Office of the Governor PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE

KATHLEEN CLARKE Director State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor November 8, 2019

Sent via electronic mail: [email protected]

Brant Petersen Forest Supervisor ATTN: Lars Christensen, Cooperation Specialist Ashley National Forest U.S. Forest Service 355 North Vernal Avenue Vernal, UT 84078

Subject: Proposal to Revise the Land Management Plan for the Ashley National Forest, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report, and Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas

Dear Mr. Petersen:

The State of Utah (“State”) has reviewed the Proposal to Revise the Land Management Plan for the Ashley National Forest (“Proposed Plan”) as well as the corresponding Preliminary Need for Change, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report, and Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas, released on September 10, 2019. The State, as a Cooperating Agency in the Ashley National Forest Plan Revision process, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan and corresponding documents. These comments were developed with participating from various state agencies, including the Utah Division of Water Quality, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and Utah Department of Agriculture and Food.

Successful management of the Ashley National Forest is of great importance to the people of Utah, many of whom rely on the Forest’s resources for recreation, employment, clean water, and other services. The Forest Service must coordinate the Proposed Plan with the State of Utah Resource Management Plan,1 as well as the relevant portions of the

1 State of Utah Resource Management Plan, January 2018, available at http://publiclands.utah.gov/current- projects/rmp/.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 2

Daggett County Resource Management Plan,2 Duchesne County Resource Management Plan,3 and Uintah County Resource Management Plan4 in accordance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (“NFMA”).5 NFMA requires the U.S. Forest Service to “develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource management planning processes of State and local governments and other Federal agencies.”6 (Emphasis added.) Management of the Ashley National Forest will be more effective if the Forest Service ensures that the expertise of the State and local governments is incorporated into the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

The State’s comments apply only to lands within Utah that are managed by Ashley National Forest and makes no comment on the portion of Ashley National Forest or the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area within the state of Wyoming.

Comments on the Proposed Plan Chapter 2: Forestwide Direction

Air Quality

One of the Forest Service’s desired conditions for air quality is that “[s]moke emissions from wildland fires on the Ashley National Forest resemble the pattern, degree, and frequency of historical fire regimes.”7 However, many wildfires on National Forest land across Utah and across the West are exceeding historical fire regimes in pattern, degree, and frequency, and leading to ever worsening summertime air quality. An important aspect of air quality management should be the active management of forest lands to mitigate the risk of uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildfire and thus minimize the impact of smoke emissions from such fires on Utah’s summertime air quality.

Utah’s experiences with uncharacteristic wildfire, particularly during the summer of 2018, clearly demonstrate how severe wildfires in unhealthy forests can significantly degrade air quality and quality of life for residents of Utah and surrounding states. The Forest Service should include an additional Air Quality Guideline, one that accounts for the need to actively manage forests to minimize the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires and the resulting impairment to local and regional air quality.

Soils

The Proposed Plan list a number of threats to soil quality and sustainability on the Ashley National Forest, such as invasive species and climate change,8 but fails to mention

2 Daggett County Resource Management Plan, available at http://daggettcountyplan.org/. 3 Duchesne County Resource Management Plan, available at 4 Uintah County Resource Management Plan, 2017, available at http://co.uintah.ut.us/document_center/CommunityDevelopment/Uintah_Resource_Management_Plan___FIN AL__Web_File.pdf. 5 16 U.S.C. §1604(a). 6 Id. 7 Proposed Plan, at 10. 8 Id., at 11.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 3 the impact of uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildfire on soil quality. While historical fire regimes likely had either limited or positive impacts on soil quality, many modern wildland fires across Utah and the West significantly exceed the pattern, degree, and frequency of historical fire regimes. Extremely high heat from uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildland fires can sterilize soil and destroy soil nutrients.9 Severely burned forests are also prone to significant erosion that can wash away topsoil with long-term consequences for soil quality and nutrients.10 Such erosion occurred on the Dixie National Forest due to the impact of the 2017 Brian Head Fire.11

Active management of forest lands designed to minimize the risk of uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildfire must be a central component of any plan to protect soil quality in the forest. The Forest Service should add a Desired Condition in the Soil section12 that addresses a desire to protect soils from high intensity wildfires and erosion, as well as a separate Soil Objective that speaks to the need for active management that minimizes the risk of such catastrophic wildfires.

Watershed, Aquatic, and Riparian Ecosystems13

As the Proposed Plan acknowledges, the Ashley National Forest plays a vital role in providing high quality water for a variety of ecological and socioeconomic benefits in the Upper Green River Basin, and, as the Proposed Plan fails to mention, to the Wasatch Front via the Central Utah Project (particularly the upper Rock Creek watershed).14 The Forest Service should consider adopting the following Desired Conditions for Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems in the Ashley National Forest: 1. FW-DC-WA 02: Provide a reference (link or otherwise) to the designated beneficial uses found at R317-2-6. 2. FW-DC-WA 12: The use of the word “exceeds” could imply that water quality is not in compliance with state and federal standards. The State and Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) suggests that the sentence read, “Water quality (including groundwater) meets or surpasses State and Federal standards.” In addition, the State suggests reconsideration of the qualifier “where attainable” for the desired condition of water quality fully supporting the designated or existing beneficial uses. According to the definition provided in Chapter 1 of the Proposed Plan, a

9 See Red but Not Dead: Examining Microbial Plant Recovery in Severely Burned Soils, PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION, June 2010, available at https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi124.pdf. 10 After the Wildfire, the Erosion Problem Begins, NORTHWEST PUBLIC RADIO, August 2012, available at https://www.opb.org/news/article/after-a-wildfire-the-erosion-problem-begins/. 11 Panguitch's water supply tainted with E. coli in wake of Brian Head fire, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, September 2017, available at https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/09/12/panguitchs-water-supply-tainted- with-e-coli-in-wake-of-brian-head-fire/. See also Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, Brian Head Fire Restoration Project Summary Report, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, available at https://wri.utah.gov/wri/reports/ProjectSummaryReport.jasper?id=4358. 12 Proposed Plan, at 11. 13 Comments on Watershed, Aquatic, and Riparian Ecosystems provided by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Quality. 14 See Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, Map of Central Utah Project, available at https://www.cupcao.gov/bonneville/pdf/CUP-map-SCS-highlighted-2.pdf.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 4

desired condition is a “description of specific…characteristics toward which management of the land and resources should be directed.15 As is noted, this does not include a completion date but shows that the forest intends to move towards these proposed conditions. 3. FW-DC-WA-16: Sediment producing management activities should also be avoided if they would create additional impacts to waters with impairments for total dissolved solids (TDS).

