistance and resiliency would continue to decline due to loss of perennial grasses and forbs. As a result, ecosystems could become more prone to invasion by weedy species. Without treatments to reduce cheatgrass andestablishfuelbreaks, more area would be impacted by fire, possibly leading to increase in spread of invasive plants, in particular cheatgrass. Existing vectors such as grazing animals and recreational uses would continue to have a potential to transfer plant materials and/or seed to new locations, a negligible effect in the short term, but could result in the establishment of invasive species which could increase in density and extent over time. Invasive and noxious weeds would continue to be treated under the current weed management plans. Although the proposed action does increase the risk of weed invasion locally, overall, the focus on improvement of habitat through seeding and herbicide application would not occur and less overall area would be inventoried and surveyed. Areas dominated by cheatgrass would not be treated by the invasive weeds program as this species has lower priority and is beyond the early detection-rapid response level of treatment which is major focus of invasive weed programs. 4.9 Woodlands/Forestry 4.9.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Of the approximately 235,960 acres of pinyon/juniper woodlands within the analysis area, approximately 75,000 to 100,00 acres (32 to 42 percent) of woodlands are proposed for mastication treatments; either whole or in part. Although identified as pinyon/juniper woodlands, it is clear based on tree morphology

85 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA and growth characteristics that the majority of the trees have established since the late 1800’s (Miller et al. 2008). Prior to their establishment, sagebrush was the dominante vegetation type and considerable expansion and infilling of trees has occurred. Mastication treatments would focus on removal of these “post settlement” trees in areas that could support sagebrush habitat on slopes less than 30 percent. An additional approximately 37,500 to 75,000 acres are proposed for lop and scatter treatments; most of these areas are composed of scattered trees that have expanded into sagebrush habitat and are not considered in the total acres for woodlands. The proposed action would remove pinyon and juniper from approximately 75,000 to 100,000 acres of land that could be sagebrush habitat. Within the analysis area, core areas, where pinyon/juniper woodlands would be managed for habitat and biodiversity, have been identified. These areas are generally in mountainous terrain on slopes greater than 30 percent. Many of the areas identified for treatment are those most accessible to the public. To offset the potential loss of some public forestry resources, locations within the analysis area that are identified as valuable forestry resources for the public use (e.g. , post and pole, Christmas trees) would be designated as such and no treatments would be proposed within these locations. In addition, forest resources in areas designated for treatment may be utilized by: 1) sale of trees removed by treatments through timber sale or stewardship contract/agreements, or 2) designation of treatment units as woodland harvest units in the years prior to treatment implementation, with utilization issued through the existing permit system. 4.9.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, pinyon/juniper woodland expansion and infilling would continue. Fuel loading would increase which in turn escalates the probability of large scale, high severity wildfire. Large wildfires within woodlands could negatively impact the woodland/forestry program. Aside from potential future wildfire, the no-action alternative would have limited impacts on the woodland/forestry programs. Existing pinyon/juniper woodlands would remain intact as both wildlife habitat and be available for use as a public resource. Harvest would continue under the current permit system. There would not likely be commercial areas available for biomass removal through timber sale or stewardship contracts. 4.10 Soils 4.10.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The majority of soil units within the analysis area are well suited for the proposed treatments. They contain sufficient rock fragments, microclimates, and soil moisture to ensure establishment of a variety of desired understory grasses and forbs. Many of the soil types would and likely did support a wider community of grasses and forbs, with pinyon/juniper as a smaller component of the vegetation community. Removal of pinyon/juniper and invasive species combined with appropriate seeding would allow desired perennial grasses and forbs to return to the site, adding stability to the soil layers and reducing upland erosion. Processes known to cause the greatest adverse effects on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties associated with the types of proposed treatment activities include the following: soil compaction, displacement, and surface erosion. Direct effects to the soils include temporary compaction by machinery or displacement. Displacement of soils would not be likely to occur during most treatments proposed; however, may occur temporarily if chaining treatments are implemented or bulldozers are used to pile/windrow downed pinyon/juniper. Mechanical treatment methods would occur on slopes less than 30 percent. As a result, soil erosion should be minimal. Mechanical shredding of pinyon and juniper leaves masticated debris on the soil surface which helps to minimize both wind and water erosion. Mechanical treatments may crush or compact some soils; however, these impacts would be short-term and not detrimental over time.

86 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Prescribed fire can be a useful tool in helping to renew vascular plant vigor, if a sufficient seed bed exists and/or the site is revegetated to reduce the establishment of exotic species, such as cheatgrass. Because prescribed fire can be used to mimic natural, low-intensity fire, this tool would provide little disturbance to soils and overall, help maintain and encourage diverse vegetative communities. Under the proposed action, temporary fences may be installed where necessary to protected seeded areas post-treatment for up to two years. Any soil disturbed during this effort would be minimal and temporary. 4.10.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative pinyon/juniper cover and density would increase and understory vegetation would decline. As perennial grasses and forbs decrease, bare soil increases which elevates erosion potential. There would be no direct increase or decrease in soil conditions if this alternative was implemented. In the absence of mechanical vegetation treatments, there would be no soil compaction or erosion that could be attributed to treatment methods. Current disturbances from animals, humans, wildfire, water and wind movement, etc. would continue. Active fire suppression efforts over the past 100 years have allowed sagebrush to increase into riparian zones and areas once dominated by grasses/forbs. In other areas, pinyon and juniper, once held in check by periodic fire, have also increased, reducing both sagebrush and grasses/forbs. In some areas, bare soils have resulted in long term soil movement throughout the watershed. Juniper expansion and infilling has been associated with increased soil loss and reduced soil infiltration rates. In the absence of treatments, this pattern will continue and likely increase across the landscape. 4.11 Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Health Standards 4.11.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action In the long term, the proposed action would not cause an adverse impact to the area available to, or the analysis area’s capacity to support, livestock grazing. In the short term, proposed treatments that include adding seed would require a rest period of a minimum of two growing seasons to allow the seeded species adequate time to establish. The planning and implementation of the treatments would be coordinated with the affected grazing permittees to minimize the impact as much as possible. Temporary fences may be constructed to allow livestock to continue to utilize grazing allotments while ensuring that the treatment areas are rested. Impacts to livestock operations would be limited if vegetation treatments are completed in a particular treatment area within one year, if a temporary grazing management system are implemented to avoid treated areas, and/or if agreements are reached with permittees for non-use within the area of treatment on the affected allotments. If agreements could not be reached with affected permittees or fencing is not completed, then, by decision as outlined in 43 CFR subpart 4160, livestock grazing would not be authorized within the treatment areas for a minimum of two growing seasons. However, until a final decision is made for an impacted treatment area and allotment, the permittee would still be authorized to graze. Long-term impacts would be increased vegetation diversity and increased forage production. This may shift livestock use patterns, enhance livestock distribution, and moderate overall forage utilization levels and rates. Indirectly, these treatments would reduce the risk of future wildfire. Uncontrolled, high severity wildfires can remove forage from large tracts of rangeland, reducing suitability for livestock grazing. These fires can increase risk for invasion of noxious weeds and other undesirable species, which would reduce forage availability and increase fire cycle interval. The proposed treatments would also assist the analysis area in conforming to the BLM Utah Standards for Rangeland Health by aiding in the establishment of perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which would

87 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA result in an increase in the amount of ground cover. This increase in ground cover would support infiltration, stabilize soils, and allow the soil to maintain its moisture storage properties. This would help ensure that watersheds are making progress toward being a properly functioning system. The project would also assist in supporting healthy biotic communities by increasing the amount of litter, and by improving the overall production of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 4.11.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, livestock management and grazing would remain the same. The grazing permittees would not need to rest grazing allotments or pastures within allotments for two years; therefore, no short-term disruption to livestock operations would occur. Increased forage for livestock over the long term would not occur unless a wildland fire or other treatment outside the scope of this EA would occur. Rangeland health assessments would continue to be gathered as per grazing permit renewal schedules. If the treatments do not occur the expansion of pinyon/juniper forests would continue which would result in lower amounts of ground cover and therefore infiltration into the soil would not be improved and soil erosion would increase. As a result, the ability of the sites to meet the standards would be lessened. 4.12 Water Resources/Quality 4.12.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action There are no expected direct impacts to water quality from the site-specific projects or treatments described in Section 2.1.2. State of Utah water quality standards are currently not being met on all drainages due to elevated temperature and pH levels. These levels are not expected to change due to the site-specific projects and treatments in Section 2.1.2 that have been proposed. Treatment types discussed in Section 2.1.2.7 of protecting water sources, fencing, and restoring riparian areas are expected to improve water quality by increasing shade from riparian vegetation, increasing bank stability, and decreasing sediment and nutrient input. If livestock are not allowed to graze an allotment following treatment and reseeding, water quality may improve for the duration that grazing is removed through a decrease in E. coli and other nutrients, an increase in bank cover, and decrease in sediment. Indirect impacts maybe seen through improved riparian vegetation condition from riparian specific projects which may increase shade and cool water temperatures. Increased runoff from removal of vegetation may occur which may increase instream flow or may result in additional overland flow which may increase sediment and nutrient loads to streams. 4.12.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, water quality would remain the same. Water bodies that are not meeting State of Utah beneficial use standards would continue to not meet water quality standards. 4.13 Wetlands/Riparian Zones 4.13.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Riparian areas would be directly impacted and improved through the Government Creek Lek wet meadow improvement, Art Spring Riparian Exclosure, and Death Creek Stream and Riparian Fence projects. Currently the riparian areas at these sites area highly utilized by wild horses and/or livestock, resulting in degraded conditions. Fencing these areas to exclude wild horses and livestock would greatly improve riparian vegetation conditions at this site by reducing trampling and browsing pressures, which in turn would allow for regrowth and reestablishment of native riparian plant species (e.g., perennial forbs).

88 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Other future projects which would likely include treatments to fence additional riparian areas or restore riparian areas would have a direct positive impact on riparian areas. Indirect impacts include the potential for expansion of riparian areas if there is increased discharge or groundwater due to the removal of pinyon/juniper trees. If livestock do not graze an allotment (or portion of an allotment) following treatment and reseeding, riparian condition may improve through regrowth and reestablishment. 4.13.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, riparian conditions would remain the same. Areas with limited or degraded riparian condition would remain and are not expected to improve without direct action. Wetlands, riparian zones, and water quality would be at a higher risk for negative impacts from high- intensity wildland fire if the area is left untreated. Existing densities of juniper that have accumulated over the years would increase, along with the projected likelihood of a high-severity fire. Although fire suppression activities would continue as in the past, a fast-moving wildland fire could out-pace suppression efforts and the fire could potentially affect a large area. Impacts to riparian and water resources from a high-intensity fire may include an increase in sedimentation and erosion, a reduction in site productivity, and diminished water yield due to channel down cutting. 4.14 Cultural Resources 4.14.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Given the scope and schedule of this project, a phased approach as defined in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) is necessary. Prior to any ground disturbing activities and/or with each phase of the project, an intensive (Class III) cultural resource inventory would be conducted to identify and evaluate cultural resources. A determination of eligibility and finding of effect would be made for each identified historic property by the agency and in consultation with the SHPO in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Archaeological sites determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be flagged and avoided thus having No Adverse Effect. However, if it is found that conducting the vegetation treatment on site would have no impact on the integrity (such as with the expanded mitigation strategies described in Section 2.1.4; Project Design Criteria), or the characteristics that make the site eligible for the NRHP, the treatment would be conducted on site resulting in No Adverse Effect as a result of the proposed action. 4.14.2 Alternative B – No-Action The no-action alternative would not contribute to the direct impacts on identified archaeological resources, because no physical disturbance would occur, thus resulting in No Effect determination. However, over time, the no-action alternative could contribute to indirect or cumulative impacts on identified archaeological resources, due to catastrophic fire directly destroying historic properties, increased erosion from exposed and loosened soil matrices damaging and destroying historic properties, and increased visibility potentially exacerbating looting activity. Furthermore, many known sites across the analysis area are within ‘tree islands’ or segments of woody vegetation left in place due to past avoidance measures for archaeological resources. These tree islands often become the focal point for cattle seeking shade during the summer, as well as recreational campers looking for a place to rest. If such tree islands are not removed using the modified treatment strategies described in Table 6, the no-action alternative could result in indirect cumulative impacts to historic properties.

89 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 4.15 Recreation 4.15.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The proposed action would not impact developed recreation sites and casual dispersed recreation use would not be substantially impacted. Trails and camping areas may be impacted by the proposal, specifically, pinyon/juniper removal treatments which may potentially remove trees around dispersed camping sites and/or obscure existing trails (e.g., mulch resulting from mastication treatments covering trails). A commercial wilderness therapy program operates in the analysis area and BLM staff would continue to coordinate with the SRP holder on project design to minimize potential impacts, such as loss of dispersed camping sites due to pinyon/juniper treatments, to their operations from vegetation treatments. With regard to BLM-permitted racing events, possible impacts of the proposed action could be the destruction or obstruction of trails and the disruption of camping areas utilized by individuals involved in these events. 4.15.2 Alternative B – No-Action Under the no-action alternative, there would be not impacts to developed or dispersed recreation. Additionally, there would be no impacts to BLM-issued SRPs. 4.16 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 4.16.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Wilderness characteristics inventories would be completed on an on-going basis within the analysis area as individual projects are proposed within treatment focus areas. Site-specific inventories would be completed prior to determining the final design of treatments with a specific treatment focus area and prior to the preparation of a DNA evaluating a site-specific treatment proposal. When a site-specific inventory is conducted and the inventory concludes that the area does not meet the standards for possessing wilderness characteristics as per BLM Manual 6310, the proposed project would be implemented without protective measures (required design features) for lands with wilderness characteristics. When an inventory concludes that lands with wilderness characteristics are present, treatments within in those areas identified as possessing wilderness characteristics would be modified in accordance with the project design criteria (protective measures) listed in Table 6 to maintain and/or minimize impacts to the characteristics. The following is an analysis of potential impacts from the proposed action that could occur if, and where, potential lands with wilderness characteristics may be identified within the analysis area.

4.16.1.1 Size The proposed action would not cause any changes to the existing roads or transportation network within the analysis area. Existing roads or primitive routes would not be altered, and new roads would not be constructed under the proposed action. Therefore, the boundaries of potential areas of lands with wilderness character would not be altered or diminished.

4.16.1.2 Naturalness Activities related to vegetation treatments would be expected to have short-term adverse effects that would vary in duration and magnitude depending on the size of a particular treated area and the type of treatment implemented (e.g., mechanical, lop and scatter, prescribed fire). Post-treatment, there would be impacts to naturalness as long as the evidence of human manipulation of the vegetation remained visible

90 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA to average visitor. As new vegetation gradually replaces the treated vegetation, the appearance of naturalness would be restored to the average visitor who is not familiar with biological composition of natural ecosystems verses human-affected ecosystems. The primary goal of the proposed action is to change or manipulate the composition of existing vegetation within the analysis area to reduce overall tree cover, increase biodiversity, and improve habitat. Vegetation manipulation would be accomplished primarily through bullhog mastication, lop and scatter, or chain harrow/seeding. The proposed action does not include actions that would create permanent man- made developments, structures, or other infrastructure. Bullhog mastication generally does not cause noticeable soil disturbance, but tree cover would be substantially reduced or eliminated entirely. Areas of tree cover would be expected to be replaced in short order with new vegetation in the form of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Bullhog treatments would leave behind a layer of shredded organic mulch that would normally become weathered, covered by new vegetation, and partially decomposed within a short time span, generally less than 1 to 3 years from implementation. The creation of a mulch layer on the ground helps to retain moisture and allow seeds to germinate, thereby improving growth rates and density of new vegetation. Chain harrow seeding treatments create a relatively small amount of soil disturbance that normally is covered by new vegetation growth and freeze-thaw processes within a 1 to 3 year timeframe. Lop and scatter treatments occur in areas of low-density trees that already possess a substantial component of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Lop and scatter involves cutting down smaller trees with chainsaws and scattering pieces no longer than 3 feet and no higher than 2 feet. Discarded slash material lies low to the ground, is not readily visible, and would begin to weather and decompose quickly. Tree stumps are cut to within 6 inches of ground level, which is sufficient for surrounding vegetation to visually obscure the stumps, typically within less than a year. Prescribed fire may be utilized to reduce slash or mulch resulting from pinyon/juniper treatments and to treat dense sagebrush stands that lack an appropriate understory of grasses and forbs. In the short-term, burned vegetation would be visible to the casual observer. However, within 1 to 3 years post-prescribed fire, regrowth grasses and forbs, in addition to seeded species, would be apparent in treated areas. The application of chemicals to control cheatgrass and other invasive species/noxious weeds has the potential to affect naturalness by killing non-target vegetation. Short term color changes in vegetation would be most apparent in areas which are dominated by green vegetation. Treated annual grasses would not be as apparent because the landscape is dominated by low-growing shrubs with green, brown, gray, or other earth tone colors. All of the above listed vegetation manipulations are intended to enhance overall biodiversity and resiliency. Although the treatments may cause an immediate change in visual composition of the area, the change itself would not permanently affect the standard of apparent naturalness found within current BLM policy for lands with wilderness characteristics. To maintain and/or minimize impacts to the naturalness criteria, the work of humans must be substantially unnoticeable to the average visitor. Therefore, specific required design criteria may include but are not limited to: the use of rubber tired machines to avoid ruts in the soil, hand thinning, seasonal restrictions, seeding, limiting the size of treatment area, and/or design features to avoid patterns, lines, and/or textures on the landscape (see Table 6). While vegetation may appear different to some visitors in a treatment area,, visual cues to human manipulation would fade out in a relatively short time, and the area would continue to appear as primarily impacted by the forces of nature. Within a 2 to 3 year time span from treatment, a potential area of wilderness characteristics would still appear natural to the average visitor.

4.16.1.3 Opportunities for Solitude and/or Primitive Recreation In the very short-term, vegetative treatments would be likely to temporarily impact outstanding opportunities for solitude and/or primitive and unconfined recreation during actual treatment operations. This would be due to the presence and noise resulting from equipment and laborers conducting the

91 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA treatment operations. These temporary impacts would be limited to the duration of actual treatment operations, would be localized to the specific area being treated, and they would not be pervasive and omnipresent. Vegetation manipulations planned under the proposed action would primarily result in loss of tree cover and subsequent vegetative screening that enhances opportunities for solitude. Within a treatment area, loss of tree cover would reduce levels of screening from the sights and sounds of other human activity. During short timeframes of several days to several weeks, implementation of mechanical vegetation treatments may cause visitors to see or hear mechanical equipment or machinery within the local treatment area, such as chainsaws, trucks, bull hog machines, tractors, or bulldozers. However, potential areas of lands with wilderness characteristics within portions of the analysis area would likely be large enough and possess substantial levels of topographic relief to continue to provide good opportunities for screening from human-made sights and sounds, compensating for any losses of vegetative screening. Additionally, required design criteria to reduce impacts to the solitude criteria may include but are not limited to: limiting the size of treatment area, configuration of treatment, and/or topographic and vegetative screening considerations (see Table 6).Therefore, impacts from the proposed action on opportunities for experiencing solitude within the analysis area are expected to be temporary, localized, and generally minimized by area size and topographic screening. The proposed action is not expected to have any substantial impact on opportunities for primitive recreation within the analysis area. Primitive recreational activities such as hiking, backpacking, hunting, camping, horseback riding, snowshoeing, and skiing would not be reduced, and in fact, may be improved by removal of tree cover in the analysis area. Less dense areas of trees would actually make it easier for visitors to engage in hiking, pitching a tent, riding a horse, snowshoeing, or skiing. Organic material on the ground such as slash and mulch would provide more easily recovered and useable fuel for campfires. The visual diversity and attractiveness of vegetation would be improved for visitors, with richer colors and textures throughout the year from bunch grasses, wildflowers, forbs, and shrubs. The presence of native plants with medicinal properties or food resources would increase, such as western yarrow, ephedra, sagebrush, and sunflowers. Increased biodiversity from vegetation treatments would improve habitat and likely increase encounters with most wildlife for all recreationists including hunters. Shade would be reduced in lower elevation areas, but sufficient tree cover at higher elevations, where visitors are generally drawn during warmer months, would remain undisturbed. Loss of substantial tree cover may also result in greater infiltration of water, causing natural spring sources to become active again. With the removal of substantial areas of tree cover, one might expect that an increase in cross-country off- highway vehicle use and route proliferation would occur, thereby threatening naturalness or opportunities for solitude. However, previous BLM experience in the analysis area with fire restoration on the Faust Fire and the Sheep Fire areas, where large areas of dense tree cover were burned off, did not produce a subsequent increase in off-highway vehicle traffic, unauthorized incursions, or route proliferation. It appears that current efforts to educate the off-highway vehicle user community on the responsibility to stay on existing roads and trails have generated positive results, and route proliferation rates have slowed in the last 5 years. Additionally, required design features (see Table 6) would minimize impacts to to the outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation criteria. Specific design criteria may include but is not limited to: avoiding new route creation, restoring project related linear travel disturbances via blocking or obscuring with rocks, soil or vegetation, physically ripping or plowing, seeding, and marking with signs.

4.16.1.4 Supplemental Values There are no supplemental values related to vegetation composition, such as sensitive species, yet identified within the analysis area. The proposed action is not expected to have any potential impacts to supplemental values identified in future land with wilderness characteristics inventories.

92 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Overall, in the long-term, treated areas would remain natural to the average visitor and the outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation would still be present when following the design criteria (protective measures) listed in Table 6. Areas determined to possess wilderness characteristics would maintain those characteristics in the long term following potential treatments. 4.16.2 Alternative B – No-Action There would be no direct impacts to any potential lands with wilderness characteristics under the no- action alternative. Updating BLM’s current inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics would not be necessary. 4.17 Air Quality/Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.17.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action

4.17.1.1 Air Quality The proposed action would result in localized, short-term impacts on air quality from equipment used to treat vegetation, vehicles to access sites, and smoke from prescribed fire (e.g., pile burning). Transportation and the use of equipment to accomplish the fuel treatments would generate emissions from internal combustion engines and generate airborne dust during treatments. The proposed action is expected to result in long-term benefits to air quality because of decreased smoke emissions generated during uncontrolled wildfire events. The proposed action would have minor, short-term adverse effects on air quality through the generation of exhaust emissions from equipment and power tools, such as mastication equipment and chainsaws. Emissions generated during implementation are a negligible and short-term, effect on air quality. The proposed action would have minor, short-term adverse effects on air quality through the generation of dust from equipment, such as vehicles and mastication equipment. Equipment would be working infrequently on exposed soil and any dust generated would not remain airborne for any length of time. Prescribed fire would have a minor, short-term adverse effect on air quality as a result of the generation of particulates and smoke. Prescribed fires would be conducted in accordance with the State of Utah Smoke Management Plan. This requires notification and permitting for prescribed burns. The expected smoke emissions generated by the proposed pile burning are expected to be dramatically less than those generated by an uncontrolled wildfire event if no fuel reduction actions are taken. Overall, while there would be short-term, minimal increases in air pollutants, the proposed action is unlikely to result in an exceedance of NAAQS.

4.17.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change No greenhouse gas standards have been established by EPA or other regulatory authorities. The assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is in its earliest stage. Global greenhouse gas models can be inconsistent, and localized models are lacking. Consequently, it is not technically feasible to quantify the net impacts to climate based on local greenhouse gas emissions. Considering emissions of GHG in 2010 was estimated at 49 ± 4.5 gigatonnes globally (IPCC 2014) and 6.9 gigatonnes nationally (US EPA 2015), a project of this magnitude makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and national scales, this proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible.

93 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

The Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOI-BLM-UT-9100-2013-0002-EIS) analyzed the effects of climate change on greater sage- grouse and sagebrush habitat and is incorporated herein by reference (BLM 2015a). Sagebrush remains one of the vegetation communities most vulnerable to climate change. In habitat areas that are expected to be most impacted by climate change, an estimated 12 percent of the current distribution of sagebrush would be lost with each 1°C increase in temperature (Bryce et al. 2012). Climate change models predict that semi-arid regions may experience more severe weather events, higher temperatures, drier summer soils conditions, and wetter winters in the future. These shifts in precipitation, soil conditions, and temperature may impact sagebrush communities and affect when and where sagebrush is able to thrive (Connelly et al. 2004). Climate change also increases the likelihood of erosion, wildfire, and the encroachment of invasive plants, all of which would negatively impact sagebrush habitat. Soil erosion in particular is a concern, as it is considered the greatest threat to shrubland sustainability (Society for Range Management 1995). Additionally, habitat encroachment is a concern as vegetation communities shift upwards in elevation in response to the warmer climate. This can cause habitat fragmentation, which would have detrimental effects on greater sage-grouse populations. It is anticipated that climate change may interact with other change agents in the future to degrade and reduce greater sage-grouse habitat (Bryce et al. 2012). The changes in climate in the Central Basin and Range ecoregion are projected to have the greatest potential impact on greater sage-grouse habitat in the northwest and southwest areas of Utah and cause a contraction of greater sage-grouse habitat throughout much of that portion of the Central Basin and Range ecoregion. The impacts would occur primarily from fire and invasive species, predominately cheatgrass, in conjunction with climate change. This would occur because of the larger and more frequent occurrence of wildfires that have very high potential to reduce habitat quality and quantity of sagebrush communities. Greater sage-grouse habitat in entire population areas could be lost, at least temporarily in a single event because of the vulnerability of sagebrush communities to wildfire and invasive species. It is difficult to quantify the impacts because of the uncertainty of site-specific fire occurrence and the influence of climate conditions. Impacts could be partially mitigated by management actions such restoration treatments and creation of fuelbreaks. Fire suppression, grazing practices, increased atmospheric carbon, and climate change have all been identified as playing a role in the expansion of woodlands in the Great Basin. Regardless of cause or the historical distibution of pinyon and juniper, the ecological impacts of woodland infilling and expansion are well documented in the scientific literature. The proposed actions are designed to mitigate these impacts on the landscape and promote healhy, functioning, resilient ecosystems. Treatments identified in the proposed action seek to protect, restore or expand sagebrush habitat through removal of trees in select areas. Trees growing on slopes greater than 30 percent are not targeted for treatment which means there would be a substantial amount of trees still on the landscape. Lands identified for tree removal or thinning would be managed as sagebrush habitat in the long term and periodic maintenance activites would be required to meet the goals and objectives identified herein. The other potential impact associated with climate change in the Central Basin and Range and Northern Great Basin ecoregions would be an increase in pinyon/juniper invasion of existing sagebrush communities in the northwest and southwest areas of Utah, which would result in the degradation of existing occupied habitat. Perennial grasses have an important role in the global carbon cycle, sequestering large quantities of soil carbon underground (Schimel et al. 1994; Briggs et al. 2005; Miller et al. 2017). When pinyon/juniper woodlands expand into sagebrush ecosystems, causing a decline in perennial grasses, the carbon pool moves aboveground where it is highly susceptible to release due to wildland fire (Briggs et al. 2005; Rau et al. 2009, 2011; Miller et al. 2017).

94 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

The BLM acknowledges that pinyon/juniper woodlands and their soils are important for carbon storage. However, research has shown that once canopy cover reaches 50 percent expansion, woodlands become susceptible to high-intensity wildfire and cheatgrass invasion (Miller and Tausch 2001). According to Rau et al. (2016), a disproportionate number of large fires originate in cheatgrass. Cheatgrass dominates 7 percent of the Great Basin, but 28 percent of the land area affected by wildfires from 2000-2012 was burned because of fire starting in cheatgrass dominated rangelands. Twenty-one percent of direct carbon emissions from wildfire were a result of fires starting on cheatgrass dominated rangelands. Wildfires originating in cheatgrass burned into adjacent vegetation, releasing an additional 6.5 terragrams20 (Tg) of CO2 to the atmosphere over the period 2000-2012. Combustion of trees during fire may release 70 percent of organic carbon stored in aboveground biomass to the atmosphere (Rau et al. 2010). The majority of remaining dead biomass including roots would decompose and result in further release of CO2 to the atmosphere (Johnson and Curtis 2001). Exotic annual grasses have caused significant vegetation changes in rangelands which influence biogeochemical cycles. Cheatgrass invasion following fire could further exacerbate the loss of organic carbon from expansion woodlands (Miller and Tausch 2001). Woodland expansion results in a loss of perennial understory vegetation (Miller and Tausch 2001). Following fire, exotic annual grasses like cheatgrass are able to establish and dominate a site with compromised understory (Chambers et al. 2007). The conversion of sagebrush steppe or pinyon-juniper ecosystems to cheatgrass dominated systems results in a large loss of above and belowground organic carbon (Bradley et al. 2006; Rau et al. 2011). Annual grass systems dramatically alter fire regimes and are prone to repeated fire (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992). This increase in fire frequency can lead to a perpetual cycle of degradation that causes further losses of organic carbon and nitrogen and potentially irreversible changes in carbon and nitrogen cycles (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992). Sagebrush-steppe ecosystems are one of the most threatened ecosystems in North America due to woodland expansion, wildfire, and cheatgrass invasion. Some hypothesize that pinyon/juniper woodland expansion would lead to increased carbon storage on the landscape. However, seen through the lens of increased wildfire and cheatgrass invasion, which is a common outcome of woodland expansion, an overall decrease in carbon storage may occur (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992). Models developed by Rau et al. (2012), estimate that above ground biomass in treeless sagebrush-steppe ecosystems account for 4.5 megagrams per hectare21 (Mg ha-1) of carbon, which is less than 10 percent of total carbon in the system. In tree dominated sites above ground biomass may account for 62 Mg ha-1 of total carbon, or nearly 53 percent. Woodlands also tend to have higher below ground carbon storage compared to sagebrush dominated rangelands. However, as trees increase on the landscape, perennial understory vegetation decreases, fuel loading and fire risk increase, as does the possibility of cheatgrass invasion. Combustion of trees during fire may release 70 percent of organic carbon stored in aboveground biomass to the atmosphere (Rau et al. 2010). The majority of remaining dead biomass including roots would decompose and result in further release of CO2 to the atmosphere (Johnson and Curtis 2001). Cheatgrass dominated landscapes store significantly less carbon both above and below ground and may actually become a persistent carbon source (Rau et al. 2016). Managing these landscapes for healthy, resilient, perennial grass dominated systems would likely help retain carbon on the landscape. Rau et al. (2011) concluded that carbon accumulation associated with woodland expansion in the Great Basin has little potential to offset CO2 emissions, and estimates of potential below ground and above ground carbon accumulation in arid woodlands should be viewed with skepticism based on the frequency of fire, the uncertainty of climate change, the loss of perennial vegetation, and the risk of post wildfire cheatgrass invasion.

20 1 terragram equals 1,000,000 metric tonnes. 21 1 megagram equals 1 metric tonne, which equals 1.1 US tons. 1 hectare equals 2.47 acres.

95 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Managing the land to reduce these threats while promoting healthy, resilient sagebrush ecosystems would help retain carbon on the landscape.

4.17.2 Alternative B – No Action

4.17.2.1 Air Quality There would be no direct effects on the existing condition of air quality from this alternative because no actions would occur. No particulate matter would be produced and visibility would not be impaired. Indirect effects would be that fuel loadings continue to increase and wildfires would continue to occur. In the event of a large-scale wildland fire, air quality in the area would likely be adversely affected.

4.17.2.2 Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions There would be no direct effects on the existing condition of greenhouse gasses and climate change from this alternative because no actions would occur. Indirect effects would be that fuel loadings continue to increase and wildfires would continue to occur. As fuel loads continue to increase, in the event of a large- scale wildland fire, direct combustion of aboveground biomass and surface soils in high-density pinyon/juniper woodlands may account for 9 to 39 metric tons of carbon being released per 2.5 acres. Post-fire, carbon would continue to be lost in burned woodlands as remaining biomass, roots, and soil organic carbon decompose in the years post-fire (Rau et al. 2012).

96 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A cumulative effect is defined under NEPA as “the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action, decision, or project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other action.” “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR Part 1508.7). Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are analyzed to the extent that they are relevant and useful in analyzing whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed action and/or alternatives may have an additive and significant relationship to those effects. Only those resources directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action and/or alternatives are analyzed for cumulative effects. 5.1 Geographic Scope and Timeframe The cumulative impact area varies by resource and may be artificial (e.g., administrative) or natural. Generally the cumulative impact area for resources is the Sheeprock greater sage-grouse population area. The lifespan of the project is anticipated to be 15-years. Short-term cumulative effects would occur during implementation. Treatments may occur over several weeks or several months depending on the unit size, complexity of terrain and access, and method of treatment. Long-term cumulative effects would be expected to occur for several years or up to a decade after implementation of treatments in specific units. 5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 5.2.1 Past and Present Actions The analysis area has been subject to a historic regime of wildfire caused by lightning strikes. Natural- caused fire can burn several acres to several thousand acres during one event. In more modern times, the area has also been subject to human-caused wildfire, in addition to natural (lightning-caused) fire. Appendix A, Map 12 shows fire perimeters for wildland fires greater than 1 acre in size that occurred within the area over the last 30 plus years. Historically, livestock grazing is known to have occurred in the area since the 1930’s under BLM permitting, although sheep and/or cattle grazing are likely to have been occurring in the area since the late 1800’s. The analysis area overlaps with 56 BLM-administered grazing allotments (see Appendix A, Map 14). The Onaqui Mountain Herd Management Area (HMA) overlaps the western portion of the analysis area within the Salt Lake Field Office. The Onaqui Mountain HMA consists of approximately 207,725 acres of BLM-administered public lands and has an appropriate management level (AML) of 121 to 210 horses. Gather and removal of wild horses has occurred since 1971. The most recent operations have occurred in 2012 and was a gather and remove/treat effort. In 2015, a Decision Record (see DOI-BLM-UT-W010- 2014-0021-EA, May 2015) approved the use of fertility control on select mares through 2020 within the HMA to reduce herd growth rates and reduce the need for gathers and removals in the long-term. Dispersed recreation has and continues to occur throughout the analysis area. General activities include: rock hounding, hunting, sightseeing, OHV use, target shooting, and wildlife viewing. Annually in certain areas, the BLM permits woodcutting/firewood gathering and cutting/removal of younger evergreen trees for the holiday season. The BLM permits non-commercial and commercial recreation events through its SRP program. Events include OHV races and a youth wilderness therapy group. The Sheeprock/Tintic Off Road Vehicle Area within the Fillmore Field Office hosts multiple OHV (motorcycle and quads) races each year. A small portion of the northern extent of the Little Sahara Recreation Area is located within the analysis area, with the remainder of this recreation area located directly adjacent to the analysis area. Little Sahara is a popular OHV use area due to its many sand dunes and can see thousands of visitors on weekends.

97 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Most of the analysis area and cumulative impact area is within a “limited” area for travel management, which generally confines travel to existing roads and trails, to designated roads and trails, or to certain seasons on some roads or trails. Actual numbers of users per day or per year are not available, but generally speaking the intensity of use is low and dispersed. Most use occurs during from spring to fall. Within the area there have been a wide range of realty actions. Rights-of-way (ROW) have been issued for overhead transmission lines, roads, and communication towers. A Union Pacific Railroad line passes through the analysis area from north to south. The analysis area includes a variety of potential mineral and energy production interests. There are several, small material sites scattered across the area.

5.2.1.1 BLM Vegetation and Fuels Treatments The BLM has implemented a variety of vegetation treatments over the last 50 to 65 years in the analysis area. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, vegetation enhancement treatments such as chaining, plowing, discing, and seeding were implemented across the area to improve forage conditions for livestock grazing, in addition to wildlife. Removal and control of expanding and infilling conifers (i.e., juniper) has occurred continually across the area. In recent years (2000 to present), the BLM has implemented a variety of vegetation and fuels treatments aimed at reducing hazardous fuels conditions, protecting wildland urban interface areas, and restoring sagebrush habitat. Table 31 provides a summary of projects completed within each treatment focus area since the year 2000 within the analysis area (see Appendix A, Map 13). No treatments have been implemented by the BLM within the following treatment focus areas since the year 2000: Coyote Butte, Cherry Creek, Maple, Jericho, Erickson Pass, Grantsville, Simpson, St. John, and Forest Service/Private.

Table 31: Vegetation and fuels treatment projects implemented by the BLM since 2000 in the cumulative effects area Year(s) Project Project Name Focus Area Treatment Type(s) Implemented Status Hannifin Tintic Valley 2006 to 2007 Completed Bullhog; Crushing; Seeding Tintic Junction Tintic Valley 2015 to 2016 Completed Bullhog; Seeding Hog Springs East Tintic 2008 to 2011 Completed Bullhog; Lop & Scatter Furner Valley Furner Valley 2015 to Present On-Going Bullhog; Seeding Gilson Mountain Gilson 2002 Completed Broadcast Burn (Prescribed Fire) Restoration Bullhog; Harrow; Slashing; Stockton WUI Stockton 2012 to Present On-Going Seeding; Herbicide BYU Rush Valley On-going research effort by BYU; Sagebrush Steppe Rush Valley 2011 to Present Completed Prescribed Fire. Research Rx Rush Lofgreen/Eureka WUI 2013 to Present On-Going Bullhog; Slashing; Seeding Valley/McIntyre South Dugway Broadcast Burn; Seeding; West Onaqui 2001 to 2003 Completed Greenstrip Herbicide Terra WUI West Onaqui 2002 to 2004 Completed Slash/Pile/Cover (SPC); Seeding West Onaqui HFR West Onaqui 2005 to 2011 Completed Bullhog; Slash; Seeding Terra East WUI West Onaqui 2008 to 2010 Completed Bullhog; Slash; Seeding Clover Creek Faust 2004 to 2011 Completed Bullhog; Lop & Scatter; Seeding JFS Faust Canyon and Faust 2006 Completed Bullhog; Lop & Scatter; Mowing;

98 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Year(s) Project Project Name Focus Area Treatment Type(s) Implemented Status JFS Grasshopper Broadcast Burn; Herbicide Bullhog; Harrow; Lop & Scatter; East Onaqui Faust 2006 to 2015 Completed SPC; Seeding Big Hollow WUI Faust 2007 to 2010 Completed Bullhog; SPC; Pile Burn; Seeding Biomass Removal; SPC; Pile Hill Springs WUI Faust 2008 to 2010 Completed Burn West Desert 2010 Faust 2011 Completed Lop & Scatter Slashing Onaqui Mountain North Faust 2012 to 2014 Completed SPC; Pile Burn WUI Onaqui East Bench Faust 2013 to Present On-Going Bullhog; Lop & Scatter; Seeding WUI Little Mountain WUI Faust 2014 Completed Bullhog; Seeding Government Creek #1 Government 2003 to 2005 Completed Bullhog & #2 Creek Government Rockwell HFT 2006 to 2011 Completed Bullhog; Slash Seeding Creek Government Creek Government 2013 Completed Bullhog Phase 2 Creek Government Creek Government 2016 Completed Bullhog East Creek Government Creek Government 2016 to 2017 Completed Bullhog West Creek Government Creek Lop Government 2016 Completed Lop & Scatter & Scatter Creek

5.2.1.2 Activities on Private, State, and Forest Service lands Outside of BLM-administered public lands and decision-making authority in the analysis area are activities such as recreation, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, and vegetation treatments. According to the Utah WRI database, approximately 25 vegetation treatment projects have been completed in the analysis area on private, state, and Forest Service lands over the last 15 years. The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest has implemented 10 projects to improve habitat for a variety of wildlife, including the greater sage-grouse, primarily targeting juniper expansion and infilling using mechanical treatments. In all, approximately 12,200 acres of juniper have been mechanically treated (3,100 acres of mastication and 9,100 acres of lop and scatter) and 2,000 acres of shrubland have been harrowed and seeded to improve sagebrush habitat. Table 32 provides a listing of current vegetation treatment actions occurring on private, state, and Forest Service lands within the analysis area.