The Forest Service should add the following to the list of desired conditions: 1. Watershed function and aquatic habitat values are recognized as important and may require restoration to reach desired conditions. The Forest Service should add the following to the guidelines for watersheds: 1. Support projects in watersheds with 303(d) listed waterbodies sufficient to permit an understanding of the implications of the project within the larger watershed context. 2. Ensure that proposed actions analyzed under NEPA adhere to the State Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan. 3. Design and implement watershed management programs and plans to restore water quality and watershed function to support beneficial uses. 4. Maintain groundcover, soil compaction, and vegetation management to restore soil productivity and improve watersheds. 5. Prohibit activities that could result in water yield increases that would degrade water quality and impact beneficial uses. 6. Restore soil productivity, quality, and function where adversely impaired and contributing to an overall decline in watershed condition. The Forest Service should add the following to the guidelines for Riparian Management Zones: 1. Avoid soil disturbing activities that remove surface organic matter exposing mineral soil on steep, erosive, and unstable slopes and in riparian, wetlands, floodplains, and wet meadows. 2. Maintain and/or restore stream channel integrity, channel processes, and sediment regimes (timing, volume, and/or character). 3. Maintain and/or restore diversity, productivity, vigor, and regenerative capacity of native and desired non-native riparian and wetland plant communities to provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems. 4. Maintain water in streams, lakes, and wetlands of adequate quantity and quality to provide for instream flows and existing downstream uses including support of healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, stability, effective function of stream channels, and ability to route flood discharges. 5. Use BMPs and Soil and Water Conservation Practices during project-level assessment and implementation to ensure maintenance of soil productivity,

15 Proposed Plan, at 3.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 5

minimization of sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands to protect of designated beneficial uses. 6. At the end of an activity, allow no more than 15 percent of an activity area to have detrimental soil displacement, puddling, or compaction. 7. Locate new actions, such as incident bases, fire suppression camps, staging areas, livestock handling facilities, recreation facilities, roads and improvements (including trails), outside of Riparian Management Zones. If the only suitable location for such actions is within a Riparian Management Zone, sites will be located to minimize resource impacts. 8. Soil-hydrologic function and productivity in riparian areas is protected, preserving the ability to serve as a filter for good water quality and regulation of nutrient cycling. Wetlands The Proposed Plan states that “The Ashley likely contains the highest percentage of fens for national forests in the Intermountain Region…These unique wetland types are slow- forming, requiring thousands of years to develop naturally. They benefit watersheds by reducing flood risk, improving water quality, and providing habitat for uncommon and rare species.16 The document also states that “groundwater-dependent wetlands maintain the necessary soil, hydrologic, and vegetative conditions and sediment influx rates that provide for the storage, purification and release of water, the storage of carbon, and serve as suitable habitat for rare or uncommon terrestrial and aquatic species.”17

Wetlands are mentioned under Desired Conditions,18 but the guidelines that follow do not address the maintenance or protection of these valuable wetland resources. The Forest Service should consider adding the following guidelines for wetlands:  Maintain and/or restore natural timing and variability of water table elevation in spring sources, meadows, and wetlands.  Minimize rutting and compaction in areas of seeps, springs and open water. Provide for adequate drainage and divert runoff from roads, trails, and landings to reduce silting of wetland areas.  Identify, locate and mark wetlands prior to the start of forest operations.  Avoid locating roads, trails, and landings in wetlands.  Use only pesticides labeled for use in wetlands.  Avoid fueling and servicing equipment in wetlands.  Avoid operating equipment in areas of open water, seeps and springs.  Whenever possible, skid around or end-line trees out of wetlands. Avoid skidding through open wetlands and meadows.  Whenever possible, divert runoff from roads, trails and landings to upland areas to reduce siltation of wetland areas.  Although U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permits and Utah Section 401 water quality certification permits ensure that federally permitted or

16 Proposed Plan, at 13-14. 17 Id. at14. 18 Id. at 14.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 6

licensed activities will be conducted in a manner that maintains the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters affected by a project affecting wetlands, watershed-wide activities can impact the viability of these dispersed resources. The cumulative effect of incremental losses of small wetland areas can impact the integrity of wetland landscapes and the functions they serve.

Water Quality Best Management Practices

The Forest Service controls nonpoint sources of pollution through Best Management Practices “BMPs), monitors the implementation and effectiveness of those BMPs, and adjusts management practices using monitoring results (National Core BMP Technical Guide (NCBMP), page 10). The National BMP Program provides consistent monitoring protocols for recreation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, fire and fuels, minerals, vegetation management, and roads. In partnership with the State of Utah, the Forest Service has agreed to address nonpoint source pollution through the Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution MOU, which includes implementation of the Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan.

Since the Forest Service is the Designated Management Agency (DMA) for nonpoint source pollution control and the implementation of state and federal water quality rules regulations on forest lands under its jurisdiction, forest plans should take into account and address activities that negatively impact water resources. The September 2017 Ashley national Forest Assessment (FA) noted that 47 percent of the watersheds in the Ashley National Forest are functioning at-risk under the Watershed Condition Framework. More specifically, the majority of the watersheds are functioning at-risk relative to the road, trails, and soils indicators (FA, Table 12, Table 19, and Table 20). Open road density, lack of road and trail maintenance, proximity to water, mass wasting, soil productivity, soil erosion, and chemical contamination are the primary contributors. Roughly one-quarter of the watersheds are at impaired function relative to the roads, trails, and soils indicators (FA, page 93).

Improved land management through the appropriate application of BMPs could lead to a greater number of functioning watersheds in the forest planning area, while mismanagement could lead to more at-risk watersheds (FA, page 88). The literature clearly shows that soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) mitigate the effects of land use and protect watersheds (FA, page 98). The targeted use of BMPs — road construction protocols, reduction of sediment delivery from existing roads, enforcement of road closures, and prevention of off-road use in areas where prohibited — could improve these conditions.