Table 32: On-going vegetation treatment projects on private, state, and Forest Service lands within the analysis area

Project Name Focus Area Who Ownership Proposed Action Southern Sheeprocks Cherry NRCS SITLA/Private 1,210 acres of juniper removal Juniper Removal Phase I Creek West Vernon Phase 5: FS/Private USFS USFS/Private Bullhog and Lop & Scatter on USFS.

99 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Project Name Focus Area Who Ownership Proposed Action Lion Hill Chaining on private land. West Oakbrush Sage- Government Grouse Habitat NRCS Private Bullhog; Lop & Scatter; Seeding Creek Expansion Grantsville Habitat & Grazing Improvement Grantsville UDWR SITLA/Private Bullhog; Lop & Scatter; fencing; pipelines. Project Boulter Wash Winter Bullhog/seed; Lop & Scatter; Spring Rush Valley NRCS Private/BLM/SITLA Habitat Bullhog development

5.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Natural and human-caused wildland fires are likely to occur in the future and post-fire rehabilitation would continue. Other activities that may be implemented in the future include the management of wild horses within the Onaqui Mountains HMA and application of herbicides to control or eradiate invasive plants and noxious weeds. These activities would be authorized separate actions. The Salt Lake Field Office is currently beginning a new invasive species management planning effort. The Fillmore and Salt Lake Field offices are beginning the initial steps to develop a travel management plan for the Sheeprocks population area in conformance with direction found in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. Other on-going activities in the cumulative effects area include administration of the grazing program, issuance of SRPs for non-commercial and commercial activities, wild horse management, and issuance of ROWs. Other foreseeable planning activities include a state-wide effort to update fire management plans and travel management planning. Reasonably foreseeable actions on lands not managed by the BLM include vegetation and hazardous fuels treatments on private, State of Utah, and National Forest systems lands within and adjacent to the analysis area. Other future action on non-BLM managed lands may include the treatment of invasive plants and noxious weeds; dispersed and motorized recreation; grazing of livestock; and private land development. 5.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts 5.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Past projects and activities within the analysis area include mining, natural gas pipelines, transmission lines, recreation, grazing, fire, and post-fire stabilization and rehabilitation.. Many of these projects/activities are currently occurring and can be reasonably anticipate continuing into the future. Conservation practices imposed by the Utah Greater Sage Grouse ARMPA for the benefit of greater sage- grouse would be used to guide land use practices and activities within the analysis area. When these improved conservation measures are applied, the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project/activities within the analysis area would be further mitigated; therefore it is anticipated that the cumulative impacts would overall be beneficial for greater sage-grouse as well as other species and land uses/activities by improving the health, resistance, and resiliency of the landscape. 5.3.2 Migratory Birds Past projects and activities include mining, natural gas transmission; recreation, grazing, fire, and fire restoration that have occurred within the analysis area. Many of these projects are currently occurring and can be reasonably anticipate continuing into the future. Conservation practices imposed by the Utah Greater Sage Grouse ARMPA for the benefit of greater sage-grouse would be used to guide land use

100 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA practices and activities within the analysis area. When these improved conservation measures are applied, the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project/activities within the analysis area would be further mitigated; therefore it is anticipated that the cumulative impacts would overall be beneficial for migratory birds as well as other species by improving the health, resistance, and resiliency of the landscape. 5.3.3 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species Past projects and activities include mining, natural gas transmission; recreation, grazing, fire, and fire restoration that have occurred within the analysis area. Many of these projects/activities are currently occurring and can be reasonably anticipate continuing into the future. Conservation practices imposed by the Utah Greater Sage Grouse ARMPA for the benefit of greater sage-grouse would be used to guide land use practices and activities within the analysis area. When these improved conservation measures are applied, the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project/activities within the analysis area would be further mitigated; therefore it is anticipated that the cumulative impacts would overall be beneficial for pygmy rabbit by improving the health, resistance, and resiliency of the landscape. 5.3.4 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species Past projects and activities include mining, natural gas transmission; recreation, grazing, fire, and fire restoration that have occurred within the analysis area. Many of these projects/activities are currently occurring and can be reasonably anticipate continuing into the future. Conservation practices imposed by the Utah Greater Sage Grouse ARMPA for the benefit of greater sage-grouse would be used to guide land use practices and activities within the analysis area. When these improved conservation measures are applied, the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project/activities within the analysis area would be further mitigated; therefore it is anticipated that the cumulative impacts would overall be beneficial for wildlife by improving the health, resistance, and resiliency of the landscape. 5.3.5 Fuels/Fire Management The cumulative effects impact area is defined as sagebrush habitats that occur in areas generally susceptible to pinyon and juniper encroachment. These areas occur from 5,000 to 7,000 feet throughout the West Desert District. Due to the presence of cheatgrass and potential loss of sagebrush habitat, past and present fire suppression policies require full suppression of all fires regardless of ignition source. Thus, allowing fire to burn “naturally” is currently not an option. As a result, pinyon/juniper expansion is expected to continue, increasing the likelihood for high intensity crown fires. Fire surrogate treatments to reduce pinyon and juniper may help reduce the likelihood of high-severity fires and promote ecosystem resiliency. There is no way to predict when wildland fire would occur. However, based on recent large-scale wildland fires throughout northern Utah, within similar types of habitats in counties surrounding the analysis area, it is not a matter of if a large, wildfire would occur, but when. Implementing this project would provide a way to manage future fires by breaking up the continuity of the vegetation and would provide areas from which to more safely fight wildfires when they occur. Previous and proposed vegetation treatments would help restore tradition fire regimes and promote ecosystem resiliency. A Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario would be continued monitoring and evaluation of fuels and vegetation response. Adaptive management would be used to determine the most appropriate and effective approach for maintenance of treatment areas through mechanical treatment or the application of prescribed fire.

101 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to continue to affect wildland fire ecology and management are vegetation management projects, projects that impact ability to respond to wildland fire, projects that would increase ROWs and energy and mineral development, and projects that would increase access to land and consequently increase the risk of human-caused ignitions. State and local efforts to protect greater sage-grouse include plans to control and suppress fires on private and state lands, which would also help protect sagebrush habitat from wildfire. Wildland fires in the Utah Sub-region have been frequent in the past, with over 1,500 wildfire starts documented on occupied greater sage-grouse habitat on BLM-administered and National Forest System public lands in the planning area during the past 20 years; approximately 44 percent are attributed to human-caused ignition. Wildland fires are expected to increase in the future due to reoccurring and increasingly severe drought conditions caused by climate change as well as increasing development and human presence. This could impact wildland fire management through the increased need for suppression activities and the increased costs of responding to wildfires. As the global effects of climate change continue into the future, the likelihood of natural, unplanned ignition within the planning area may increase due to the irregular weather patterns, increased likelihood of storms, and drought. Impacts on climate change from management actions related to this project would be negligible and would be similar across all alternatives. 5.3.6 Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush has been reduced due to expansion of juniper woodland species. The proposed action, in combination with similar work being implemented on adjacent lands and prior treatments completed by the BLM as discussed in Section 4.2.2, would shift many areas back to sagebrush-steppe habitat with a diverse understory of perennial grasses and forbs. The construction of fuel breaks would remove a small amount of natural vegetation but would reduce acres impacted by wildfire and cheatgrass expansion. This reduction of acres impacted by fire along with the acres of restored sagebrush habitat would improve the resiliency of the ecosystems within the analysis area. 5.3.7 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Past disturbances, both human and natural, have resulted in the invasion of exotic plants and noxious weeds. Past development, management activities, and recreational activities often employed inadequate weed prevention and control measures. As a result, infestations of squarerose knapweed, cheatgrass, and other invasives/weeds occur within and around the analysis area. Known weed infestations may provide seed source for expansion elsewhere in the analysis area. The risk of expansion of these infestations would be variable, depending on the location and extent of future disturbances and their proximity to existing untreated infestations. Monitoring of past vegetation treatments indicate that weed infestations are mostly localized and not widespread. Seeding treated areas should reduce the potential for weed expansion. Current and reasonably foreseeable actions that include soil or vegetation disturbance require implementation of weed prevention and mitigation practices such as those described in Table 6. Therefore, the risk of spread of existing infestations due to the proposed action is considered to be low to negligible. 5.3.8 Woodlands/Forestry Based on Tables 17 and 18 (i.e., mastication, lop and scatter, chaining, slash, stewardship contract), pinyon and juniper have been reduced or removed on approximately 53,334 acres within the analysis area (for the years 2000-ongoing). In addition, at least 107 wildfires have impacted the analysis area from 1984-2016 (BLM Fire GIS Database, accessed 20 January 2017). There have been several large fires that

102 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA removed substantial amounts of mature pinyon/juniper habitat in the Onaqui, Sheeprock, Tintic, and East Tintic mountain ranges. Along with the above past impacts, the proposed action would remove a pinyon and juniper that has expanded into sagebrush habitat as well as in areas that are identified as pinyon/juniper woodlands. Reasonable and foreseeable actions would include continued efforts at reducing pinyon/juniper cover (e.g., Secretarial Order 3336, Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA, Sage-Grouse Initiative) and the continuation of wildfire activity. Pinyon/juniper removal treatments are generally restricted to slopes less than 30 percent; most areas with greater slopes have been identified for management as woodland habitat. In contrast, climate is changing at a relatively rapid pace; climatic risk models suggest that the future climate within the analysis could be less suitable for sagebrush and favor the growth of woodlands (Balzotti et al. 2016). Additionally, in the absence of treatment maintenance many areas would likely return to dominance by pinyon/juniper over the next century due to succession; treatments can be ephemeral in nature. 5.3.9 Soils Because a watershed consists of an area in which there are interrelated processes (soils, water, vegetation, and wildlife), they provide both a logical and political boundary in which to work. The potential for restoration success within the analysis area is good, especially where entire watersheds/sub-watersheds are improved holistically. Positive cumulative impacts, such as reduced soil erosion, increased water quality and quantity, and improved air quality (dust reduction) can be achieved, especially when federally-managed land treatments are coordinated with adjacent private land treatments. 5.3.10 Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Health Standards The cumulative effects area for livestock grazing is the affected grazing allotments proposed for vegetation treatments within the Purpose and Need. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action and alternatives are expected to be mostly beneficial to livestock grazing. The potential negative impact of exclusion of livestock grazing for a period of two growing seasons for re-seeded areas would put a hardship on grazing permittees. Given the large area, the number of allotments, permittee’s and acres to be treated, permittees could incur higher costs to graze livestock. The areas treated may be large enough that permittees would need to graze on private land, through leases or feeding hay. If this were to occur, it may cause financial hardship for the permittees, or even potential loss of livestock and business. Planning and cooperation of the BLM (project leads, range specialists, etc.) and the permittees would be required. While allotments within the analysis area have experienced similar closures it is anticipated that future vegetation treatments would result in improved range and vegetation conditions which would have a benefit to livestock grazing over time. 5.3.11 Water Resources/Quality The cumulative effects area for water quality includes all watersheds within and upstream of streams within the analysis area. Past and current projects and activities within the analysis area include mining, natural gas transmission, recreation, grazing and livestock improvements such as spring developments and water pipelines, fire, and fire restoration. Many of these projects or activities currently occur and are reasonably expected to continue to occur. Water quality impacts from water development projects have a lasting impact and are not expected to change. Improvements to water quality would occur by ensuring land health standards are met and meeting habitat objectives in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. Additionally, a study by the Utah Geological Survey has been proposed which would monitor spring and stream discharge and timing in relation to pinyon/juniper treatments. The proposal would include monitoring within the analysis area and is being evaluated under a separate NEPA process. This study would increase our understanding of how these landscape treatments affect hydrology.

103 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 5.3.12 Wetlands/Riparian Zones The cumulative effects area for riparian vegetation includes all watersheds within and upstream of riparian areas within the analysis area. Past and current projects and activities within the analysis area include mining, natural gas transmission, recreation, grazing and livestock improvements such as spring developments and water pipelines, fire, and fire restoration. Many of these projects or activities currently occur and are reasonably expected to continue to occur. Riparian impacts from water development projects have a lasting impact and are not expected to change. Water developments have decreased riparian vegetation at spring and stream sources, but have increased riparian vegetation in places due to trough overflows, stockwater ponds, and pipeline over flow. Improvements to riparian vegetation would occur by ensuring land health standards are met and meeting habitat objectives in the Utah Greater Sage- Grouse ARMPA. 5.3.13 Cultural Resources Implementation of the modified treatment strategies within the proposed action, as well as avoidance measures where the modified treatments are not feasible, would result in a No Effect determination in regards to the NRHP for any historic properties within the treatment area. A No Effect determination is concordant with a determination of No Impact. Therefore, the proposed action is not additive to cumulative impacts with regards to cultural resources. 5.3.14 Recreation Recreation activities would likely continue at current levels. When combined with recreation resources and activities on adjacent land, there would be no reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts of noteworthy significance under the proposed action. Required project design criteria would minimize impacts to recreation use and SRP holders on BLM-administered public lands. Given the nature of the proposed treatments in comparison to the immense surrounding areas of untreated landscape, and considering potential future projects, cumulative impacts are likely negligible. 5.3.15 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Currently, there are approximately 779,300 acres of BLM-administered public lands in the West Desert District that have been identified as possessing wilderness character, located in one congressionally- designated Wilderness, 10 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), and 15 Wilderness Inventory Areas (WIAs). To the north of the analysis area lies the Cedar Mountain Wilderness (104,305 acres) and the North Stansbury WSA & WIA (17,600 acres). To the west of the analysis area lies the Dugway Mountain WIA (23,300 acres). To the north on US Forest Service managed land in the Stansbury Mountains, lies the Deseret Peak Wilderness (25,050 acres). In general, no new surface impacts from BLM actions, besides emergency wildfire suppression, have occurred in any of the above referenced district wilderness character lands in the last 20 years. Ongoing monitoring of wilderness character has not identified any discernible or substantial impairment to wilderness character in any district wilderness character units. As indicated in the potential impact analysis of the proposed action, no substantial impacts to any potential areas of lands with wilderness character are anticipated. Compliance with required design criteria (protective measures) would minimize or eliminate impacts to wilderness characteristics within treatment areas, reducing the potential for negative cumulative effects when combined with past, present, and future projects. Considered in the scope of context for all lands with wilderness character that exist within the West Desert District, the potential impacts identified from the proposed action in this document represent negligible impacts to wilderness character within the entire district. 5.3.16 Air Quality/Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Quality: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative impact analysis area that contribute to air quality include burning of fossil fuels, wildfire, prescribed burning, off-

104 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA highway driving, and fugitive dust from natural sources (e.g., wind storms). Under the proposed action, treatment actions on BLM-administered public lands combined with similar treatments on National Forest System, state, and private lands would lessen the opportunity for large-scale wildland fire. Once treatments have been implemented, the scope and intensity of fire may be reduced, resulting in less smoke and pollutants during subsequent fire events. During implementation of the proposed action, prescribed burning and mechanical treatments may be conducted to remove residual vegetative materials and restore desirable vegetation.,There would be some increase in emissions from fire, vehicles and equipment during implementation. These activities would cause short-term, negligible cumulative effects to air quality when combined with regular on and off-road vehicle emissions. Overall, these temporary increases in air pollutants is unlikely to result in an exceedance of NAAQS, even when combined with other actions; therefore, cumulative effects to air quality would be negligible. Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that contributed greenhouse gases to the atmosphere include burning of fossil fuels, wildfire, and fuel combustion. Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact greenhouse gases through a reduction in carbon stores include vegetation management actions focused on increasing greater sage-grouse habitat and continued loss of vegetation and habitat due to wildland fire. Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can emit large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide; fires also remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. Vegetation management actions focused on reducing pinyon/juniper encroachment into greater sage- grouse habitat may impact climate change by reducing potential carbon storage opportunities. However, the absence of treatments may lead to increased wildfire and cheatgrass invasion, which is a common outcome of woodland expansion. In this scenario, an overall increase in carbon emissions and decrease in carbon storage may occur (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992). Combustion of trees during fire may release 70 percent of organic carbon stored in aboveground biomass to the atmosphere (Rau et al. 2010). The majority of remaining dead biomass including roots would decompose and result in further release of CO2 to the atmosphere (Johnson and Curtis 2001). Cheatgrass dominated landscapes store significantly less carbon both above and below ground and may actually become a persistent carbon source (Rau et al. 2016). Managing these landscapes for healthy, resilient, perennial grass dominated systems would likely help retain carbon on the landscape. Rau et al. (2011) concluded that carbon accumulation associated with woodland expansionin the Great Basin has little potential to offset CO2 emissions, and estimates of potential below ground and above ground carbon accumulation in arid woodlands should be viewed with skepticism based on the frequency of fire, the uncertainty of climate change, the loss of perennial vegetation, and the risk of post wildfire cheatgrass invasion. Overall, federal and nonfederal actions within the analysis area would have a negligible cumulative impact on climate change and greenhouse gasses. Actions in the analysis area contribute a very small percentage of state and national greenhouse gas emissions; carbon dioxide emissions for all of Utah account for only 1.1 percent of total US carbon dioxide emissions.

105 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

This page intentionally left blank

106 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The issue identification section of Chapter 1(Section 1.8) identifies those issues analyzed in detail in Chapter 4. The IDT Checklist provides the rationale for issues that were considered but not analyzed further. The issues were identified through the public and agency involvement process described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 below. 6.1 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted Persons, agencies and organizations that were consulted with during this EA are identified in Table 33.

Table 33: List of all persons, agencies, and organizations consulted Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination Class III inventories would be conducted Consultation as required by prior to the implementation of specific Utah Division of State History, National Historic Preservation projects and SHPO will be consulted with State Historic Preservation Office Act (16 U.S.C. 470) regarding the eligibility and effects of identified cultural resources. Confederated Tribes of the Consultation as required by the Goshute Reservation, Skull National Historic Preservation Valley Band of the Goshute A letter inviting Tribal governments to Act (16 U.S.C. 470), Native Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, Paiute consult with the BLM was sent on American Graves and Indian Tribe of Utah, Kaibab November 8, 2016. No response was Repatriation Act, and the Band of Paiute, Hopi Tribe, received. American Indian Religious Navajo Nation, Iosepa Historical Freedom Act. Association. A letter inviting the Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Indian Affairs, Coordinate regarding Tribal to coordinate with the BLM was sent on Regional Archeologist issues. November 8, 2016. No response was received. Coordinate regarding action A notification e-mail was sent to PLPCO on Utah Public Lands Policy within greater sage-grouse September 12, 2016. No response was Coordinating Office habitat. received. Both the NRCS and private land owners Natural Resources Conservation Coordinate with permittees and who were coordinated with expressed Service adjacent private land owners. support for the proposed actions. The BLM presented this proposal, including site-specific actions, to the working group at Coordinate with resource West Desert Adaptive Resource various meetings, including on October 11, working group regarding priority Management Group (WDARM) 2016 and January 26, 2017. The WDARM treatment areas. group has expressed full suppor for the proposed actions. Coordinate with UDWR as the The UDWR will continue to provide input, agency with expertise on support, and feedback on actions proposed impacts on wildlife, regarding Utah Division of Wildlife and implemented by the BLM within the priority areas for treatment, and Resources (UDWR) analysis area. The BLM will continue to location/scope of similar projects coordinate treatment priorities with the being implemented by UDWR UDWR for the life of this project. within the analysis area.

107 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Purpose & Authorities for Name Findings & Conclusions Consultation or Coordination Coordinate regarding priority Focus area priorities and potential funding Utah’s Watershed Restoration watersheds and areas for incorporated into overall plan. Site-specific Initiative (UWRI) treatment through the Central proposals presented for review, ranking, Region UWRI team. and potential funding approval. The BLM met with representatives from Utah FF&SL and the Grantsville grazing association on August 3, 2016 to discuss Coordinate hazardous fuels Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, potential hazardous fuels and restoration reduction treatments on Federal, and State Lands treatments on BLM-managed public lands State, and private lands. in the Grantsville area and tying them in with treatments on adjacent state and private lands. The BLM met with respresentatives from Coordinate treatments on USFS the Salt Lake Ranger District of the Uinta- lands adjacent (or in vicinity) of USDA Forest Service Wasatch-Cache National Forest on August potential treatments on BLM- 25, 2016 to discuss BLM and USFS fuels managed public lands. treatments in the Grantsville area. Project posted on June 13, 2016; initiated scoping period. One scoping comment BLM NEPA Register NEPA, Public Notification received. Public comment period offered June 14 through June 28, 2017.

6.2 Summary of Public Participation Opportunities for public participation have occurred at several steps in this planning process. These steps have included a scoping period and will include a comment period. The West Desert District has also invited agencies to cooperate in this planning process. This section will be updated following the conclusion of the 30-day public comment period. 6.2.1 Scoping The project proposal was posted to the BLM NEPA Register (ePlanning) on June 13, 2016, inviting the public to provide scoping comments on the proposal. One scoping comment letter was received during the scoping period from a public organization, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). This letter was e-mailed to the Fillmore Field Office comment e-mail address and directly to a BLM specialist. A summary of the public scoping comments received from SUWA and the BLM response is presented in Appendix E. In addition, a letter inviting affected Tribes (Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Kaibab Band of Paiute, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Iosepa Historical Association.) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to consult on the project sent on November 8, 2016. No response was received from the Tribes or the BIA. 6.2.2 Comment Period A 15-day public comment period for this EA and associated Unsigned FONSI will be offered June 14 through June 28, 2017.

6.2.2.1 Modification Based on Public Comment and Internal Review Reserved. To be updated based on the public comment period.

108 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

6.2.2.2 Response to the EA/Unsigned FONSI Public Comments Reserved. To be updated based on the public comment period. 6.3 Preparers An interdisciplinary team prepared the document and analyzed the impact of the proposed action upon the various resources (Table 34). They considered the affected environment and documented their assessment in the IDT Checklist (Appendix B). Only those resources that would likely be impacted were carried forward into the body of the EA for further analysis.

Table 34: List of Preparers Responsible for the Following Section(s) of this Name Title Office Document Primary Contributors Rangeland Management Paul Caso FFO Soils Specialist Teresa Outdoor Recreation Planner FFO Lands with Wilderness Characteristics; Recreation Frampton Geographic Information Jeff Jager FFO GIS Support Specialist Fuels Natural Resource Fire/Fuels; Vegetation; GHG/Climate Change; Project Brad Jessop WDD Specialist Development Ray Kelsey Outdoor Recreation Planner SLFO Lands with Wilderness Characteristics; Recreation Fuels Planner / Environmental Fire/Fuels; Air Quality/GHG/Climate Change; NEPA Randy Kyes WDD Coordinator Compliance; IDT Lead; EA Preparation Cassie Mellon Aquatic Biologist SLFO Water Resources/Quality; Wetlands/Riparian Zones Wildlife; Sage Grouse Habitat; T&E, Special Status James Priest Wildlife Biologist FFO Wildlife Species; Project Development RB Probert Invasive Species Specialist FFO Invasive Species; Noxious Weeds Glenn Stelter Archeologist SLFO Cultural Resources Rangeland Management Livestock Grazing; Rangeland Health Standards; Brian Taylor FFO Specialist Vegetation Mark Williams Natural Resource Specialist SLFO Woodlands/Forestry Secondary Contributors Fred Braun Realty Specialist FFO Lands/Access Chris Bryan Wildlife Biologist SLFO Project Development Rangeland Management Livestock Grazing; Rangeland Health Standards; Jerry Bullock SLFO Specialist Vegetation Mary Higgins Realty Specialist SLFO Lands/Access Tami Howell Horse Wrangler SLFO Wild Horses & Burros Nate Hunter Fire Management Specialist WDD Project Development Todd Leeds Geologist FFO Geology; Minerals Mike Nelson Asst. Field Manager SLFO Property Boundary Erik Valdez Fuels Program Manager WDD Project Oversight and Development

109 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

This page intentionally left blank.

110 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA 7.0 REFERENCES Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington D.C. Balzotti, C.S., S.G. Kitchen, and C. McCarthy. 2016. Beyond the single species climate envelope: a multifaceted approach to mapping climate change vulnerability. Ecosphere 7(9): 1-23. Barnett, J.K. and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Pre-laying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47: 114-118. Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P, Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski, C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: a proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167 (2013): 233-241. Bates, J., R.F. Miller, and T.S. Svejcar. 2000. Understory dynamics in cut and uncut western juniper woodlands. Journal of Range Management 53(2000): 119–126. Bauer, J.M. and P.J. Weisberg. 2009. Fire history of a central Nevada pinyon–juniper woodland. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39(8): 1589-1599 Bombaci, S. and L. Pejchar. 2016. Consequences of pinyon and juniper woodland reduction for wildlife in North America. Forest Ecology and Management 365 (2016): 34-50. Bombaci, S.P., T. Gallo, and L. Pejchar. 2017 (Article In Press). Small-Scale Woodland Reduction Practices Have Neutral or Negative Short-Term Effects on Birds and Small Mammals. Rangeland Ecology & Management (2017). Bradbury, J.W., S.L. Vehrencamp, and R.M. Gibson. 1989. Dispersion of displaying male sage grouse. I. Patterns of temporal variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:114. Bradley, B.A., R.A. Houghton, J.F. Mustard, S.P. Hamburg. 2006. Invasive grass reduces aboveground carbon stocks in shrublands of the Western US. Global Change Biology 12: 1815-1822. Briggs, J.M., A.K. Knapp, J.M. Blair, J.L. Heisler, G.A. Hoch, M.S. Lett, and J.K. McCarron. 2005. An ecosystem in transition: causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. Bioscience 55: 243-254. Brooks, M.L., and D.A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. Pages 1–14 in K. E. M.Galley and T. P.Wilson, editors. Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station Tallahassee, Florida. Brown, J.K. 1995. Fire Regimes and their Relevance to Ecosystem Management. Pp. 171-178 in Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, September 18-22, 1994, Anchorage, Alaska. Society of American Foresters, Washington. D.C. Bryce, S. A., J.R. Strittholt, B.C. Ward, and D.M. Bachelet. 2012. Colorado Plateau Rapid Ecological Assessment Report. Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Bunnell, K.D. 2000. Ecological factors limiting sage-grouse recovery and expansion in Strawberry Valley, Utah. Thesis. Brigham Young University. Bybee, J., B.A. Roundy, K.R. Young, A. Hulet, D.B. Roundy, L. Crook, Z. Aanderud, D.L. Eggett, and N.L. Cline. 2016. Vegetation response to pinyon and juniper tree shredding. Rangeland Ecology & Management 69(2016): 224-234.

111 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Casazza, M.L., P.S. Coates, and C.T. Overton. 2011. Linking habitat selection and brood success in greater sage-grouse. Pages 151-167 in Sandercock, B.K., K. Martin, and G. Segelbacher, editors. Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Grouse. Studies in Avian Biology 39. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. Chambers, J.C. 2008. Climate Change and the Great Basin. Pages 29-32 in Collaborative Management and Research in the Great Basin - Examining the Issues and Developing a Framework for Action. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-204. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Chambers, J.C., B.A. Roundy, R.R. Blank, S.E. Meyer, and A. Whittaker. 2007. What makes Great Basin Sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 77(1):117-145. Chelak, M. and T.A. Messmer. 2016. Population dynamics and seasonal movements of translocated and resident greater sage-grouse populations (Centrocercus urophasianus), Sheeprock Sage-grouse Management Area. Annual Report. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 29pps. Chung-MacCoubrey, A.L. 2005. Use of pinyon-juniper woodlands by bats in New Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 204(2): 209-220. Comer, P., P. Crist, M. Reid, J. Hak, H. Hamilton, D. Braun, G. Kittel, I. Varley, B. Unnasch, S. Auer, M. Creutzburg, D. Theobald, and L. Kutner. 2012. Central Basin and Range Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Report. Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Connelly, J.W., H.W. Browers, and R.J. Gates. 1988. Seasonal movements of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:116-122. Connelly, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1997. A review of long-term changes in sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology 3: 229-234. Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 967-985. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished. Connelly, J.W., E.T. Rinkes, and C.E. Braun. 2011. Characteristics of greater sage-srouse habitats: A landscape species at micro- and macroscales. pp. 69- 83 in S.T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley. Cowley, E., T. Burton, and S. Smith. 2005. Monitoring Streambanks and Riparian Vegetation – Multiple Indicators. Technical Bulletin No. 2005-002. March 2005. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office. 1387 S. Vinnel Way, Boise, ID 83709. Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D. Whitson, R.F. Miller, M.A. Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management 57: 2-19. Crow, C. and C. van Riper. 2010. Avian community responses to mechanical thinning of a pinyon-juniper woodland: specialist sensitivity to tree reduction. Natural Areas Journal 30(2): 191-201. D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 23: 63-87.

112 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Dahlgren, D.K., E.T. Thacker and T.A. Messmer. 2015. What does a sage-grouse eat? Utah State University Exension Fact Sheet. Dugelby, B. 2011. Climate Change and the Great Basin Round River Conservation Studies. Salt Lake City, Utah. Fedy B.C., C.L. Aldridge, K.E Doherty, M. O’Donnell, J.L. Beck, B. Bedrosian, M.J. Holloran, G.D. Johnson, N.W. Kaczor, C.P. Kirol, C.A. Mandich, D. Marshall, G. McKee, C. Olson, C.C. Swanson, and B.L. Walker. 2012. Interseasonal movements of Greater sage-grouse, migratory behavior, and an assessment of the core regions concept in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 1062-1071. Fellows, S.D. and S.L. Jones. 2009. Status assessment and conservation action plan for the long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus). U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication, FWS/BTP-R6012- 2009, Washington, D.C. Fischer, R.A., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1996. An investigation on fire effects within xeric sage- grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management 49: 194-198. Gallo, T. and L. Pejchar. 2016. Improving habitat for game animals has mixed consequences for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 197 (2016): 47-52. Gallo, T, L.T. Stinson, and L. Pejchar. 2016. Pinyon-juniper removal has long-term effects on mammals. Forest Ecology and Management 377 (2016): 93-100. Gashwiler, J. 1977. Bird populations in four vegetational types in central Oregon. USDA Forest Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep.-Wildl. No. 205. Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetation cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Widlife Management 58: 162-166. Hann, W.J. and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2001(10): 389-403. Hanser, S.E. and S.T. Knick. 2011. Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for shrubland passerine birds: a multiscale assessment. In S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelley (Eds.), Greater Sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats (Vol. Studies in Avian Biology 38, pp. 475-487). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Johnson, D.W. and P.S. Curtis. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 140: 227-238. Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C. Knapp, P.A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) dominance in the Great Basin Desert: history, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environmental Change 6(1):37–52.

113 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M. Vander Haegen, and C. Van Riper III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611-634. Knick, S.T. and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populations and sagebrush landscapes. Pp. 383-406 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Knick, S.T, S.E. Hanser, and K.L. Preston. 2013. Modeling ecological minimum requirements for distribution of greater sage-grouse leks: implications for population connectivity across their western range, U.S.A. Ecology and Evolution (2013): 1-13. Maestas, J., M. Pellant, L. Okeson, D. Tilley, D. Havlina, T. Cracroft, B. Brazee, M. Williams, and D. Messmer. 2016. Fuel breaks to reduce large wildfire impacts in sagebrush ecosystems. Plant Materials Technical Note No. 66. USDA-NRCS. Boise, ID. Meinke, C.W., S.T. Knick, and D.A. Pyke. 2009. A spatial model to prioritize sagebrush landscapes in the intermountain west (U.S.A.) for restoration. Restoration Ecology 17:652–659. Miller, R. F., T. J. Svejcar, and N. E. West. 1994. Implications of Livestock Grazing in the Intermountain Sagebrush Region: Plant Composition. Pages 101-146 in Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management. Denver, Colorado. Miller, R., R. Tausch, and W. Waichler. 1999. Old-growth juniper and pinyon woodlands. In: Monsen, S.B.; Stevens, R., comps. 1999. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon juniper communities within the Interior West; 1997 Sept. 15-18; Provo, UT. RMRS-P-9. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and J.A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community composition and structure. Journal of Range Management 53:574-585. Miller, R.F. and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The Role of Fire in Pinyon and Juniper Woodlands: A Descriptive Analysis. Pages 15-30 in K.E.M. Gallery and T.P. Wilson (eds.). Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, Florida. Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, A.J. Svejcar, R.B. Pierson Jr., and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University Corvallis. Miller, R.F., R.J. Tausch, D.E. McArthur, D. Johnson, and S.C. Sanderson. 2008. Age structure and expansion of pinion-juniper woodlands: a regional perspective in the Intermountain West. Research Paper RP-69. US Department Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fort Collins, Colorado. Miller, R.F., S.T. Knick, D.A. Pyke, C.W. Meinke, S.E. Hanser, M.J. Wisdom, and A.L. Hild. 2011. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation. In: Knick, S.T., Connelly, J.W. (Eds.), Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 146–184. Miller, R.F., D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, C.A. Hagen, and G. Hall. 2017. Special Issue: Targeted Woodland Removal to Recover At-Risk Grouse and Their Sagebrush-Steppe and Prairie Ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and Management 70(2017): 1-8.

114 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Miller, S.W, J. Jimenez, S. Judson, and J. Courtwright. 2014. An Assessment of the Chemical, Physical and Biological Conditionsof Utah BLM Wadeable Streams. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. Mills, L.S. 2007. Bridging applied population and ecosystem ecology with focal species concepts. In Conservation of wildlife populations (pp. 276-285). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2008. North Dakota- Assessing the Costs of Climate Change. Climate Change and the Economy. Internet website: http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ ClimateChangeND.pdf. Accessed on November 3, 2016. NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: January 19, 2017 ). Nelle, P. J., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. The long-term effect of fire on sage- grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat on the Upper Snake River Plain. Journal of Range Management 53: 586- 591. Parrish, J.R., F.P. Howe, and R.E. Norvell. 1999. Utah Partners in Flight draft conservation strategy. UDWR publication number 99-40. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Parrish, J.R., F.P. Howe, R.E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight avian conservation strategy Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, UDWR, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, UDWR Publication Number 02-27. i–xiv + 302 pp. Peterson, R.T. 2010. Peterson Field Guide to Birds of Western North America, Fourth Edition. Peterson Field Guides (Book 4). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 512 pp. Prevéy, J.S., M.J. Germino, N.J. Huntly, and R.S. Inouye. 2010. Exotic plants increase and native plants decrease with loss of foundation species in sagebrush steppe. Plant Ecology, 207(1): 39-51. Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pp. 531-548 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Rasmussen, D.I. and L.A. Griner. 1938. Life history and management studies of sage grouse in Utah, with special reference to nesting and feeding habitats. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 3: 852-864. Rau, B.M., D.W. Johnson, R.R. Blank, and J.C. Chambers. 2009. Soil carbon and nitrogen in a Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodland: influence of vegetation, burning, and time. Journal of Arid Environments 73: 472–479. Rau, B.M., D.W. Johnson, J.C. Chambers, R.R. Blank, and A.Luccesi. 2010. Influence of prescribed fire on ecosystem biomass, carbon, and nitrogen in a pinyon juniper woodland. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63: 197-202. Rau, B.M., D.W. Johnson, R.R. Blank, A. Lucchesi, R.J., T.G. Caldwell and E.W. Schupp. 2011. Transition from sagebrush steppe to annual grass (bromus tectorum): Influence on belowground carbon and Nitrogen. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64: 139–147. Rau, B.M., R. Tausch, A. Reiner, D.W. Johnson, J.C. Chambers, R.R. Blank. 2012. Developing a model framework for predicting effects of woody expansion and fire on ecosystem carbon and nitrogen in a pinyon-juniper woodland. Journal of Arid Environments 76: 97-104.

115 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Rau, B.M., B.A. Bradley, J. McIver, D.A. Pyke, B.A. Roundy. E.W. Schupp, and K.R. Young. 2016. Consequences of annual brome invasion on carbon fluxes and storage. Presentation at Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting, 2016. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Robinson. 2007. Ecology of two geographically distinct greater sage-grouse populations inhabiting Utah’s West Desert. Master of Science Thesis. Utah State University. Romme, W.H., C.D. Allen, J.D. Bailey, W.L. Baker, B.T. Bestelmeyer, P.M. Brown, K.S. Eisenhart, M.L. Floyd, D.W. Huffman, B.F. Jacobs, R.F. Miller, E.H. Muldavin, T.W. Swetnam, R.J. Tausch and P.J. Weisberg. 2009. Historical and Modern Disturbance Regimes, Stand Structures, and Landscape Dynamics in Piñon-Juniper Vegetation of the Western United States. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62(2009): 208-222. Roundy, B.A., K. Young, N. Cline, A. Julet, R.F. Miller, R.J. Tausch, J.C. Chambers, and B. Rau. 2014. Pinon-Juniper reduction increases soil water availability of the resource growth pool. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67(2014): 495-505. Rowland M.M., M.J. Wisdom, Lowel H. Suring, and C.W. Meinke. 2006. Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for sagebrush- associated vertebrates. Biological Conservation 129 (2006): 323-335. Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP). 2014. Reducing Carbon Emissions from Sagebrush-Steppe. January. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966 - 2013. Version 01.30.2015 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Schimel, D.S., H.H. Braswell, E.A. Holland, E. McKeown, D.S. Ojima, T.H. Painter, W.J. Parton, and A.R. Townsend. 1994. Climatic, edaphic, and biotic controls over storage and turnover of carbon in soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 8: 279–293. Schroeder, M.A. 1997. Unusually high reproductive effort by sage grouse in a fragmented habitat in north-central Washington. Condor 99:933-941. Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.), The Birds of North America (Vol. 425, pp. 1-28). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Birds of North America. Society for Range Management, Task Group in concepts and terminology. 1995. New concepts for assessment of rangeland condition. Journal of Range Management 48:271-282. Internet Web site: http://www.rangelands.org/ram/newconcepts.shtml. Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.Deibert, S.Gardner, M. Hilliard, C. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage-grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. Unpublished Report, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 444pp. Suring, L.H., M.J. Wisdom, R.J. Tausch, R.F. Miller, M.M. Rowland, L. Schueck, and C.W. Meinke. 2005. Modeling threats to sagebrush and other shrubland communities. Chapter 4 in Part II: regional assessment of habitats for species of conservation concern in the Great Basin. Pages 114–149 in M.J.Wisdom, M.M.Rowland, and L.H.Suring, editors. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin Alliance Communications Group, Allen Press Lawrence, Kansas. Tausch, R.J. and N.E. West. 1988. Differential establishment of pinyon and juniper following fire. American Midland Naturalist 1988: 174-184.