This revision of the existing land management plan provides the FS with a unique opportunity to assess the efficacy of current BMPs, the need for additional BMPs to meet desired conditions for watersheds and water resources, the means to monitor BMPs for effectiveness, and the processes to ensure that BMPs are properly applied on a project- specific and forest-wide basis.

Headwaters Numeric Nutrient Criteria

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 7

On June 26, 2019, the Utah Water Quality Board approved amendments to R317-1- 1, Definitions and R317-2, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State for numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for headwater streams (Anti-degradation Category 1 and 2, R317-2-3) to protect aquatic life and recreation use classes (R317-2-14.2 and R317-2-14.7). The amendments became effective on July 1, 2019. These streams consist of waters that the Board has previously determined to be “of exceptional recreational or ecological significance or have been determined to be a State or National resource requiring protection.” The State requests that the Forest Service consider measures to protect headwaters within the forest and collaborate with the UDWQ to ensure these waters meet the numeric nutrient criteria set forth in these rule amendments.19

Impaired Waters in Ashley National Forest

The Federal Clean Water Act § 305(b) requires states to continuously monitor surface waters and on a biennial basis assess whether waterbodies, classified as assessment units (AUs), are meeting their beneficial uses given state water quality standards (R317-2, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State). AUs that do not support their beneficial uses are considered impaired.

Under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states must produce a list of impaired water bodies, which then require a total maximum daily load (TMDL). A TMDL is the amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive from point and nonpoint sources without exceeding the water quality standard for that pollutant. Furthermore, impaired waterbodies are prioritized for TMDLs based on health concerns and other state-specific considerations. Until a TMDL is developed, no new point sources (regulated discharges) may be added to the watershed (Friends of Pinto Creek v. EPA 2007).

The vast majority of AUs in the Ashley Forest are impaired for their designated beneficial uses, have insufficient data for an assessment, or have an approved TMDL in place. UDWQ is in the process of preparing the combined 2018/2020 Integrated Report (IR). Additional impaired waterbodies will be included in the upcoming report, which is slated for completion in April 2020.

According to the 2016 IR, 17 AUs out of a total of 46 AUs within the Ashley National Forest are not supporting their beneficial uses. Six AUs have an approved TMDL. Two of these AUs (UT1406003-19_00 and UT14060003-20_00) listed as impaired for their beneficial uses are also in Ashley National Forest priority watersheds:  North Fork Duchesne: Hades Creek-Duchesne and Swift Creek-Duchesne  Rock Creek Upper: South Fork Rock Creek The State strongly encourages the Forest Service to include restoration objectives for these impaired waters as part of the Watershed Condition Framework for priority watersheds

19 For more information on the numeric nutrient criteria, please contact Jeff Ostermiller at [email protected] or Chris Bittner at [email protected] .

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 8 outlined in Appendix A.

UDWQ provides state and federal funding to reduce nonpoint source pollution in watersheds throughout Utah. The State requests that the Forest Service consider measures to address these impaired waters in addition to the priority watersheds identified in Appendix A, and encourages the Forest Service to apply for nonpoint source funds to support these measures.20

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR §1508.7).

The scoping process for a forest plan revision provides a unique opportunity for the Forest Service to identify relevant past, present, and future actions and analyze the cumulative impacts. By evaluating the full life cycle of impacts to forest resources, the scoping process can identify areas where current projects, activities, plan objectives, guidelines, management practices are facilitating or impeding desired conditions. This front- end evaluation provides opportunities for course correction, support for practices that maintain and/or improve current conditions, and identification of areas where interagency cooperation would help protect forest resources.

Cumulative impacts are spatial (geographic) and temporal (time-based) and may require the analysis to extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries. The current condition of a watershed may not adequately represent how actions impacted it in the past and present, or how it might respond to future impacts. The analysis of water quality for cumulative impacts, for example, could evaluate how past actions degraded the water resource from its natural condition, led to it become an impaired water of the state, and measures that could help it return its designated beneficial uses. The State encourages the Forest Service to include a comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts in the Ashley National Forest to watersheds, aquatic ecosystems, wetlands, and riparian ecosystems from natural and anthropogenic activities.

Terrestrial Vegetation

The fourth Desired Condition for Terrestrial Vegetation states: “[v]egetation communities with fire histories maintain resiliency and self-perpetuation. Fire disturbance regimes move toward their natural frequency and magnitude.”21 This Desired Condition

20 Please contact Elise Hinman at [email protected] for further information on UDWQ TMDL priorities, IR updates, and a detailed spreadsheet on impaired waters in the Ashley National Forest, and Jim Bowcutt at [email protected] for further information on nonpoint source funding opportunities.

21 Proposed Plan, at 19.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 9 appropriately seeks the sort of forest conditions necessary in some forest ecosystems for long-term forest healthy and resiliency to catastrophic and uncharacteristic wildfires. However, this section includes neither guidelines or goals by which to achieve these desired conditions. The Forest Service should consider adding a Terrestrial Vegetation Goal that consider the need for prescribed fire, timber removal, or other silviculture practices in certain areas to maintain resiliency and self-perpetuation. The Forest Service should also consider how certain vegetation communities with fire histories may require different types of active management in situations where prescribed burns or not safe or practical.

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are an important native plant community, but show a historic trend of expanding into other vegetation communities, including sagebrush communities. Pinyon-juniper expansion can negatively impact wildlife habitat within sagebrush communities, including habitat for sensitive species such as the greater sage- grouse. The Forest Service should consider adding a Desired Condition for Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands that considers how to limit expansion of pinyon-juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats. The Forest Service should also consider adding an Objective statement which specifies annual acreage goals for completing vegetation treatments (such as thinning projects) in pinyon juniper woodlands, as well as goals for completing vegetation treatments where pinyon-juniper is encroaching into sagebrush habitats.

Coniferous Forests

The State agrees with the Forest Service’s stated Desired Condition for “a full range of seral stages” in coniferous tree communities.22 Forested vegetation management treatments such as timber harvesting, planned ignitions, thinning, and planting are appropriate tools for achieving these Desired Conditions. The stated objective for such treatments in Proposed Plan is 1,648 acres annually. The State requests that the Forest Service consider ways in which this acreage objective could be increased due to the vast size of the Ashley National Forest.