116 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Tausch, R.J. and N.E. West. 1995. Plant species composition patterns with differences in tree dominance on a southwestern Utah piñon-juniper site. In: DW Shaw, EF Aldon, and C. LoSapio (technical coordinators). Proceedings: Desired future conditions for piñon-juniper ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-258 (pp. 16-23). Tausch, R.J., Miller, R.F., Roundy, B.A., and Chambers, J.C. 2009. Piñon and juniper field guide: Asking the right questions to select appropriate management actions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1335, Reston, Virgina. 96 p. Tueller, P.T., C.D. Beeson, R.J. Tausch, N.E. West, and K.H. Rea. 1979. Pinyon-juniper woodlands of the Great Basin: distribution, flora, vegetal cover. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-229, Odgen, Utah. United States Department of the Interior (USDI). 2015. Secretarial Order No. 3336, Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration. January 5, 2015. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1987. Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the House Range Resource Area Resource Management Plan. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Richfield District, Richfield, Utah. BLM. 1989. BLM Manual Handbook H–1741–Fencing. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. BLM. 1990. Record of Decision for the Pony Express Resource Management Plan and Rangeland Program Summary for Utah County. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District, Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 1992. Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for Off- Highway Vehicle Designations, Pony Express Resource Management Plan Amendment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District, Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 1996. Decision Record and Environmental Assessment for the Salt Lake District Weed Management Plan (UT-020-96-24). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District, Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM lands in Utah. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 1998a. Salt Lake Salt Lake District Office Proposed Fire Management Plan Amendments Environmental Assessment (UT-020-98-08). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District, Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 1998b. Approved Amendments, Decision Record, and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Salt Lake District Office Proposed Fire Management Plan Amendments Environmental Assessment (UT-020-98-08). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District, Salt Lake City, Utah. BLM. 1999. The Great Basin Restoration Initiative: out of ashes, an opportunity. USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Office of Fire and Aviation, Boise, Idaho, USA. BLM. 2000. The Great Basin: Healing the Land. USDI Bureau of Land Management. BLM. 2001. BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. BLM. 2007a. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. June.

117 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

BLM. 2007b. Record of Decision for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. September. BLM. 2010. Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds, August 31, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/nformation_Resources_Management/policy/ib_attachmen ts/2010.Par.67473.File.dat/IB2010-110_att1.pdf BLM. 2011. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012 – 043. Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. BLM. 2012. BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (Public), Section (B3). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. BLM. 2014. Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the Woodland Products Areas for the Salt Lake Field Office (DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2012-0011-EA). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office, West Valley City, Utah. BLM. 2015a. Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOI-BLM-UT-9100-2013-0002-EIS). June 2015. BLM. 2015b. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah (DOI-BLM-UT-9100-2013-0002-EIS). September 2015. BLM. 2015c. Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment; Attachment 4 to the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah (DOI-BLM-UT-9100-2013-0002-EIS). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. September. BLM. 2016a. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States (DOI-BLM-WO-WO2100-2012-0002-EIS). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. April. BLM. 2016b. Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOI-BLM-WO-WO2100-2012-0002-EIS). USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. August. Bureau of Land Management. 2016c. AIM National Aquatic Monitoring Framework: Field Protocol for Wadeable Lotic Systems. Tech Ref 1735-2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. Bureau of Land Management. 2017. Information Bulletin No. UT 2017-010. Implementing BLM Utah’s Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Triggers. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. United States Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.

118 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

USFWS. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered: Washington, D.C. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0018, FR 75, 55 (March 25, 2010). USFWS. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. February 2013. USFWS. 2016. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Website. Accessed on July 12, 2016 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture (USDI-USDA). 2006. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10- Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2015. State Carbon Dioxide Emissions for 2013. http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/ (Accessed on October 18, 2016). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. US inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990 – 2013. Executive Summary. EPA 430-R15-004 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html University of Idaho Stubble Height Review Team. 2004. University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Report. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station Contribution No. 986, Moscow, Idaho. Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). 1999. Utah Smoke Management Plan. Revised 2006. UDAQ. 2015. 2015 Annual Report. Utah Division of Emergency Management (UDEM). 2014. Utah 2014 Approved Hazard Mitigation Plan. Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands (Utah FF&SL). 2016. Communities at Risk http://ffsl.utah.gov/index.php/fire/resources-for-homeowners/communities-at-risk Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2016. Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009. Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2010. Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis), Wildlife Notebook Series No. 9, UDWR. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2013. Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2014. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2015a. Utah Wildlife Action Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication Number 15- 14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2015b. Utah Elk Statewide Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2015c. Utah Sensitive Species List. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2016. Pinyon Jay. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/SearchVerts.asp

119 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Weisberg, P.J., E. Lingua, and R.B. Pillai. 2007. Spatial patterns of pinyon–juniper woodland expansion in central Nevada. Rangeland Ecology & Management 60 (2007): 115-124. West, N.E. 1984. Successional Patterns and Productivity Potentials of Pinyon-Juniper ecosystems. Pp. 1301-1332 in Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management: A Report. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. West Desert Adaptive Resource Management Local Working Group (WDARM). 2007. West Desert Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Local Conservation Plan. Utah State University Extension and Jack H. Berryman Institute and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah. Unpublished Report. Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313(2006): 940-943. Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Vernon, Utah (429133). Period of record: 8/1/1953 to 6/10/2016, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ut9133. Accessed December 19, 2016. Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: Ecological and management implications. Pages 4–10 in E. D.McArthur, E. M.Romney, S. D.Smith, and P. T.Tueller, compilers. Proceedings–Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off and other aspects of shrub biology and management GTR INT-276, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station Ogden, Utah. Wisdom, M.J. and J.C. Chambers. 2009. A Landscape Approach for Ecologically Based Management of Great Basin Shrublands. Restoration Ecology 17(5):740-749. Wisdom, M.J., C.W. Meinke, S.T. Knick and M.A. Schroeder. 2011. Factors associated with extirpation of sage-grouse. Pp. 451-474 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (eds). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38). University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

120 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA APPENDICES Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Interdisciplinary Team Checklist Appendix C: Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Compliance Appendix D: Photographs Appendix E: Public Scoping and BLM Response

121 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA Appendix A: Maps Map 1: Analysis area Map 2: Analysis area and greater sage-grouse habitat management areas as designed by the BLM Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA (BLM 2015d) Map 3: Analysis area and location of treatment focus areas Map 4: Potential juniper treatment areas within the Fillmore Field Office portion of the analysis Map 5: Potential treatment areas and treatment types within the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area Map 6: Proposed Cherry Creek and Cow Hollow juniper management projects Map 7: Proposed Cherry Creek Juniper Management project, Phase 1 and Phase 2 Map 8: Proposed Erickson Pass Habitat Enhancement project (2017 to 2020) Map 9: Proposed Little Valley Juniper Management project Map 10: Proposed South Willow Creek juniper management project Map 11: Proposed Onaqui East Bench treatments Map 12: Historical fire perimeters within and adjacent to that analysis area Map 13: Fuels and vegetation treatments implemented by the BLM within the analysis area since 2004 Map 14: Livestock grazing allotments which overlap the analysis area

122 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 1: Analysis area

123 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 2: Analysis area and greater sage-grouse habitat management areas as designated by the BLM Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA

124 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 3: Analysis area and location of treatment focus areas

125 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 4: Potential juniper treatment areas within the Fillmore Field Office portion of the analysis area

126 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 5: Potential treatment areas and treatment types within the Salt Lake Field Office portion of the analysis area

127 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 6: Proposed Cherry Creek and Cow Hollow juniper management projects

128 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 7: Proposed Cherry Creek Juniper Management project, Phase 1 and Phase 2

129 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 8: Proposed Erickson Pass Habitat Enhancement project (2017 to 2020)

130 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 9: Proposed Little Valley Juniper Management project

131 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 10: Proposed South Willow Creek juniper management project

132 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 11: Proposed Onaqui East Bench treatments

133 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 12: Historical fire perimeters within and adjacent to the analysis area

134 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 13: Fuels and vegetation treatments implemented by the BLM within the analysis area since 2004

135 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Map 14: Livestock grazing allotments which overlap the analysis area

136 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA Appendix B: Interdisciplinary Team Checklist Project Title: Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment NEPA Log Number: DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA File/Serial Number: RA61 Project Leader: Randy Kyes/Brad Jessop/Jim Priest DETERMINATION OF STAFF: NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for relevant impact that need to be analyzed in detail in the EA

Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date nation

RESOURCES AND ISSUES CONSIDERED (INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES APPENDIX 1 H-1790-1)

The potential of the project to impact air quality was PI Air Quality raised during public scoping and is carried forward for /s/ Randy Kyes 10/17/16 analysis. Areas of Critical There are no ACEC’s located within the project area. The NP Environmental Rockwell Natural Area is adjacent to the project area on /s/ Teresa Frampton 9/15/16 Concern the southern end. This area would need to be avoided. Class III Inventories will be completed before the implementation of each specific treatment area. Tribes, consulting parties, and the State Historic Preservation Office will be consulted for each treatment prior to implementation. The BLM will not begin any ground disturbing activities that may affect historic properties until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The PI Cultural Resources /s/ Glenn Stelter 11/3/16 BLM may complete mitigation measures including avoidance of historic properties and modifying treatment strategies. Modified treatments may include limiting juniper treatment to the use of hand tools, limiting bullhogging to periods of high snowfall, and allowing for only forward and backward movement across the site. BLM determinations of eligibility and effects will occur on a treatment area by treatment area basis. As defined in EO 12898, minority, low income populations and disadvantaged groups may be present within the county and may use the analysis area. Environmental Individual projects within the analysis area would not NI /s/ Randy Kyes 9/27/16 Justice cause any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low income populations (individually or collectively). Members of the public could still use the analysis area. There are soil mapping units within the project area in Farmlands (Prime or the Fairfield-Nephi Soil Survey that are classified as NI /s/ Brian Taylor 10/26/16 Unique) Prime Farmlands if irrigated. Within the individual project areas there are no areas that are irrigated or planned to

137 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date nation be irrigated as a result of the proposed project. Also, the proposed project would not cause any of the areas to not qualify as prime or unique farmlands. There is limited perennial water in the project area and no known sustainable fish populations. If unknown fish NI Fish Habitat populations are present, potential impacts to water /s/ Cassie Mellon 10/26/16 resources which relate to fish habitat would be better addressed under other resources. While floodplains may be present within the analysis NP Floodplains area, the proposal would not affect a county’s ability to /s/ Randy Kyes 11/08/16 obtain and/or maintain Federal flood insurance. The analysis area has a wildfire history. Wildfire causes have been attributed to natural and human caused ignitions. Management objectives as established in the Fuels/Fire FMP would be applied. The proposed action could alter PI /s/ Randy Kyes 10/17/16 Management fuel loading, composition, and structure thus reducing hazardous fuels and the probability of high-severity wildfire. Protective measures would be applied as identified in the proposed action. The analysis area includes a variety of potential mineral interests. However, the vegetation treatments or supporting infrastructure (fences, etc.) would not affect Geology / Mineral current or any potential mineral resources or potential NI Resources/Energy /s/ Todd Leeds 10/17/16 energy production. Valid and existing rights would be Production accommodated as long as access and use is maintained. Contractors will have to be aware that restoration areas may contain mineral claim survey markers. Greenhouse Gas Greenhouse Gas Emissions are discussed in the Air PI /s/ Randy Kyes 10/17/16 Emissions Quality section of this EA. There are known large infestations of squarrose knapweed and cheatgrass located within the boundaries of the project area. Smaller infestations of other invasive species and noxious weeds exist in the project area. Therefore in order to prevent the spread of these weed Invasive all equipment should be cleaned prior to leaving the PI Species/Noxious proposed project area. To prevent a new infestation all /s/ RB Probert 12/06/16 Weeds (EO 13112) vehicles and equipment entering the area should be clean, free of any dirt and/or plant materials. In order to control these highly invasive species, the area would need to be treated with a herbicide. If left untreated these plants would develop into monocultures and the desired sage-grouse habitat would be lost. No impact on private lands or access into the area. Private land boundaries will be identified by survey. No /s/ Mike Nelson 10/24/16 NI Lands/Access new routes will be created by this project. /s/ Fred Braun 01/10/17 One existing ROW exists for a Forest Service (FS) road within the project area and the FS will be notified of the

138 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date nation project prior to implementation. In addition, several free use permits for sand and gravel pits exists near/within the project area for Juab County and Juab county will also be notified of the project prior to implementation. The analysis area encompasses numerous livestock grazing allotments in Juab and Tooele Counties. Treatment areas that are seeded would require rest from grazing for a period of at least two years to allow for PI Livestock Grazing seedling establishment. This may have a negative impact /s/ Brian Taylor 10/27/16 to the permittees. Long term the proposed project would likely have a positive impact by increasing perennial plant cover which could result in more forage across the landscape. The analysis area supports important habitat for raptors and neotropical birds. Activities may cause a decrease in nesting and foraging habitat and nesting success for PI Migratory Birds /s/ James Priest 11/16/16 juniper woodland and sage-brush obligate species. Protective measures would be applied as identified in the proposed action. The Pony Express NHT and a feasibility study route of the California NHT exist within the project area but National Historic proposed treatments are not expected to impact NHT NI /s/ Ray Kelsey 10/24/16 Trails resources, qualities, values, and associated settings. In all cases, project implementation will include identification and avoidance of NHT resources. Consultation with Native American tribes will be completed before the implementation of each specific treatment area. BLM informed tribes of the ongoing NEPA process via certified letter mailed out on 11/08/2016. The following tribes were contacted: Hopi Tribe, Skull Valley Goshute Tribe, Kanosh Band of Native American PI Paiutes, the Paiute Tribe of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, /s/ Glenn Stelter 11/08/16 Religious Concerns the Goshute Tribe, the Navajo Tribe, and the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians. Any concerns received in reply to certified letters will be addressed. In person consultation with the Skull Valley Goshute will occur on 11/10/2015, and the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Nation on 12/02/2016. Paleontological resources occur in outcrop areas and will not be impacted by habitat restoration. There are no known significant paleontological resources within the analysis area; therefore, the proposed action would not NI Paleontology /s/ Todd Leeds 10/17/16 affect any paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are discovered, the authorized officer would be contacted immediately. Protective measures would be applied as identified in the proposed action.

139 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date nation Project proposal requires cadastral survey for Property Boundary NI identification of private land boundaries and existing /s/ Mike Nelson 10/24/16 Evaluation survey monuments so that they are flagged and avoided. The proposed project would have a positive impact on the landscapes ability to meet rangeland health standards by increasing the perennial vegetation which would increase cover and improve diversity. This Rangeland Health improved cover and diversity would help these sites to PI /s/ Brian Taylor 10/26/16 Standards maintain biotic integrity and soil stability. Decreasing the amount of cheatgrass through the proposed treatments would also improve the rangelands resiliency in meeting the standards long term by decreasing the likelihood of wildfire. Principle recreational activities within the project area are OHV riding, camping, hunting, target shooting, viewing historic sites, and wildlife/wild horse viewing. Project proposals would not impact developed recreation sites. Casual dispersed recreation use would not be substantially impacted by the proposed project. Several PI (FFO) competitive racing groups compete throughout the year /s/ Teresa Frampton 1/19/17 Recreation NI (SLFO) in the proposed project area (FFO). Trails and camping /s/ Ray Kelsey 10/24/16 areas may be impacted by the proposal. A commercial wilderness therapy program operates in the analysis area (SLFO) but BLM staff will continue to coordinate with the permittee on project implementation design to minimize potential impacts to their operations from vegetation treatments. Two of the main purposes for this landscape scale project are to: improve or maintain sagebrush habitat for GRSG and other sagebrush obligate wildlife species, and PI Sage Grouse Habitat second, to reduce threats to GRSG by managing pinyon- /s/ James Priest 11/16/16 juniper encroachment, minimizing invasive species and reducing fire risks. Protective measures would be applied as identified in the proposed action. Quantifiable additional or decreased economic impact to NI Socio-Economics the local area would not be expected by the alternatives. /s/ Randy Kyes 9/27/16 Land use plan level decisions would not change. The proposed actions should have a positive impact on soils by decreasing large woody vegetation and cheatgrass and thereby increasing forbs as well as perennial shrubs and grasses. These changes would PI Soils result in improved cover, diversity, biotic integrity and soil /s/ Paul Caso 11/8/16 stability. Disturbed areas in need of seed to establish desirable species should be seeded with an approved seed mixture and protected from disturbance for a minimum of two growing seasons.