The Forest Service should consider greater acreage goals due to some untapped potential for vegetation management treatments in Inventoried Roadless Areas. The 2001 Roadless Rule provides great potential for completing vegetation treatments in Roadless Areas. The Rule permits the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber when needed “to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.”23 Vegetation treatments can be accomplished within Roadless Areas by utilizing designated roads and trails, as well as by using skid trails to remove timber in Roadless Areas otherwise inaccessible to heavy mechanical equipment. The vast potential to complete vegetation treatments in some Roadless Areas should cause the Forest Service

22 Proposed Plan, at 24. 23 36 C.F.R. § 294.13(b)(1)(ii).

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 10 to consider increasing its 1,648 acre annual goal for vegetation treatments.

Nonforest Vegetation

The restoration of ecological function, integrity, and resiliency in sagebrush communities is critically important for livestock production and the healthy wildlife populations, including the greater sage-grouse. Achieving this stated objective of restoring desired conditions on 2,500 acres annually will likely require a wide variety of tools and methods, including mechanical means. The Forest Service should consider adding a Guideline statement that specifies the variety of tools and methods available to achieve those desired conditions in sagebrush communities.

Fire

Fire is both a critical primary process in the Ashley National Forest as well as a primary hazard for air quality, water quality, soil quality, and overall rangeland and forest health when such fires reach uncharacteristic or catastrophic severity. Active vegetation management, including the use of prescribed burns, must be a core function of the Ashley National Forest to minimize the risks of uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildfires that carry devastating consequences for local communities. The Forest Service should consider revising its Fire Guidelines in the Proposed Plan:24

Guideline 01: The “sensitive areas” where minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST) are normally used should be limited to the designated High Uintas Wilderness. Other areas should be open to a full range of suppression tactics, including Roadless Areas, where such tactics are needed suppress wildfire. While high-impact wildfire suppression can damage some forest resources, this damage is far less than the typical impact of uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildfires. While MIST tactics may be appropriate in different areas throughout the forest depending on local conditions, designated Wilderness are the only areas where MIST tactics should be applied as a matter of standard policy.

Guideline 02: The Forest Service should prioritize building fire lines wherever they are most needed based on fire conditions. Discouragement of future motorized vehicle use on those fire lines should not outweigh far more important considerations for public safety. Unauthorized motorized vehicle use on fire lines should be discouraged through gates, signage, law enforcement, and reclamation or obliteration of the fire lines after wildfire risks are reduced. Firefighters and fire managers should have the ability to construct fire lines in the optimal locations and not be constrained by other considerations.

Guideline 03: The Forest Service should only use fire ignitions to achieve management objectives after full coordination with the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, as well as relevant local fire departments and local governments.

A key tool that the Forest Service should utilize to determine the risk of catastrophic

24 Proposed Plan, at 30.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 11 wildfire alongside their existing tools is the Utah Department of Natural Resource’s Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (WRAP), 25 which indicates the risk of wildfire in specific areas throughout the state of Utah. The full range of management tools should be included in the Forest Service’s draft desired conditions to minimize the risk of wildfire through vegetation treatments, thinning, chaining, prescribed burns, etc.

Carbon Storage and Sequestration

Forested areas of Utah’s National Forests store a tremendous amount of carbon. Unfortunately, these carbon storage benefits can be negated when forested areas burn in uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildfires. A Guideline to enhance Carbon Storage and Sequestration should be added to the Proposed Plan that plans for fire resilient landscapes that forest lands do not lose their carbon storage potential during uncharacteristic wildfire events.

Adapting to Climate Change

Active forest management, including prescribed burns, thinning, pinyon/juniper removal, and other projects, are important to promote healthy forests that will become even more critical due to a changing climate. Utilization of such tools to respond to climate- related challenges should be a priority for the Forest Service. The State also recommends that the Forest Service include an objective to monitor potential climate change impacts, including stream temperature, snow pack depth, and spread of invasive species.

Wildlife

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (“UDWR”) is the State agency vested with statutory authority and responsibility to manage bighorn sheep on public and private lands in Utah, including national forest lands.26 UDWR released its new Utah Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan (“Utah Bighorn Sheep Plan”) in November 2018,27 which emphatically states UDWR support for the co-existence of the domestic sheep grazing alongside bighorn sheep herds. The language in the Utah Bighorn Sheep Plan states:

“UDWR does not support any form of involuntary restriction, limitation, termination, or conversion of permitted domestic sheep grazing for purposes of protecting bighorn sheep. UDWR will not manage bighorn sheep to the involuntary exclusion of domestic sheep.”28

According to the terms of the Utah Bighorn Sheep Plan, the State considers grazing conversion and restrictions (such as buyouts) to be “involuntary” when:

25 https://wildfirerisk.utah.gov/ 26 Utah Code §§ 23-14-1 and 23-15-2. 27 Utah Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, approved November 29, 2018. Available at https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/bighorn-plan.pdf. 28 Id. at 2.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 12

“the party negotiating for the conversion/restriction threatens to seek more burdensome grazing restrictions, reductions, or conversion in court or through other regulatory means unless the livestock grazer consents to the requested conversion/restriction.”29

The Utah Bighorn Sheep Plan is also consistent with state policy as declared by the Utah State Legislature. In Utah Code § 63J-4-401(6)(m)(ii), the Utah Legislature declares (regarding federal lands) that “the state opposes the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months in favor of conservation, wildlife, and other uses.”

The Forest Service’s Guideline FW-GL-WL 09 in the Proposed Plan30 is incompatible with the intent of the Utah Bighorn Sheep Plan and State policy. Under Wildlife Guideline 09, a domestic sheep grazing permit that is voluntarily waived without preference would result in automatic analysis for either: 1) potential closure of th allotment to domestic sheep, 2) potential conversion to a cattle allotment, or 3) utilization as a forage reserve. Continued usage of the allotment by domestic sheep is not even an option underline Wildlife Guideline 09. Dictating automatic closure of domestic sheep allotments that are waived without preference paints a target on those allotments for expensive litigation, drawn out legal processes, and eventual buyout offers from interest groups (which, while technically a voluntary decision, are often achieved through legal and financial pressure by interest groups). The State opposes this practice and opposes plan components that may make this practice easier or more likely to occur.

Utah’s Bighorn Sheep Plan maintains flexibility in bighorn/domestic sheep management by relying on the full range of tools, methods, and management strategies to mitigate the risk of disease transfer. Closing domestic sheep allotments is not the only method to reduce the risk of disease transfer. Best management practices can many times reduce this risk down to a moderate level, which is an acceptable amount of risk according to Utah’s bighorn sheep plan. The bighorn/domestic sheep issue is one that will only be solved through flexible collaboration between all interested parties, not top down policies that are restrictive and inflexible.

The vague use of the term “proximity” in Wildlife Guideline 09 will be broadly interpreted and does not provide an adequate definition for separation. Proximity could mean less than a mile or over 20 miles, therefore the term should be removed. Many of the domestic sheep allotments in Ashley National Forest are too high in elevation for cattle, so the conversion to cattle allotments is unrealistic.

The original intent of bighorn sheep translocation in the 1980’s was not intended to remove domestic sheep from grazing allotments on the Ashley National Forest. It is inappropriate for a single grazing permittee to waive without preference and prohibit the domestic sheep industry and future domestic sheep grazing permittees to continue grazing across vacated allotments.

29 Id., at 6. 30 Propose Plan, at 9.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 13

Consequently, the Forest Service should remove both guidelines 09 and 10 from the plan and replace them with the following standards:

1. The Ashley National Forest will defer to the Utah Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan and the Wyoming Statewide Domestic Sheep Bighorn Sheep Group Plan regarding all management of bighorn and domestic sheep interaction. 2. Avoid closures and vacating domestic sheep allotments for the benefit of bighorn sheep. In conjunction with permittees and relevant state departments, implement voluntary best management practices to mitigate risk of disease transmission between domestic and bighorn sheep.

The Proposed Plan should also distinguish between bighorn sheep policy in Utah and bighorn sheep policy in Wyoming, and provide separate Guidelines for wildlife management that reflects the distinct policies in each state. Since the Wyoming portion of the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area is relatively isolated from the Utah portions of the Ashley National Forest (sharing a fairly short land border) the implementation of distinct Guidelines for each state based on state wildlife policy should not be difficult.

Social and Economic Sustainability

As stated in the Proposed Plan, the Ashley National Forest currently provides a full suite of goods and services that are vital to human health, financial sustainability, and the well-being of residents of surrounding communities. Although this section does not identify social and economic issues for specific resources, the Forest Service should consider how active management of forest resources can enhance a wide variety of different ecosystem resources. For example, the reduction in hazardous fuels can provide an economic boost for the local timber industry, enhance forage for livestock, improve water quality in fisheries, improve hunting prospects, and provide more fulfilling recreational opportunities. The impact of active management projects should be analyzed in terms of their import on a broad array of social and economic issues. Active management projects that produce a variety of economic benefits should receive priority in forest decision making.

Cultural and Historic Resources

Desired Conditions

The State suggests that the Forest Service consider adding an additional Desired Condition for Cultural and Historic Resources that would encourage better understanding human use in the area through problem-oriented research. Suggestion language:

06 Prehistoric and historical human use of the area is better understood through problem-oriented studies that employ scientific and historical research methods.

Desired Conditions 01 and 03 imply the importance of this kind of research. They

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 14 state the need to preserve and maintain information, but they do not mention the benefit of actively examining it or acquiring new information from cultural resources allocated to the category of Scientific Investigation.31 Given a more detailed picture of the area, the Ashley National Forest can prepare better resource programs, interpretive presentations, and publications for education and enjoyment. Active research may also provide some of the volunteer opportunities identified in Desired Condition 04. Research projects would also develop or refine contexts, questions, and research designs that would aid in the evaluation efforts of Desired Condition 05.

This recommended Desired Condition, or one similar to it, is consistent with the Forest Service’s policy to “6. Facilitate scientific research of cultural resources to increase understanding of past human cultures and environments” and “7. Use cultural resource data to increase scientific understanding of the evolution and conditions of ecosystems and to benefit Forest Service land management practices”.32 Such research should be undertaken in accordance with the Forest Service’s requirements for scientific study.33

Goals-Relationships with Local Governments and Research Institutions

Local governments have a consultative role in the Section 106 process (see 36 CFR § 800.2(C)(1)(i)),34 and the Forest Service “may consult with representatives of local governments that have jurisdiction over the area in which the effects of a Federal undertaking may occur”.35 Therefore, a reasonable goal for this plan revision is to ensure that local governments have an opportunity to comment on cultural resources and preservation planning. Suggested language:

02 Consult with local governments to ensure that long-term strategies and plans for cultural and historical resources, or changes to them, are congruent with state and county resource management plans.36

Problem-oriented prehistoric and historical research has the potential to benefit the preservation and responsible use of cultural resources within the Ashley National Forest (see

31 FSM Chapter 2360–Heritage Program Management Amendment No. 233-2008-1. Forest Service Manual National Headquarter (WO), Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2300/2360.doc, accessed May 29, 2019. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 GPO (Government Publishing Office) 2004, 36 CFR Part 800–Protection of Historic Properties. Electronic document, https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/regulations/2017-02/regs-rev04.pdf, accessed May 29, 2019. 35 FSM Chapter 2360–Heritage Program Management Amendment No. 233-2008-1. Forest Service Manual National Headquarter (WO), Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2300/2360.doc, accessed May 29, 2019. 36 Daggett County 2017 Resource Management Plan. Electronic document, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Cn80Wzst8eoa0o_BqoTBHOPfPm8M6MIe, accessed May 29, 2019. Uintah County Resource Management Plan 2017. Electronic document, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Cn80Wzst8eoa0o_BqoTBHOPfPm8M6MIe, accessed May 24, 2019.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 15 above). Sometimes it is possible for this kind of research to be conducted by a project intended to resolve adverse effects. However, to maximize research potential, such studies may benefit by being unencumbered by the confines of “contract archaeology”. The Ashley National Forest should consider partnering with academic institutions or museums to carry out these types of research projects. Suggested language:

03 Foster relationships with research institutions, such as universities and museums, to identify opportunities for problem-oriented prehistoric or historical research within the Ashley National Forest.

Objectives- Problem-Oriented Research Program

The stated objective for Cultural and Historic Resources in the Proposed Plan is to:

02 Increase the ability of the Ashley National Forest to preserve cultural and historic resources by completing cultural surveys to find and document five cultural resource sites each year for the life of the plan.