140 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date nation For SLFO, where treatments would occur in potential Threatened, habitat for Pohl’s milkvetch, a survey for presence would Endangered, NI be required and any identified habitat would be avoided /s/ Mark Williams 11/9/16 Candidate or Special through project design. Inclusion of this stipulation would Status Plant Species preclude the need for further analysis in the EA. There are no known threatened, endangered, or candidate species or designated critical habitat known to Threatened, occur within or reasonable near the analysis area. Endangered, BLM Special Status Species such as but not limited to kit NA (T&E) Candidate or Special fox, golden eagles, burrowing owls, long-billed curlew, /s/ James Priest 11/16/16 PI (SSS) Status Animal ferruginous hawks are known to occur within or Species reasonably near the analysis area. Protective measures would be applied as identified in the proposed action. Travel/Transportatio No impacts to existing travel and transportation routes /s/ Ray Kelsey 10/24/16 NI n are anticipated from the proposed action. /s/ Teresa Frampton 10/27/16 The proposed actions would remove large woody vegetation and cheatgrass and should result in an Vegetation increase in forbs and perennial shrubs and grasses. PI Excluding Special Disturbed areas in need of seed to establish desirable /s/ Paul Caso 11/8/16 Status Species species should be seeded with an approved seed mixture and protected from disturbance for a minimum of two growing seasons. The majority of the acres for the proposed project are located in areas managed as VRM Class IV under the current land use plans. The objective of this class is, “To provide for management activities which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high.” Several small VRM Class III areas exist in the project area under the current land use plans. However, The objective of this class is, “To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. /s/ Teresa Frampton 9/15/16 NI Visual Resources Management activities may attract attention but should /s/ Ray Kelsey 10/24/16 not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. Project design and implementation under the proposed action is expected to comply with VRM Class III standards. Vegetation treatments are not expected to substantially alter or contrast with the characteristic landscape in the project area. Treatments are expected to return the landscape to a more natural condition than currently exists. Wastes Solid and hazardous wastes are not expected to occur or NI /s/ Todd Leeds 10/17/16 (hazardous or solid) be generated in restoration areas. Habitat restoration will

141 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date nation not generate hazardous wastes. Any solid waste generated or found during restoration will be removed during restoration. Fluids used by equipment would be stored, disposed of, handled, or transported to and from specific project areas. Spills would be cleaned up immediately as per protocol. Should solid or hazardous wastes be discovered they should be reported to BLM and the State, if in excess of reportable quantities (RQs). Protective measures would be applied as identified in the proposed action. Water Vegetation removal may impact timing and amount of Resources/Quality PI surface water runoff both through overland flow as well /s/ Cassie Mellon 10/26/16 (drinking/surface/gro as in springs, streams and washes. und) Wetlands and riparian zones may be affected by Wetlands/Riparian PI changes in timing and duration of surface flow as well as /s/ Cassie Mellon 10/26/16 Zones direct removal of vegetation in riparian areas Wild and Scenic There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the proposed /s/ Teresa Frampton 10/20/16 NP Rivers project area. /s/ Ray Kelsey 10/24/16 /s/ Teresa Frampton 9/15/16 NP Wilderness/WSA Resource is not present within the project area. /s/ Ray Kelsey 10/24/16 In accordance with BLM Manual 6310, when a surface disturbing activity is proposed within the analysis area, an inventory will be conducted to determine if there is an area containing wilderness characteristics. If an area is Lands with found to possess wilderness characteristics, potential /s/ Teresa Frampton 10/18/16 PI Wilderness impacts will be minimized through protective measures /s/ Ray Kelsey 11/1/16 Characteristics and best practices for vegetation treatment design. All practical efforts will be made to maintain or enhance wilderness character where it may be determined to exist while providing for other priority resource goals and objectives. The project area is within the Onaqui wild horse herd management area. The vegetation treatments are not Wild Horses and NI expected to impact the horses. The protective measures /s/ Tami Howell 11/4/16 Burros in the proposed action should prevent the horses from impacting the treatments General wildlife excluding special status species (i.e. big game species, rabbits, hares, reptiles, and pollinators etc.) associated with sagebrush communities will benefit from the proposed action to improve sage-grouse Wildlife Excluding habitat. The purpose of the project is to improve the PI Special Status /s/ James Priest 11/16/16 sagebrush community composition, structure, and Species distribution; reduce catastrophic fire; control invasive plant species; and improve riparian habitat. Protective measures applied in implementing the proposed actions to improve the sagebrush community and sage-grouse

142 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Determi- Resource Rationale for Determination Assigned Date nation habitat will mitigate any potential negative impacts that could potentially occur. A substantial proportion of the pinyon and juniper woodlands (PJ) in the analysis area have been impacted by wildfire and previous treatments. PJ is biologically diverse; a core area where PJ would be maintained for PI Woodland / Forestry habitat would be identified. Additionally, the analysis area /s/ Mark Williams 11/9/16 is adjacent to the major population center of Utah. PJ is valued by the public for areas to collect pinyon nuts, cordwood and Christmas trees. Areas would be identified for public utilization of forest products.

FINAL REVIEW

Title Signature Date

Environmental Coordinator Reserved

Authorized Officer Reserved

143 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

This page intentionally left blank

144 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA Appendix C: Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Compliance This appendix documents the conformance of the proposed action (Alternative A) with the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah (BLM 2015b) and the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) (BLM 2015c). See Chapter 2 of this document for a complete description of the proposed action. Chapter 2 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA presents the goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management actions established for protecting and preserving greater sage-grouse (GRSG) and its habitat on public lands managed by the BLM in Utah. The BLM would apply these actions where the BLM has discretion to implement them. Appendix C.1 through Appendix C.6 provides information on which objectives and management actions from the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA apply to the proposed action and how the proposed action complies. Appendix C.1: Special Status Species Objectives and Compliance Section 2.2.1 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA lists objectives to meet the goal for special status species and habitat objectives for greater sage-grouse (GRSG). This goal, Goal SSS-1, states: “Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in collaboration with other conservation partners.” Objective SSS-1: Enhance or improve GRSG habitat (e.g., through restoration or rehabilitation activities) within PHMA that has been impaired or altered. Proposed Action Compliance: The proposed action is designed specially to address this objective and provide direct benefit to greater sage-grouse by creating and expanding useable habitat that could be immediately occupied following treatment. The BLM proposes vegetation treatments to decrease the risk of high severity wildfire, restore ecosystem function and resiliency, and protect and improve sagebrush habitat. This is a landscape scale effort to protect and restore sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species, primarily by the removal of expanding and infilling pinyon and juniper trees, the creation of fuel breaks/greenstrips along strategic roadways, increasing and restoring plant species diversity in sagebrush stands where understory vegetation is lacking, decreasing cheatgrass in sagebrush habitat, and improving watershed conditions and water quality. Objective SSS-3: In all GRSG habitat, where sagebrush is the current or potential dominant vegetation type or is a primary species within the various states of the ecological site description, maintain or restore vegetation to provide habitat for lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats. Proposed Action Compliance: The proposed action is designed specially to address this objective and provide direct benefit to greater sage-grouse by creating and expanding useable habitat that could be immediately occupied following treatment. Objective SSS-4: Within PHMA, increase the amount and functionality of seasonal habitats by:  Maintaining or increasing sagebrush in perennial grasslands, where needed to meet the Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse (Table 2-2 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA), unless there is a conflict with Utah prairie dog.  Reducing conifer (e.g., pinyon/juniper) from areas that are most likely to support GRSG at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of encroachment.  Reducing the extent of annual grasslands.  Maintaining or improving corridors for migration or movement between seasonal habitats, as well as for long-term genetic connections between populations.

145 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

 Maintaining or improving understory (grass, forb) and/or riparian condition within breeding and late brood-rearing habitats.  Conducting vegetation treatments based on the following 10-year (decadal) acreage objectives: For the Sheeprocks Population area for mechanical treatments the objective is 33,700 acres.  Outside PHMA (in adjacent opportunity areas) improve and restore historical GRSG habitat to support GRSG populations and to maintain or enhance connectivity. Proposed Action Compliance: The proposed action calls for removing pinyon and juniper trees that have expanded and infilled into sagebrush habitat. Pinyon/juniper trees would either be masticated or lopped and scattered depending on density and size. Treated lands in need of seed would be planted with a diverse native seed mixture to improve understory within breeding and late brood-rearing habitats. Fuel breaks and greenstrips would also be established to reduce the threat of wildland fire impacting sagebrush habitat. The proposed action also calls increasing and restoring plant species diversity in sagebrush stands where understory vegetation is lacking, decreasing cheatgrass in sagebrush habitat, and improving watershed conditions and water quality. Objective SSS-5: Participate in local GRSG conservation efforts (e.g., the appropriate State of Utah agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and local working groups) to implement landscape-scale habitat conservation, to implement consistent management to benefit GRSG, and to gather and use local research and monitoring to promote the conservation of GRSG. Proposed Action Compliance: The BLM would continue to work with partners, including the USFWS, UDWR, NRCS, WDARM, and private landowners to implement landscape-scale habitat conservation, to implement consistent management to benefit greater sage-grouse, and to gather and use local research and monitoring to promote the conservation of greater sage-grouse. Appendix C.2: Special Status Species Management Actions and Compliance The Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA lists specific management actions required for all actions in greater sage-grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA). MA-SSS-3: In PHMA, apply the following management to discretionary disturbances or activities that are not otherwise excluded or closed to minimize and mitigate effects on GRSG and its habitat from the project/activity:  MA-SSS-3A (Net Conservation Gain): The proposed action would result in net conservation gain for greater sage-grouse by creating and expanding useable habitat for greater sage-grouse, improving understory conditions, and moving toward a more resilient landscape.  MA-SSS-3B (Disturbance Cap): The analysis area is not identified as one of the 18 threats listed in Table E.1 of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. Therefore, the disturbance cap does not apply to this project proposal.  MA-SSS-3C (Density of Energy / Mining Facilities): The project is not energy or mining related and as such is not one of the six types of project for which this management action applies; therefore density of energy and mining facilities does not apply to this site specific project proposal.  MA-SSS-3D (Predation): The project does not propose any new structures of facilities such as dumps or waste transfer stations, or tall structures, that would propagate predation on greater sage-grouse. Control of predator populations is outside the scope of this document..  MA-SSS-3E (Noise Restrictions): Project design critera would require that vegetation treatments and other ground disturbing activities shall not be implemented from 2 hours before to hours after official sunrise and sunset during breeding season (e.g., while males are strutting).  MA-SSS-3F (Tall Structure Restrictions): The project does not propose any new tall structures; therefore, tall structure restriction does not apply to this site specific project proposal.

146 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

 MA-SSS-3G (Seasonal Restrictions): The analysis area contains winter, brood and nesting habitat, which are protected during the following periods: November 15 to March 15 for winter habitat; February 15 to June 15 for breeding (leks), nesting and early brood-rearing habitat; and April 15 to August 15 for brood-rearing habitat. All seasonal restrictions would be followed when implementing proposed treatments within the analysis area, unless a specific expemption is granted to allow ground disturbing work during one of the period listed above following consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.  MA-SSS-3H (Buffers): The project proposal would involve surface disturbing and noise-related disruptive activities within the lek buffer zones identified in Appendix B of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA: within 3.1 miles of leks for surface disturbance and 0.25 miles for noise. Because the focus of the proposed action in on restoring and expanding sagebrush habitat for the benefit of greater sage-grouse and other wildlife, a justifiable departure, as allowed for in Appendix B of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA, would be necessary. The BLM has worked closely with partners, especially the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, to identify priority treatment areas and design treatments for the benefit of greater sage-grouse. Additionally, required project design criteria would ensure that vegetation enhancement treatments would generally be conducted in the fall/winter (August 15 to February 15) when not in winter habitat, which would avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse on the lek. Treatments in winter habitat would likely occur in early fall before restrictions begin on November 15. Additionally, some of these leks have become over grown or contain older growth sagebrush. The greater sage-grouse typically do not use these areas and move to better quality strutting areas. Restoration treatments within the lek buffers in this location would enhance the quality and diversity of vegetation and open these abandoned leks to future use during the lekking season.  MA-SSS-3I (Required Design Features): Applicable design features required in Appendix C of the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA for fire and fuels management activities are incorporated into this EA. MA-SSS-4: In PHMA and in adjacent opportunity areas, maintain, improve and restore GRSG habitat to support GRSG populations and to maintain or enhance connectivity. Vegetation treatments will be applied to meet GRSG habitat objectives and provide additional GRSG habitat, unless there is a conflict with Utah prairie dog, where the landscape will be managed for both species. Proposed Action Compliance: The BLM proposes vegetation treatments to decrease the risk of high severity wildfire, restore ecosystem function and resiliency, and protect and improve sagebrush habitat. This is a landscape scale effort to protect and restore sagebrush habitat for greater sage- grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species, primarily by the removal of expanding and infilling pinyon and juniper trees, the creation of fuel breaks/greenstrips along strategic roadways, increasing and restoring plant species diversity in sagebrush stands where understory vegetation is lacking, decreasing cheatgrass in sagebrush habitat, and improving watershed conditions and water quality. Appendix C.3: Vegetation Objective and Compliance Section 2.2.2 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA lists the following objective for vegetation within PHMA and SFA: Objective VEG-1: In SFA and PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but no less than 70 percent) with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush cover or as consistent with specific ecological site conditions; exceptions to this objective shall be made where GRSG habitat and Utah prairie dog occur on the same landscape, which will be managed for both species. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6).

147 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Proposed Action Compliance: The BLM proposes vegetation treatments to decrease the risk of high severity wildfire, restore ecosystem function and resiliency, and protect and improve sagebrush habitat. This is a landscape scale effort to protect and restore sagebrush habitat for greater sage- grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species, primarily by the removal of expanding and infilling pinyon and juniper trees, the creation of fuel breaks/greenstrips along strategic roadways, increasing and restoring plant species diversity in sagebrush stands where understory vegetation is lacking, decreasing cheatgrass in sagebrush habitat, and improving watershed conditions and water quality. Appendix C.4: Vegetation Management Actions and Compliance Section 2.2.2 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA contains management actions applicable to vegetation management actions in PHMA. Table C-1 below illustrates compliance with these management actions.

Table C-1: Vegetation Management Actions applicable to vegetation management in PHMA

Management Action Compliance MA-VEG-1 In PHMA, where necessary to meet GRSG habitat objectives, The removal of expanding and infilling pinyon treat areas to maintain and expand healthy GRSG habitat (e.g., and juniper trees in the areas identified as conifer encroachment areas and annual grasslands). Treatment Focus Areas would maintain and expand sagebrush habitat for greater sage- grouse and other wildlife species. In PHMA, prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are Treatments would be prioritized by Treatment identified as the limiting factor for GRSG distribution and/or Focus Areas, focusing first on areas where abundance. habitat is currently identified as limiting greater sage-grouse distribution and/or abundance. Treatment priority would be coordinated with partners including UDWR. Apply seasonal restrictions to avoid treating areas during All treatments would be implemented in seasons of use, as needed, when implementing vegetation compliance with seasonal restrictions identified in treatments (see MA-SSS-3G). the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA. In PHMA, avoid sagebrush reduction treatments within GRSG Within winter and nesting habitat, fuels breaks nesting and winter habitat unless the project plan and associated and greenstrips may be created along routes NEPA document demonstrate a biological need for the treatment and/or select drainages to reduce the risk of to maintain or improve habitat for the GRSG population, or vehicle and human caused wildfires, reduce the unless the treatment is for Utah prairie dog recovery where the spread of invasive species, and aid in controlling needs of both species will be addressed on the landscape. wildfires in PHMA. Within these proposed fuels Coordinate with the appropriate State of Utah agency and the breaks, all pinyon, juniper, and sagebrush would USFWS prior to conducting sagebrush treatment projects within be cleared up to 150 feet on either side of the nesting and winter habitat. road or drainage. Where sagebrush is the dominant species, fuels breaks would be created by mowing or using a chain-harrow. While creating additional fuel breaks may remove some sagebrush, any reduction in sagebrush would be outweighed by the benefits of reduced wildfire risk and invasive species spread on the landscape. Any proposed fuel breaks or greenstrips would be coordinated with the USFWS and UDWR prior to approval and implementation.

148 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Management Action Compliance Use collaborative planning efforts to develop and implement The proposed action is the result of a habitat restoration projects. Expertise and ideas from entities collaborative effort between the BLM, NRCS, such as local landowners, local GRSG working groups, and other UDWR, SITLA, the WDARM, Utah Grazing federal, state, county, and private organizations shall be solicited Improvement Program, and private landowners. and considered in development of restoration projects. In PHMA, implement project design features that will contribute Where pinyon and juniper expansion and infilling to the most favorable conditions for success when planning and have resulted in a decrease in perennial implementing restoration/vegetation treatment projects. understory vegetation, seeding would occur. Examples include, but are not limited to the following: Seed would be applied in the fall prior to  Review of available plant species and their adaptation to mastication. Site adapted and source identified the site when developing seed mixes. species would be given priority in the seed mix if  The need to reduce non-native annual grass densities and available. If cheatgrass becomes dominant within competition through herbicide, targeted grazing, tillage, treated areas, herbicide may be used to achieve etc. initial control. Long term control would be  Assessment of on-site vegetation to ascertain if enough achieved by seeding desirable perennial grasses desirable perennial vegetation exists to consider the use and forbs to compete with cheatgrass. of passive restoration techniques.  Use of site preparation techniques that retain existing desirable vegetation.  Use of “mother plant” techniques or planting of satellite populations of desirable plants to serve as seed sources.  The need for post-treatment control of non-native annual grass and other invasive species. Upon completion of vegetation treatments, monitor and manage A combination of quantitative and qualitative the project area to ensure long-term success, including methods would be used to monitor vegetation persistence of seeded species and/or other treatment response to treatments and determine if components, such as implementing maintenance treatments. objectives were met. Monitoring would occur prior to treatment as well as 1, 3, and 5 years post-treatment. Maintenance treatments would be implemented as necessary based upon monitoring results to ensure long term success. MA-VEG-2 Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a The objective of the proposal is to remove up to manner that considers tribal cultural values. When conducting 100 percent of pinyon and juniper expanding and conifer treatments: infilling into selected sagebrush habitats and  Prioritize treatments closest to occupied GRSG habitats increase perennial native plant cover and and near occupied leks, and where juniper encroachment diversity. Pockets of trees ranging from 1 to 15 is phase I or phase II. acres in size would be left scattered throughout  Treat areas in late Phase II or Phase III condition to create the landscape. These pockets would be left to movement corridors, connect habitats, or to break up meet the multiple use mandate of the BLM. continuous, hazardous fuels and reduce the potential for Pockets of trees provide cover and shade for catastrophic fire. livestock, wildlife, and recreation users. Pockets  Prioritize methods to reduce conifer canopy cover to those of old-growth and pinyon pine would be avoided. that maintain the understory vegetation as the preferred Trees would be completely removed within 0.6 treatment methods (e.g., mechanical, lop and scatter). miles of leks. Mechanical methods would be  Require that vegetation treatments conducted within 0.6 used in order to preserve sagebrush and other miles of a lek include an objective of reducing conifer, understory species. where technically feasible, to less than 5 percent canopy

149 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Management Action Compliance cover, with preference for complete removal.  Include stipulations to avoid removing old-growth pinyon/juniper stands (e.g., Tausch et al. 2009; Miller et al. 1999).  Use of site-specific analysis and tools like the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool and the fire and invasives assessment tool report (Chambers et al. 2014) will help refine the location for specific areas to be treated. MA-VEG-3 In PHMA manage wet meadows to maintain a component of The proposal may remove expanding and infilling perennial forbs with diverse species richness relative to site upland woody species (i.e., juniper, pinyon) potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Also where they are impacting riparian areas to conserve or enhance these wet meadow complexes to maintain increase water yield and promote perennial forb or increase amount of edge and cover within that edge. diversity. Beaver Dam Analogs or other stream structures may be used to expand riparian habitat, and riparian exclosures may be constructed to protect riparian areas MA-VEG-4 In PHMA, include GRSG habitat objectives in The short-term habitat objective for this project is restoration/treatment projects. Include short-term and long-term to remove expanding and infilling pinyon/juniper habitat conditions in treatment objectives, including specific in order to provide a direct benefit to greater objectives for the establishment of sagebrush cover and height, sage-grouse by creating and expanding useable as well as cover and heights for understory perennial grasses habitat that could be immediately occupied and forbs necessary for GRSG seasonal habitats (see Objective following treatment. The long-term objective is to SSS-3). achieve the specific greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat conditions identified in Objective SSS-3. Make meeting the GRSG objectives for the restoration/treatment The analysis area would be managed and project one of the primary priorities for the project and maintained as greater sage-grouse habitat in subsequent land uses, recognizing that managing for other accordance with the goals and objectives special status species may result in treatment objectives that identified in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse may not meet GRSG seasonal habitat objectives (e.g., winter ARMPA. Vegetation monitoring would be used to habitat cover requirements versus creation of Utah prairie dog inform adaptive management decisions. habitat). Where GRSG habitat overlaps with that of federally listed threatened or endangered species (e.g., Utah prairie dogs), coordinate with species-specific experts to develop conservation and recovery objectives and allow habitat treatments that will benefit both species. MA-VEG-5 In PHMA, prioritize the use of native seeds for restoration based The use of native seed would be prioritized on availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), and during implementation based on availability, site probability of success. Where probability of success or adapted potential, and the probability of success. Where seed availability is low, desirable non-native seeds may be used site conditions do not favor success with native as long as they support GRSG habitat objectives. Re- seed species, desirable non-native may be used. establishment of appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site potential, should be the principle objective for rehabilitation efforts. MA-VEG-6

150 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Management Action Compliance In PHMA, design post restoration management to ensure long Changes in livestock management, wild horse term persistence. This could include changes in livestock grazing and burro management, and travel management management, wild horse and burro management and travel are outside the scope of the purpose and need of management, etc., to achieve and maintain the desired condition this proposal, and would be analyzed in future of the restoration effort that benefits GRSG, as well as monitoring NEPA documents and decisions. As part of this and maintaining the treated area. proposal, livestock grazing would not occur in seeded and/or mechanically/chemically treated areas for a minimum of two complete growing seasons. MA-VEG-10 Follow the applicable and technically feasible RDFs in Appendix Applicable Required Design Features (RDFs) for C for vegetation projects/activities (fuels management) at the Fuels Management listed in Appendix C of the site-level unless at least one of the following can be Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA would be demonstrated in the NEPA analyses associated with the implemented for this project. project/activity:  A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the project/activity;  An alternative RDF, state-implemented conservation measure, or plan-level protection is determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat;  A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat. MA-VEG-12 In PHMA, Integrated Vegetation Management will be used to Noxious and invasive species would be control, suppress, and eradicate noxious and invasive species controlled consistent with BLM Handbook H- per BLM Handbook H-1740-2. 1740-2. MA-VEG-14 Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or Noxious weeds and invasive species would be noxious species to minimize competition and favor establishment monitored and treated as needed to minimize of desired species. spread.