The Proposed Plan states that more than 2,500 sites have been recorded, that only about one-fifth of the lands within the Ashley National Forest have been surveyed, and that “thousands of additional cultural sites may yet to be found.” Surely more than five sites will be recorded by inventories associated with undertakings that must comply with Section 106. This objective needs clarification regarding the number of sites to be recorded.

So far the State has recommended a Desired Condition for problem-oriented research using scientific or historical methods, or both, and a goal to partner with research institutions that are not constrained by projects intended to resolve adverse effects. A suggested objective may include:

05 Implement a problem-oriented research project every three to five years that provides a better understanding of the area’s prehistory, ethnohistory, or history. The project should also seek “to increase scientific understanding of the evolution and conditions of ecosystems and to benefit Forest Service land management practices”.37

Standards – Professional Qualification Standards

The Secretary of Interior published the Professional Qualification Standards for history, archaeology, architectural history, architecture, and historic architecture in the Federal Register almost four decades ago.38 These same requirements were

37 FSM Chapter 2360–Heritage Program Management Amendment No. 233-2008-1. Forest Service Manual National Headquarter (WO), Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2300/2360.doc, accessed May 29, 2019. 38 Archaeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. 48 Federal Register 44716–44740. Electronic document, https://s3.amazonaws.com/archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1983/9/29/44695-44744.pdf#page=22,

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 16 previously published in the Code of Federal Regulations and used by the National Parks Service. Today, the two largest land-managing agencies in Utah—the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management—do not require their supervisory personnel to meet these standards.39 There is also some confusion about what qualifications are required by the Forest Service for contractors, partner-cooperators, and third-party consultants. For example, FSM 2360.92 states that “contractors, partner-cooperators, and third-party consultants must meet the professional qualification standards in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation,40 while FSH 2309.12 says to “consider these standards when … soliciting partners/cooperators and contracted services”.41 Suggested language:

02 In executing their duties, Heritage Program personnel shall take into account the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Standards and Guidelines, including but not limited to those for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (NPS 2018).

One of the State’s objectives is to assist state and federal agencies and preservation partners to effectively apply preservation principles by, among other actions, setting “high standards for historic preservation firms and contractors, especially archaeologists” (emphasis added).42 Toward that objective, please consider the following suggestion:

03 Heritage Program Professionals who serve in staff or advisory positions must meet the OPM’s General Qualification Standards for Archeology Series, 0193 (OPM n.d.).43 Contractors, partner-cooperators, and third-party consultants serving in the capacity of principal investigator on Ashley National Forest projects must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.

Guidelines -Utah Archaeological Compliance Guidance

The Utah State Historic Preservation Office and Antiquities Section published

accessed May 29, 2019. 39 The State of Utah also holds permitted principal investigators to lower standards (USL 2008). 40 FSM Chapter 2360–Heritage Program Management Amendment No. 233-2008-1. Forest Service Manual National Headquarter (WO), Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2300/2360.doc, accessed May 29, 2019. 41 FSH 2309.12–Heritage Program Management Handbook Amendment No. 2309.12-2015-1. Forest Service Handbook National Headquarter (WO), Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd517819.pdf, accessed May 29, 2019. 42 Utah Statewide Historic Preservation Plan 2017–2022, at 74, Electronic document, https://history.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/HIST_UtahStatewidePlan_2017-2022.pdf, accessed May 29, 2019. 43 FSH 2309.12–Heritage Program Management Handbook Amendment No. 2309.12-2015-1. Forest Service Handbook National Headquarter (WO), Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd517819.pdf, accessed May 29, 2019.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 17

Archaeological Compliance Guidance “in hopes of collating all the expectations of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (UTSHPO) for completing an expeditious and adequate review of cultural resources compliance projects”44. This document recognizes that agencies “hold the most authority in setting standards and expectations”45 and, thus, the State’s guidance is subordinate to that of the Forest Service. Nevertheless, by considering this guidance, the Forest Service may find it easier to abide by its policy to promote Heritage Program efficiencies.46 Suggested language:

02 To promote Heritage Program efficiencies, the Ashley National Forest will take into account the State of Utah’s Archaeological Compliance Guidance for Section 106 compliance projects.

Timber

Timber harvesting is, as acknowledged by the Forest Service, an important contributor to the local economy and a critical tool to achieved desired vegetation conditions that promote a healthy and sustainable ecosystem. Timber production should be used as a central component of active forest management that promotes forests which are resilient to wildfire, insects, and disease. Salvage of dead or dying trees to recover as much economic value as possible must be a central element of active forest management.

The Proposed Plan states that of the 1,400,000 acres in the planning area, only 135,000 acres may be suitable for timber production, and that even many of these 135,000 acres may be found unsuitable for timber production through further analysis.47 The Proposed Plan should clarify the distinction between “timber production” and “timber cutting,” which is suitable in a much larger area of the Ashley National Forest than timber production. The prior determination of lands not suited for timber production due to legal or technical reasons should be reevaluated as part of the Ashley National Forest Plan Revision process, with the inclusion of total acreage or lands suited for timber sale and cutting, even if they are not suited specifically for timber production.

Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Ashley National Forest contain many of the 1,265,000 acres in the Ashley National Forest not suited for timber production due to legal or technical reasons. But the cutting, sale, and removal of some small diameter trees is permissible under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) “to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure.”48 While timber production within Roadless Areas may be prohibited by the prescriptions in the Roadless Rule, the Forest Service should analyze which acres in Inventoried Roadless Areas are

44 Archaeological Compliance Guidance. Electronic document, https://history.utah.gov/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/ARCH_UTSHPO-Archaeological-Guidance_2019.pdf, accessed May 29, 2019. 45 Id. 46 FSM Chapter 2360–Heritage Program Management Amendment No. 233-2008-1. Forest Service Manual National Headquarter (WO), Washington, DC. Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2300/2360.doc, accessed May 29, 2019. 47 Proposed Plan, at 39. 48 36 C.F.R. § 294.13(b)(1)(ii).

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 18 suitable for timber cutting and sale based on a need to maintain ecosystem composition through active vegetation management. The Proposed Plan should also include a map showing where timber cutting and sale for the purposes of maintaining ecosystem composition in Roadless Areas may be appropriate and necessary.

Desired Condition 0749 seems to suggest that vegetation management activities on lands not suitable for timber production should only occur through irregular or unscheduled activities. But often times lands not suitable for timber production show the greatest ecological need for vegetation management activities, including salvage of dead and dying trees, reduction of hazardous fuels, and maintenance of wildlife habitat. Commercial timber harvest can be an element of these vegetation management activities. The Forest Service should consider performing such vegetation management activities on a regular and scheduled basis, even on land no suitable for timber production.

Timber Objectives 01 and 0250 include objectives for annual sale of timber and wood products available for sale, respectively, measured in hundred cubic feet (CCF). But these average annual projected sale quantities appear to be based on the 135,000 acres of the Ashley National Forest that may be suitable for timber production.51 As explained above, large stretches of the Ashley National Forest outside of the 135,000 acres are available for the sale of both timber and wood products, including many of the 795,950 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (when timber cutting is needed to restore ecosystem composition). The total quantity of timber and wood products annually available for sale of should be recalculated in the Proposed Plan to account for forest acreage not suitable for timber production that is still suitable for some sale of timber and wood products, such as certain Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Livestock Grazing

The Livestock Grazing section of the Proposed Plan should emphasize the value that livestock grazing provides in the form of ecological benefits including, but not limited to: soil aeration, seed to soil contact through hoof action, invasive plant control, fine fuels reduction, maintenance of open space across the landscape, increased water developments beneficial to wildlife, as well as a source of food and fiber for beneficiaries within and well outside the plan area. Additionally, this section should cite congressional mandate language allowing grazing on suitable lands through the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976. The proposed plan should include the identification of the number of active use permits, vacant allotments, forage reserves, closed allotments, and the number of permitted AUMs in the first paragraph of the section.

As stated in the Proposed Plan, livestock grazing is an important contribution to the social and economic importance to the many rural communities bordering the Ashley

49 Proposed Plan, at 42. 50 Proposed Plan, at 42. 51 See Proposed Plan Table 10, at 40.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 19 national Forest and a sustainable multiple use of public lands. Sustainable livestock grazing can be greatly enhanced through rotational grazing systems that better protect sensitive forest resources while also increasing forage available livestock. Rotational grazing systems are currently succeeding in northern Utah on private lands, and are currently being adopted on Forest Service lands as well. The adoption of similar rotation grazing practices on the Ashley National Forest could better achieve desired outcomes and protect watersheds, sensitive vegetation communities, and other fragile resources. The Forest Service should consider adding a Livestock Grazing and Rangelands Goal that contemplates the adoption of rotational grazing practices in coordination with local livestock producers, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Guidelines 01 and 0252 would generally restrict forage utilization to 50% of current year’s growth and require four-inch remaining stubble height for herbaceous species. These Guidelines are unnecessarily prescriptive in a Proposed Plan. Such guidelines could inhibit the implementation of a rotational grazing system or the use of livestock grazing to treat the spread of invasive weeds, for example. Standards on utilization and remaining stubble height should be determined on a site-specific allotment-by-allotment basis by the responsible Forest Service Range Conservationist using monitoring data the best available science. While 50% utilization and four-inch remaining stubble height may be appropriate on some allotments, the Proposed Plan should provide for greater on-the-ground flexibility for livestock grazing depending on range conditions.

The State recommends replacing Guideline 01 with the following language: “Determine forage use by domestic livestock using a combination of the best available science, monitoring data, current conditions, and existing grazing management on the allotment as determined during planning cycles (such as annual operating instructions and permit renewal) to sustain livestock grazing and maintain ecological function and process.”

Similarly, Guideline 02 should be replaced with the following language: “Livestock grazing within riparian management zones should be managed to sustain proper stream channel morphology, floodplain function, and riparian vegetation desired conditions based on best available science.” Mandating a four-inch stubble height for riparian areas on a forest plan level is overly restrictive and does provide flexibility. Rather than focusing on specific numbers, the guideline should focus on ensuring that overall riparian areas are healthy, resilient, and in proper functioning condition.

The Proposed Plan should also consider providing livestock producers with greater flexibility to adjust operations based on range conditions. For example, the Forest Service should, in accordance with Forest Service Region 4, provide greater flexibility for livestock producers to keep livestock on summer allotments for an additional one or two weeks if range conditions permit. Such flexibility would be granted only when allowed by range conditions, but could be a significant benefit to local livestock producers that would enhance the sustainable multiple use of forest resources and enhance economic activity in rural communities.

52 Proposed Plan, at 28.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 20

The Forest Service should include proposed desired conditions, goals, and objectives addressing domestic livestock grazing in the High Uintas Wilderness area. Due to the lack of motorized access and increased difficulty of performing rangeland maintenance and improvement projects, the Forest Service should include a desired condition to improve the grazing infrastructure and rangeland health within the wilderness area to improve and maintain domestic livestock grazing, as well as adequate wildlife habitat.

The State recommends that the Forest Service significantly expand the Livestock Grazing section in the Proposed Plan, including new goals and desired conditions:

Add an additional goal with the following language: “Provide livestock grazing permittees with flexibility in rangeland management (i.e. stocking rates, season of use, on and off dates, utilization, etc.) to maintain or move rangelands toward desired conditions.” There is great importance in flexibility for good rangeland management and a goal that the Forest Service will work directly with permittees to allow flexibility whenever possible will result in positive changes.

Add a third desired condition with the following language, “Maintain and improve rangeland infrastructure to improve grazing sustainability and achieve desired conditions.” Well-functioning range infrastructure is vital to ensure that grazing is sustainable. Furthermore, some range infrastructure such as water sources provide benefit for wildlife as well.

Add a fourth desired condition with the following language, “Livestock grazing and associated management activities are compatible with ecological functions and processes (such as water infiltration, wildlife habitat, soil stability, and natural fire regimes). Livestock grazing and associated management activities are also compatible with the management of social resources of the national forest including designated areas (like wilderness).

Add fifth desired condition53 with the following language, “Utilize vegetation treatments and/or water developments to increase rangeland use not currently suitable or physically capable for domestic livestock grazing due to vegetative conditions not meeting desired conditions (i.e. conifer encroachment, invasive plant species” (see page 4 paragraph 1 in the Preliminary Need for Change document). There are many areas throughout the forest where livestock are realistically unable to graze due to issues such as lack of water, pinyon-juniper encroachment, or sagebrush that is too thick for understory vegetation to survive. Part of the forest’s desired conditions should include rehabilitation of these areas and an increase where possible in suitable and capable rangelands as well as AUM numbers.