Appendix C.5: Fire/Fuels Management Actions and Compliance Section 2.2.3 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA contains management actions applicable to fire and fuels proposals in PHMA. Table C-2 below illustrates compliance with these management actions.

Table C-2: Management actions applicable to fire and fuels proposals in PHMA

Management Action Compliance MA-FIRE-2 Follow the applicable and technically feasible RDFs in Appendix Applicable Required Design Features (RDFs) for C for fuels management at the site-level unless at least one of the Fuels Management listed in Appendix C of the following can be demonstrated in the NEPA analyses associated Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA would be with the project/activity: implemented for this project.  A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the project/activity;  An alternative RDF, state-implemented conservation measure, or plan-level protection is determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat;  A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to

151 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Management Action Compliance GRSG or its habitat. MA-FIRE-3 In PHMA, fuel treatments will be designed through an  The proposed treatments would reduce interdisciplinary process to expand, enhance, maintain, or protect hazardous fuels and reduce the likelihood GRSG habitat. of high severity wildfire, while expanding  In collaboration with USFWS and relevant state agencies, suitable greater sage-grouse habitat. BLM planning units with large blocks of GRSG habitat will  Fuel breaks have been proposed as a part develop, using the assessment process described in of this project. Appendix H, a fuels management strategy which considers  An interdisciplinary team has analyzed a an up-to-date fuels profile, land use plan direction, current full range of fuel reduction techniques and potential habitat fragmentation, sagebrush and GRSG including conifer reduction, prescribed fire, ecological factors, and active vegetation management chemical, and mechanical treatments, steps to provide critical breaks in fuel continuity, where depending upon site-specific variables. appropriate. When developing this strategy, planning units  The proposed project is designed to will consider the risk of increased habitat fragmentation remove encroaching conifer stands across from a proposed action versus the risk of large scale the analysis area to improve habitat for fragmentation posed by wildfires if the action is not taken. greater sage-grouse.  Use green strips and/or fuel breaks to protect GRSG  The use of native seed would be habitat from fire events. prioritized during implementation based on  When possible, locate fuel breaks along existing roads, availability, site potential, and the ROWs, and other suitable topographic or natural features probability of success. Where site (e.g., areas devoid of vegetation, rock outcrops). conditions do not favor success with native  Avoid constructing fuel breaks through large areas of intact seed species, desirable non-native may be GRSG habitat, unless the associated NEPA document used. demonstrates a biological need for the fuel break to  All seasonal restrictions identified in the maintain or protect habitat for the GRSG population. Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA would Coordinate with the appropriate State of Utah agency and be required during project implementation. the USFWS prior to constructing fuel breaks within nesting  Monitoring and maintenance of treatment and winter habitat. activities would occur to ensure long-term  Using an interdisciplinary approach, a full range of fuel success. reduction techniques will be available. Fuel reduction techniques such as conifer reduction, grazing, prescribed fire, chemical, biological, and mechanical treatments may be acceptable, given site-specific variables.  Remove encroaching conifer stands as a fuels management tool, where environmental review documents it protects or improves GRSG habitat.  Prioritize the use of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability of success. Where probability of success for native seed availability is low, desirable non-native seeds may be used to meet GRSG habitat objectives to trend toward restoring the fire regime. When reseeding, use fire resistant native and desirable non-native species, as appropriate, to provide for fire breaks.  Upon project completion, monitor and manage fuels projects to ensure long-term success, including persistence of seeded species and/or other treatment

152 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Management Action Compliance components, such as implementing maintenance actions. Control invasive vegetation post-treatment.  Apply seasonal restrictions, as needed, for implementing fuels management treatments according to the type of seasonal habitats present (see MA-SSS-3G). In PHMA, avoid sagebrush reduction fuels treatments within Within winter habitat, fuel breaks may be GRSG nesting and winter habitat unless the project plan and created along designated routes and/or select associated NEPA document demonstrate a biological need for the drainages to reduce the risk of vehicle and treatment to maintain or improve habitat for the GRSG population, human caused wildfires, reduce the spread of or unless the treatment is for Utah prairie dog recovery where the invasive species, and aid in controlling wildfires needs of both species will be addressed on the landscape. in PHMA. Within these proposed fuels breaks, Treatments in winter habitat should be designed to maintain all juniper and sagebrush would be cleared up to sagebrush, especially tall sagebrush (sagebrush capable of 150 feet on either side of the road or drainage. standing above heavier than normal snowfall), which will be Where sagebrush is the dominant species, fuels available to GRSG above snow during a severe winter, breaks would be created by mowing or using a considering the needs of Utah prairie dog recovery. Prior to chain-harrow. While creating additional fuel conducting fuels treatments in winter habitat, coordinate with the breaks may remove some sagebrush, any appropriate State of Utah agency and the USFWS to design the reduction in sagebrush would be outweighed by treatment to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the the benefits of reduced wildfire risk and invasive winter habitat. species spread on the landscape. MA-FIRE-4 If prescribed fire is used in GRSG habitat, the NEPA analysis for Prescribed fire may be used as a follow up the Burn Plan will address: why alternative techniques were not treatment following slashing and piling of selected as a viable options; how GRSG goals and objectives will pinyon/juniper on steep slope and/or to reduce be met by its use; how the COT Report objectives will be mulch piles resulting from mastication addressed and met; a risk assessment to address how potential treatments to reduce fuel loading. threats to GRSG habitat will be minimized. Prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment shall only be  Prescribed fire may be used as a follow up considered after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan has treatment following slashing and piling of addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire may be pinyon/juniper on steep slopes to reduce used to meet specific fuels objectives that will protect GRSG fuel loading. This treatment would be habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that will disrupt the utilized since not burning slash piles would fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual not meet the purpose and need. Leaving invasive grasses are a minor component in the understory, slash piles on the landscape would leave burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, used as a fuels available to fire and would not meet component with other treatment methods to combat annual the requirements for protection of greater grasses and restore native plant communities), as well as sage-grouse habitat in PHMA and GHMA. managing the landscape for GRSG in concert with Utah prairie  The proposed action would meet Objective dog. SSS-3 by providing direct benefit to greater sage-grouse by creating and expanding useable habitat that could be immediately occupied following treatment. The proposal would move habitat conditions toward the desired conditions listed in Table 2-2 of the ARMPA. The action would also comply with Objective SSS-4 by reducing conifer encroachment and improving understory.

153 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Management Action Compliance  The proposed action addresses and meets objective provided in the COT Report by minimizing threats to the population and maintaining and improving habitat. This includes a reduction in conifer encroachment, installation of fuel breaks to prevent loss of sagebrush habitat due to fire, treatment of invasive species, and seeding of native forbs and grasses.  Risk Assessment: Potential threats to greater sage-grouse habitat from the proposal are limited as the proposal is specifically designed for the benefit of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. Burning of piles would be conducted outside of restrictive seasons and when weather and fuel conditions are favorable to limiting potential escape. All prescribed fire would comply with the burn plan and be adequately staffed to ensure the protection of habitat. Burning would be limited to slash piles; no burning of sagebrush would be conducted. Prescribed fire in known winter range shall only be considered These factors would be considered in the burn after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four plan for this proposal. bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat will need to be designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around and/or in the winter range and designed to protect winter range habitat quality. MA-FIRE-5 In PHMA, during fuels management project design, consider the Targeted grazing has not been identified by the use of targeted livestock grazing to strategically reduce fine fuels interdisciplinary team as a tool to reduce fine and, if used, implement grazing management that will accomplish fuels in the NEPA or proposed action for this this objective. If implementing targeted grazing, implement analysis area. measures to minimize impacts on native perennial grasses.

Appendix C.6: Livestock Grazing/Range Management Actions and Compliance Section 2.2.4 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA contains management actions applicable livestock grazing and range management in PHMA. MA-LG-8: In PHMA, manage riparian areas and wet meadows for proper functioning condition. Proposed Action Compliance: The proposed action calls for the protection of riparian areas and wet meadows, where necessary, to maintain or restore proper functioning conditions (see Subsection 2.1.2.7 in this EA). Specifically, one of the initial site-specific proposals, the Government Creek Lek Wet Meadow Habitat Improvement project, would fence the Government Creek spring and associated wet meadow to protect and enhance wet meadow habitat which has been degraded due to trampling by livestock and wild horses. Additionally, beaver dam analogs or other instream structures may be used as aquatic restoration tools to help capture any additional runoff following treatments, create

154 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

additional wet meadow and lentic habitats, an/or reconnect stream channels to the floodplain in incised channels. MA-LG-11: In PHMA, evaluate existing water developments (springs, seeps, etc., and their associated pipelines) to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain or improve riparian areas and GRSG habitat. Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts on other water uses when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to GRSG. Proposed Action Compliance: As discussed in Subsection 2.1.2.7 of this EA, permanent and/or temporary fences may be installed to protect existing water resources/riparian areas (e.g., springs, wet meadows), where necessary. Fencing of existing water sources/riparian areas would exclude livestock and wildhorses, allowing riparian vegetation to recover due to reduce grazing pressure. This in turn would provide a beneficial impact to greater sage-grouse by improving and increasing natural grasses and forbs for forage. MA-LG-12: In PHMA, ensure that vegetation treatments conserve, enhance or restore GRSG habitat (this includes treatments that benefit livestock). Proposed Action Compliance: The proposed action is designed specially to address this objective and provide direct benefit to greater sage-grouse by creating and expanding useable habitat that could be immediately occupied following treatment. The BLM proposes vegetation treatments to decrease the risk of high severity wildfire, restore ecosystem function and resiliency, and protect and improve sagebrush habitat. This is a landscape scale effort to protect and restore sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species, primarily by the removal of expanding and infilling pinyon and juniper trees, the creation of fuel breaks/greenstrips along strategic roadways, increasing and restoring plant species diversity in sagebrush stands where understory vegetation is lacking, decreasing cheatgrass in sagebrush habitat, and improving watershed conditions and water quality. MA-LG-16: To reduce outright GRSG strikes and mortality, remove, modify or mark fences in high risk areas (Stevens et al. 2012) based on proximity to lek (e.g., within 1.2 miles of a lek), lek size, and topography, or as latest science indicates. Proposed Action Compliance: As discussed in Chapter 2 of this EA, the BLM would design any new temporary or permanent fences in compliance with wildlife guidelines, including fitting fences with bird deflectors, as appropriate. MA-LG-17: In PHMA, monitor for and treat noxious weeds and treat invasive species where needed, associated with existing range improvements. Proposed Action Compliance: Noxious weeds and invasive plant species would be monitored and treated as needed to minimize spread. See Subsection 2.1.2.3 and Sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 in this EA for additional information.

155 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

This page intentionally left blank

156 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA Appendix D: Photographs Appendix D.1: Historic Photographs

Figure 2: Clover Creek Civilian Conservation Corp camp, circa 1936. Sagebrush is the dominant vegetation on the slopes in the background.

Figure 3: Clover Creek campground, circa 2003. Juniper has increased substantially on the slopes beyond the campground.

157 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 4: View of Dry Canyon in the Stansbury Mountains in 1901.

Figure 5: Dry Canyon in 1976. Juniper has increased significantly across the landscape.

158 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 6: Big Creek Canyon in the Stansbury Mountains, 1901. Sagebrush is dominant on the landscape.

Figure 7: Big Creek Canyon, 2004. Juniper has replaced sagebrush as the dominant vegetation on the landscape.

159 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA Appendix D.2: Monitoring Photographs and Data

Figure 8: Lofgreen project juniper thinning treatment area prior to mastication.

Figure 9: Lofgreen project one year following mastication.

Figure 10: Lofgreen project three years after mastication.

160 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 11: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 prior to treatment (Plot 1, 2012).

Figure 12: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 three years following treatment (Plot 1, 2015).

161 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 13: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 prior to treatment (Plot 3, 2012).

Figure 14: East Onaqui Bullhog Phase 2 three years following treatment (Plot 3, 2015).

162 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 15: Onaqui East Bench Bullhog Phase 1 prior to treatment.

Figure 16: Onaqui East Bench Bullhog Phase 1 four years following juniper thinning and seeding.

163 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 17: Clover fuels treatment three weeks after the Berry Fire (2015). The fuels treatments, implemented in 2011, decreased the amount of trees and increased perennial grasses and forbs which are key to ecosystem resiliency. The reduction in fuel loading helped moderate fire behavior resulting in a low severity fire.

Figure 18: Clover fuels treatment 1 year following the Berry Fire (2015). Because the fuels treatment resulted in a high degree of ecosystem resiliency, there was no need for fire rehabilitation efforts. Perennial grasses and forbs recovered on their own.

164 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 19: Increased vigor and leader growth in sagebrush following juniper mastication.

Figure 20: Natural sagebrush recruitment following mastication across three treated sites compared to adjacent untreated sites.

165 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Figure 21: Sagebrush establishing in masticated debris following juniper mulching.

Figure 22: Natural recruitment of sagebrush following mastication treatment.

166 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA Appendix E: Public Scoping and BLM Response The project proposal was posted to the BLM NEPA Register (ePlanning) on June 13, 2016, inviting the public to provide scoping comments on the proposal. One scoping comment letter was received during the scoping period from a public organization, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). The following is a summary of scoping comments received from the public and the BLM’s response to those comments. SC-1-1 (SUWA): In order to comply with FLPMA and Manual 6320, BLM must assess whether the proposed project will impact the wilderness characteristics (i.e. naturalness, solitude, opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation) of the lands in the proposed project area. BLM Response: Consideration of impacts to wilderness characteristics is documented in Chapter 4, Section 4.16 of this EA. SC-1-2 (SUWA): Any vegetation treatments in the proposed Greater Sheeprocks Project area, by their very nature, have the potential to greatly impact lands with wilderness characteristics. 6,067 acres of the proposed project area overlap with BLM-identified lands with wilderness characteristics. The treatments themselves (including chaining, burning, mastication, and hand treatments), including the use of project- related vehicles both cross-country and on currently un-maintained, reclaiming two-track routes, has the potential to impact lands with wilderness characteristics and disqualify these lands from future designation as wilderness. BLM should seek to remove any vegetation treatments from designated LWC in order to maintain the current landscape conditions. BLM Response: Consideration of impacts to wilderness characteristics is documented in Chapter 4 of this EA. Removing areas identified as possessing wilderness characteristics from the proposal does not meet the purpose and need of this project. Conifer expansion and infilling, combined with cheatgrass invasion, have led to uncharacteristic vegetation composition and structure. Treatments may actually increase the “naturalness” of the area by returning vegetation composition and structure to conditions found prior to settlement. Additionally, a no-action alternative, in which areas identified as possessing wilderness characteristics would not be treated, is considered. SC-1-3 (SUWA): This project proposal, in excess of 979,000 acres, encompasses lands identified by BLM as possessing wilderness characteristics. Impacts to these areas resulting from proposed vegetation treatments will be highly controversial, as evidenced by public response to similar treatments in BLM field offices across the state. Furthermore, the impacts from this proposal on climate change and the impacts from climate change on the resources proposed for treatment are, at best, uncertain. Finally, the long-term efficacy of these treatments is far from certain, and projects of this nature lack a strong scientific footing. Therefore, the impacts are not only uncertain, but involve unique and unknown risks. Pursuant to NEPA and the applicable regulations, BLM must prepare an EIS for this project. BLM Response: Any decision resulting from the analysis presented in this EA would be subject to a Finding of No Significant Impact prior to the signing of a decision. If potential for significant impacts are found during environmental analysis, then an EIS would be prepared. Additionally, the size of proposed analysis area is not a primary consideration when determining whether an EA or an EIS is appropriate. Whether an action must be analyzed in an EA or EIS depends on the significance of the issues and the significance of the effects. The Responsible Official would utilize this environmental analysis when making a significance determination. SC-1-4 (SUWA): The proposed Greater Sheeprocks Project’s purpose and need statement must adequately inform the public as to BLM’s purpose and need for the proposed action and must sufficiently analyze a wide range of reasonable alternatives. In doing so, BLM cannot narrowly define the purpose of the proposed project in such a way as to make vegetation treatment within 40,779 acres of land proposed for wilderness designation in ARRWA the only alternative that meets BLM’s purpose and need.

167 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

BLM Response: Please refer to Chapter 1, Section 1.2 for the purpose and need statement developed by the BLM. Removing areas proposed for designation in ARRWA does not meet the purpose and need of this project to improve and/or maintain suitable and functional sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate wildlife species at a landscape-level to ensure the long-term viability and persistence of sage-grouse, minimize key threats to sagebrush habitat, and reduce wildland fire risks. The lands identified by SUWA for potential wilderness designation are not located within a Congressionally-designated Wilderness and are not located in an area identified as a Wilderness Study Area. The lands in question are to be managed by the BLM in accordance with existing law, regulation, and policy and the existing land use plan. A no-action alternative, in which areas proposed for wilderness designation in ARRWA would not be treated, is considered. SC-1-5 (SUWA): If BLM determines that the purpose and need for the project is to combat degraded vegetative conditions and restore ideal habitat for sagebrush-obligate species, the EA must provide scientific information to support BLM’s basis in making the conclusion that vegetation is degraded in the area. BLM must provide site-specific data that analyzes how current vegetation conditions differ from those defined in Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) for the project area. This is particularly important if the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA intends to serve as a programmatic EA: site-specific scientific information supporting the need for vegetation treatment is needed for each discrete project area, in order to show how current conditions compare to the area’s ideal ecological state. BLM Response: See Chapters 3 and 4 for information regarding existing habitat conditions and analysis of potential impacts. SC-1-6 (SUWA): The Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must support the proposed action with relevant scientific information and demonstrate, based on this best available information, that there is a likelihood of success for native plant restoration in the project area. Likewise, BLM must indicate whether or not the ESD of the project area supports a pinyon-juniper ecosystem. If the ESD for the project area indicates that the site supports a pinyon-juniper ecosystem, then BLM’s “encroachment” theory lacks a scientific basis and there is a high likelihood that “restoration” to a non-pinyon-juniper ecotype will be unsuccessful. BLM Response: See Chapters 3 and 4 for information regarding existing habitat conditions and analysis of potential impacts. SC-1-7 (SUWA): To comply with NEPA’s mandate, BLM must consider and fully analyze a range of reasonable alternatives. First and foremost, BLM should consider an alternative that locates treatment activities entirely outside of lands proposed for wilderness designation in ARRWA. BLM should also consider an alternative that would fully protect the lands within the project area that are identified by BLM as possessing wilderness characteristics. BLM Response: The BLM believes it has analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives. The EA documents consideration of five alternatives: the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and three alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. The alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study are rightfully considered as part of the range of alternatives considered in keeping with Council on Environmental Quality guidance in their document: “40 Most Asked Questions.” Question 1a of this document states: 1a. Range of Alternatives. What is meant by the “range of alternatives” as referred to in Sec. 1505.1(e): A. The phrase “range of alternatives” refers to the alternatives discussed in environmental documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as those other alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. Section 1502.14. A decision maker must, in fact, consider all of the alternatives discussed in an EIS. Section 1505.1(e).

168 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

Additionally, not treating lands within areas identified as containing wilderness characteristics or lands proposed for wilderness designation in ARRWA is considered in the no-action alternative. SC-1-8 (SUWA): A reasonable range of alternatives in the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must include the evaluation of alternatives that better respond to the causes of the current ecological situation, including livestock grazing and fire suppression. The stated purpose of the proposed Greater Sheeprocks Project is to “protect and restore sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species.” The EA must analyze an alternative that considers long-term reduction in livestock grazing (i.e. a reduction to livestock numbers, grazing acreages, and/or seasons of use) which could help achieve the project’s goals. Changes in domestic livestock grazing could result in significant enhancement of grouse habitat and mule deer and elk winter range, better forage conditions, more cover for wildlife, less erosion and more effective fuel breaks with few, if any, negative impacts to natural conditions in the area. Intact and functioning ecosystems should not be deforested and mechanically modified when other reasonable alternatives exist, such as reducing livestock grazing, which could achieve similar goals with less intrusion and surface disturbance. BLM Response: A reduction to permitted livestock grazing is outside the scope of this document. See Chapter 2, Section 2.3 in this EA for additional information. SC-1-9 (SUWA): BLM should include an alternative that considers permanently removing livestock in conjunction with seeding the project area with native species. BLM Response: Reductions and/or removal of livestock are outside the scope of this document. See Chapter 2, Section 2.3 in this EA for additional information. SC-1-10 (SUWA): BLM should include an alternative that specifically requires the use of native seeds in all restoration activities. The proposed project should not be used as a means to increase forage capacity through the use of non-native grasses and forbs. BLM Response: An alternative that specifically requires only the use of native seeds does not meet the purpose and need of this proposal. Non-native seed species may be utilized in strategic areas, such as fuelbreaks and greenstrips, to compete with aggressive invasive species such as cheatgrass. Use of non-native seed species is not targeted or proposed as a means of increasing forage capacity. The BLM prioritizes the use of native seeds; however, the BLM reserves the discretion to utilize certain introduced species when and where appropriate given project goals and site conditions. SC-1-11 (SUWA): To take the hard look required by NEPA, BLM must include and analyze site-specific treatment information within the EA. In correspondence with BLM staff overseeing the proposed Greater Sheeprocks Project, it appears that BLM intends to have the Greater Sheeprocks EA serve as a programmatic EA for future site-specific treatment actions. Pursuant to NEPA, though, a programmatic EA cannot serve as adequate site specific analysis for future projects. For example, a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) tiered to the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA is not an adequate stand-in for future in-depth NEPA analysis, because a DNA by definition does not take a hard look at site specific environmental impacts. According to BLM’s NEPA Handbook, a DNA “confirms that an action is adequately analyzed in existing NEPA document(s) and is in conformance with the land use plan.” NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 (January 2008). In other words, BLM can only utilize a DNA where the previous NEPA document included adequate site-specific analysis of the proposed activity. NEPA simply does not permit BLM to avoid site-specific analysis by first completing a programmatic EA and then subsequently issuing a DNA for a future site-specific, surface disturbing activity. A DNA is only appropriate if the Greater Sheeprocks EA takes an adequate hard look at potential adverse impacts from site-specific vegetation treatments. For this reason, BLM must either commit to conducting future site-specific environmental analysis prior to approving on-the-ground treatments, or must disclose the site-specific

169 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA impacts from particular treatments in particular areas within the greater project area in the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA. BLM Response: Prior to implementation, an additional NEPA review would be completed for each specific project through the use of a DNA. Individual projects would be tiered to this EA and would include a project description, applicable project design criteria from this EA, as well as any additional mitigation necessary to reduce or eliminate impacts to resources that are of concern. DNAs are not intended to conduct site-specific analysis, but are to be used to determine if existing NEPA adequately analyzes potential impacts for treatments over the course of this project. If in the future, the BLM finds that existing analysis is not adequate for a specific proposal, the proposed project would not be authorized under a DNA Decision Record and instead a new EA would be prepared. Additionally, the public will be provided the opportunity to review each proposed treatment and provide comments during scoping for the preparation of future DNAs. See Chapters 3 and 4 for a complete analysis of potential impacts to resources as a result of the proposal. SC-1-12 (SUWA): Due to the stated purpose of improving wildlife habitat, BLM should provide empirical data showing the status of Greater sage grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species habitat in the project area over the last 20-50 years. BLM Response: The existing environment for wildlife habitat is provided in Chapter 3 of this EA. The BLM has worked closely with biologists from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Utah State University to identify priority habitats in need of treatment for greater sage-grouse and other wildlife species. Additional information on wildlife species and their habitat can be obtained by contacting the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. SC-1-13 (SUWA): BLM must thoroughly consider the impacts from the proposed project and develop extensive monitoring plans to track the efficacy of the treatments. This extensive monitoring program should be developed and implemented in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, as the agency has significant experience studying landscape impacts in Utah, and it will allow BLM to take advantage of the expertise and resources that result from coordinated agency monitoring. BLM Response: See Chapter 2, Section 2.1.5 for a description of monitoring to be conducted as a part of this proposal. SC-1-14 (SUWA): Pursuant to NEPA, the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must address the cumulative and indirect impacts from off-road vehicle use, domestic livestock grazing and other foreseeable uses and impacts to the public lands managed by the Fillmore and Salt Lake Field Offices. BLM must also address the anticipated cumulative and indirect impacts from climate change (discussed in detail below), increased drought, and invasive and non-native vegetation in the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA when analyzing whether certain lands should be treated. BLM should not approve a project that will release a significant amount of carbon into the atmosphere until it thoroughly analyzes the climate change effects that may result from this project and establishes a monitoring plan to track the project’s impacts, both positive and negative. BLM Response: See Chapter 5 for analysis regarding potential cumulative effects. SC-1-15 (SUWA): BLM must take a hard look at impacts to BLM-identified lands with wilderness characteristics, of which 6,067 acres overlap with the proposed project area. BLM Response: In 2008, the Fillmore Field Office completed a wilderness characteristics review for a unit called “Lion Peak” (also know as South Simpson Mountains) as identified in the Utah Wilderness Coalition’s America’s Red Rock Wilderness Bill (HR-1919) and submitted to the BLM by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance for inventory review. A BLM IDT reviewed the proponents submission and found that approximately 6,096 acres possessed wilderness

170 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

characteristics; although 130 acres are state lands and would be excluded, bringing the total acres to 5,939. However, the unit inventoried by the Fillmore Field Office is split into two non-contiguous pieces, one 4,712 acres and one 1,357 acres. Because of this, the unit, as evaluated, does not meet the size criteria of no less than 5,000 acres that are contiguous. Taking the area located directly north in the Salt Lake Field Office, the unit would be larger than 5,000 acres; however, the Salt Lake Field Office has yet to conduct a wilderness characteristics review for that portion of the South Simpson Mountains unit. The Fillmore Field Office review only considered lands managed by that office. Until an inventory is completed on the Salt Lake Field Office side of the unit, the wilderness characteristics review is incomplete. When a wilderness characteristics review is completed on the Salt Lake Field Office portion and if wilderness characteristics are found, the required project design features provided for in Table 6 of this EA would be implemented to maintain and/minimize any potential impacts to wilderness characteristics. See Chapter 4 for analysis regarding potential impacts of treatments on lands with wilderness characteristics. SC-1-16 (SUWA): BLM must ensure that the EA includes site-specific information sufficient to analyze the potential impacts of the project. Without a disclosure and analysis of what specific type of treatments will be implemented in what specific locations, BLM will not have taken an adequate hard look and adequately assessed the project’s potential adverse impacts as required by NEPA. To proceed without this site-specific analysis and corresponding notice to the public would ensure that BLM would be acting on incomplete information and without a reasoned explanation for its decision, thus subverting the “hard look” required by NEPA. BLM Response: See Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this EA for information on the existing condition and analysis of potential impacts. SC-1-17 (SUWA): The Greater Sheeprocks Project, which proposes to disturb undeveloped public lands, could have serious impacts to the ecosystem when combined with the likely inevitable impacts of climate change. To ensure these impacts are minimized or eliminated, and to comply with its duty under NEPA, BLM must take a hard look at the proposed project’s impacts on climate change and climate change’s impacts on the project. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. BLM Response: See Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this EA for information on the existing condition and analysis of potential impacts to and from climate change. SC-1-18 (SUWA): To best protect ecosystems, BLM must manage for resilience and sustainability. To do this, the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must include quantitative summaries or descriptions of baseline information necessary to evaluate climate change effects on the resources in the project area. The EA must also quantify the greenhouse gas emissions expected from the proposed project, and analyze their potential contribution to global warming. BLM Response: The tools necessary to quantify climatic impacts of project-scale vegetation treatment project are presently unavailable. As a consequence, impact assessment of specific effects of anthropogenic activities cannot be determined. Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. Existing climate prediction models are global in nature; so are not at the appropriate scale to estimate potential impacts of climate change on the analysis area. Therefore, climate change analysis for the purpose of this document is limited to accounting and disclosing of factors that contribute to climate change. SC-1-19 (SUWA): An understanding of both the predicted impacts of climate change, and the project’s potential contributions to climate change, should shape the alternatives under consideration by BLM in the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA. BLM must select an alternative only after taking into account how climate change is already affecting the resources in the project area, and assessing the contributions of the project to climate change. The EA must include current research and findings on climate change in its

171 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA analyses, and must address climate change in the cumulative impacts analysis. The EA must employ responsive management decisions that will best protect the undeveloped and roadless areas in the proposed project area, as these intact ecosystems can provide strong resistance to the effects of climate change. BLM Response: See response to comment SC-1-18. SC-1-20 (SUWA): The Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must take a hard look at mitigating vulnerability to climate change. BLM must ensure that the project’s soil and vegetation disturbing activities do not render ecosystems less resilient and more vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. BLM Response: The proposed action is specifically designed with the goal of maintaining, improving, and restoring ecosystem resistance and resiliency across the analysis area. SC-1-21 (SUWA): Scientific studies document the expansion and contraction of pinyon-juniper forests as a natural phenomenon that relates to changing climates. BLM should not seek a historical range of pinyon and juniper, but rather a sustainable range of trees, and seek management that offers the greatest potential for resource adaptability to future conditions. Until research can demonstrate the optimum sustainable ranges and densities of pinyon and juniper trees, BLM should not conduct treatments in these ecosystems. It is entirely possible that current ranges of pinyon and juniper trees, although they may have been increasing over the previous century, are at sustainable levels and simply part of a natural expansion that will retract when the climate changes again. Accordingly, the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must examine the causes for the increased presence of pinyon and juniper forests (i.e. whether the expansion is due to increased atmospheric carbon, or other forecasted responses to climate change). The EA must also consider whether the project will have to be repeated in the future to “maintain” the artificial levels and goals imposed by the proposal. If the increase is, in fact, a response to atmospheric carbon levels or a changing climate, the proposed action is not sustainable. BLM Response: A discussion on the presence of pinyon/juniper woodlands and relationships to climate change and carbon can be found in Chapter 4, Section 4.17 of this EA. SC-1-22 (SUWA): Scientific studies show that undisturbed pinyon and juniper woodlands and their soils in Utah are important sources of carbon sequestration. BLM must take a hard look at maintaining the pinyon and juniper stands in the project area as an especially viable method of carbon sequestration in this ecosystem, as well as a natural ecosystem response to climate change, and objectively evaluate and disclose the benefits and ecological costs of the proposal to inform the decision-maker and the public. BLM Response: A discussion about carbon sequestration and climate change is provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.17 of this EA. SC-1-23 (SUWA): The Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must consider the available scientific data and studies regarding carbon sequestration in forests and forest soils, and analyze the potential impacts from reducing pinyon-juniper forests in relation to carbon sequestration and climate change. The EA should quantify the amount of carbon that will be released into the atmosphere from the destruction of the trees and disturbance of the soils, and disclose this information in the EA. BLM Response: A discussion about carbon sequestration and climate change is provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.17 of this EA. SC-1-24 (SUWA): BLM must take a hard look at the Greater Sheeprocks Project’s risk of spreading invasive species by acknowledging and disclosing the increased risks and potential impacts of invasive species in relation to the proposed project. Given that so many of the predicted outcomes of climate change center on increased soil susceptibility to erosion, dust storms, shrinking water resources, loss of riparian areas, invasion of exotic plants and the spread of hotter, larger wildfires, BLM must design alternatives that minimize soil disturbance.

172 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA

BLM Response: An analysis of the potential impacts due to invasive species can be found in Chapter 4 of this EA. Project design features to minimize the potential for introduction or spread of invasive species are included in the proposal and can be found in Chapter 2, Section 2.1.4 of this EA. SC-1-25 (SUWA): The Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must include mitigation measures to address the potential introduction and spread of invasive species if any surface disturbing activity is approved. BLM Response: Project design features to minimize the potential for introduction or spread of invasive species are included in the proposal and can be found in Chapter 2, Section 2.1.4 of this EA. SC-1-26 (SUWA): The Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must disclose the potential cumulative impacts of these projects and other foreseeable projects on the release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, as well as the decrease in the ability of the “treated” areas to capture carbon at the levels previously captured. The EA must also address how such treatments will affect the ability of the natural resources managed by the Fillmore and Salt Lake Field Offices to respond to changes wrought by global warming. BLM Response: The potential cumulative impacts of the proposed action and other foreseeable projects on the release/storage of carbon gasses is discussed in Chapter 5 of this EA. SC-1-27 (SUWA): The Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must address the cumulative impacts from other proposed vegetation treatments in the Fillmore and Salt Lake Field Offices, ORV use on public lands in Utah, and other foreseeable uses and impacts to the surrounding public lands, including climate change. Furthermore, when analyzing whether certain lands should be treated, the EA must fully evaluate climate change and the anticipated cumulative and indirect impacts from increased drought and fire in the project area. BLM Response: Cumulative impacts are presented in Chapter 5 of this EA. SC-1-28 (SUWA): Pursuant to the NHPA, BLM must initiate consultation with the SHPO, relevant and affected Tribes and other interested parties, and must conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory of the area of potential effects of the proposed Greater Sheeprocks Project. Meaningful consultation must be conducted prior to issuing and decision and BLM must seek ways to avoid and protect any and all cultural resources that it discovers. BLM Response: As stated in the EA, affected tribes were invited to consult with the BLM on this project and would be invited to consult during each treatment phase over the life of this project. Given the scope and schedule of this project, a phased approach as defined in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) is necessary and acceptable by the regulations. Prior to any ground disturbing activities and/or with each phase of the project, an appropriate cultural resource inventory would be conducted to identify and evaluate cultural resources. Potentially adverse effects would be avoided by project design in consultation with the SHPO. Class III inventories are not required by law. No ground disturbing activities would take place without new or adequate Class III inventory. The BLM in consultation with the SHPO would determine if any existing Class III inventory is to be used prior to a ground disturbing treatment. 36 CFR 800.4 (a) (2) and (b) (1) allows for the Agency to determine the level of effort for the identification of historic properties for any project on a case-by- case basis. See Section 2.1.3 of the EA. Additionally, as stated in Table 6 of the EA and Appendix B, all cultural resources determined to be eligible by the BLM and SHPO to the National Register of Historic Places shall be protected from direct and indirect effects through project design and avoidance. Those resources which fail to meet the National Register integrity and/or significance criteria may not be avoided by project activities. SC-1-29 (SUWA): The proposed action will cause extensive surface disturbance to a large, relatively undisturbed landscape and thus has the potential to impact air quality. Pursuant to FLPMA, NEPA and

173 Greater Sheeprocks Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2016-0008-EA the Clean Air Act, the Greater Sheeprocks Project EA must ensure compliance with air quality standards and statutes, and must model the potential impacts to air quality. BLM Response: An analysis of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to air quality is presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this EA. SC-1-30 (SUWA): Conducting surface disturbing actions in relatively undisturbed landscapes will result in increased dust generation. Windblown dust deposited on snowpack has significant impacts on mountain snow packs—including earlier and faster run-off, which affects water resources, watersheds, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Precluding new surface disturbances on the wilderness-quality lands proposed in ARRWA and directing the project proposal to previously disturbed areas will help minimize surface disturbance, soil erosion and windblown dust. BLM must analyze the estimated potential soil erosion and dust from the proposed project and minimize soil disturbance and the resulting generation of dust. BLM Response: A linkage between airborne dust and early snowmelt is speculative at best at this time. Recent studies examining dust deposition flux in the Rocky Mountains have identified a rise in dust deposition over the past couple hundred years coincident with increased settlement in the western United States (and a decrease over the past 50 years); however, the causes and impacts of this phenomenon are undefined as yet. NEPA does not require original research to evaluate speculative impacts. SC-1-31 (SUWA): Site-specific surface disturbing activities approved by BLM that result in a partial or total loss of wilderness characteristics, such as the proposed Greater Sheeprocks Project, constitute an irreversible land management decision. Consistent with the policy outlined in Order 3330, any BLM- approved project that results in a partial or permanent loss of wilderness characteristics should include a mitigation requirement. In the case of a permanent loss of wilderness characteristics, BLM should mitigate that loss through the management of similarly located LWCs for the protection of wilderness characteristics or similar values (i.e., natural area, ACEC). Given that wilderness characteristics cannot be “created” in the same context as wetlands mitigation, for example, proactive protection of other existing LWCs constitutes equitable mitigation for the loss of wilderness characteristics resulting from surface disturbing projects. BLM Response: See Chapters 4 and 5 in this EA for an analysis of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action on lands with wilderness characteristics. Any treatments within identified lands with wilderness characteristics would be designed in compliance with the project design criteria found in Table 6 of this EA to maintain wilderness characteristics.

174