The Livestock Grazing section of the Proposed Plan does not include any objectives for future livestock grazing in Ashley National Forest. Objectives are the specific actions taken to achieve the desired conditions and should be included in the plan. The State recommends that the Forest Service include the following objectives:

53 Proposed Plan, at 45.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 21

1. Install xxx (to be determined by the Forest Service) number of new water sources in areas where livestock grazing distribution could be improved by new water sources per year. 2. During the life of the plan, identify all allotments to improve grazing distribution and carrying capacity through increased rangeland infrastructure and implementation of said projects. 3. During the life of the plan, provide an annual inventory of all closed and vacant allotments and assess the vegetative health and ability to permit these allotments for active domestic livestock grazing use.

The State also recommends that the Forest Service include the following language as standards in the Forest Plan or, if the statements do not fit the standard category, the Forest Service should include the following language as desired conditions.

1. Maintain existing stock driveways. Work closely with grazing permittees who trail and may need to deviate from these existing stock driveways. 2. Maintain or increase the current level of permitted AUMs to work towards or meet desired conditions over the life of the plan. 3. Collect and maintain adequate data as well as maintain rangeland infrastructure (fences, stock tanks, etc.) on non-active allotments to ensure reissuance of permits occurs in a timely manner.

Comments on Proposed Plan Chapter 3: Management Area Direction

Designated Areas – Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area (“Flaming Gorge NRA”) is distinct from the rest of Ashley National Forest and plays a unique role in the region’s economy and recreational opportunities. Designated by Congress by the enactment of Public Law 90-540, (dated October 1, 1968) this area is specially set aside for water storage, public outdoor recreational use, and the conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, and other values. Under the Proposed Plan, management of Flaming Gorge NRA is essentially indistinguishable from the rest of Ashley National Forest, simply labeled with a different name. The Forest Service should consider creation of a separate management plan specifically for Flaming Gorge National Recreational Area. A unique plan for the NRA would allow the Forest Service to focus on the successful management of the unique purposes and values of Flaming Gorge and to better implement Congressional intent for the area. If the Forest Service is unable to develop a unique management plan for the NRA, then it should consider creating a separate addendum to the Proposed Plan the would apply only to the NRA.

An analogous situation exists in Utah’s Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, managed by the National Park Service. Established by an act of Congress in 1972, (four years after the creation of Flaming Gorge NRA), Glen Canyon is treated as a separate and

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 22 distinct unit of the National Park Service and accordingly has its own management plan.54 This management plan ensures that Glen Canyon NRA is managed for the purposes that it was established, and that its management is distinct from that of adjacent NPS units. The BLM follows a similar pattern by creating management plans for national monuments that are separate from the Resource Management Plans of adjoining BLM field offices.

The Forest Service should follow suit by creating a separate management plan, or an addendum within the Forest Plan Revision, specifically tailored to Flaming Gorge NRA.

Designated Areas – Ashley Karst National Recreation and Geologic Area

While the Proposed Plan refers to the “proposed Ashley Karst National Recreation and Geologic Area,” this area was indeed designated by Congress in the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, dated March 12, 2019. The Act also tasks the Forest Service with completing a management plan for the Ashley Karst National Recreation and Geologic Area (“Ashley Karst NRGA”) no later than March 2021. Due to the short time frame within which the Forest Service must complete this management plan (8 months of already passed since enactment of the Act) the Forest Service should consider preparing a management plan as part of the Forest Plan Revision process, perhaps by attaching a management plan for the NRGA as an addendum to the larger Forest Plan. The Forest Service must make compliance with a direct order from Congress an absolute priority, and the convergence of this planning process with the establishment of the Ashley Karst NRGA should be viewed as an opportunity to streamline planning and jointly produce the NRGA management plan alongside the revised Forest Plan.

Designated Areas – Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (“WSRA”) (section 5(d)) does task the Forest Service to consider rivers with the potential for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, only Congress or a state legislature may designate a Wild and Scenic River (“WSR”).55 The WSRA does not give the Forest Service authority to manage an “eligible” or “suitable” river as a WSR, or to enact “interim protection measures” to protect the characteristics and values of the river, until directed to do so by Congress or a state legislature. Therefore, the State opposes the use of “interim protection measures” for the two river segments identified as suitable in the 2008 suitability study (13 miles of the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam and 40 miles of the Uintah River) as well as four rivers identified as “eligible” in the May 2019 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Study and Report (3.1 miles of Dowd Creek, 2.3 miles of Honslinger Creek, 1.8 miles of North Skull Creek, and 6.8 mile of Spring Creek 2).56 Both the “suitable” and “eligible” rivers should be managed as all other rivers within the Ashley National Forest. The results of the 2008 suitability study and 2019 eligibility report should be kept on file for the use of Congress (or the Utah State Legislature) at their request, as intended by Section 5(d) of the WSRA.

54 https://www.nps.gov/glca/learn/management/upload/General-Management-Plan.pdf. 55 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 2(a). 56 Ashley National Forest Draft Wild and Scenic River Elegiblity Report, May 2019, 3-1 to 3-6, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd662038.pdf.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 23

Utah’s Congressional delegation is highly involved in matters of public lands and waters, and special designations in the Ashley National Forest are frequently considered in Congress. This is demonstrated by the March 2019 designation of the Ashley Karst National Recreation and Geologic Area in the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. The Dingell Act also designated certain stretches of the Green River in Emery County as a WSR. These congressional actions show that Congress will act to protect certain public lands in Utah when it chooses to do so, but for the Forest Service to unilaterally choose to manage certain rivers as de facto WSRs is contrary to the purposes of the WSRA. Accordingly, the Desired Condition and Guideline for Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers57 should be removed from the Propose Plan, as well as Table 16, the “Interim protection measures for management of elegible or suitable wild, scenic, or recreational rivers.”

The Forest Service should also recognize that the 13 miles of the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam is likely a navigable river, and therefore the title of the bed of the river should held by the State of Utah under the “equal footing doctrine.” While that stretch of the Green River may not yet be adjudicated, the lack of adjudication does not impact the navigability of the river and thus the State’s claim to the river bed. As a navigable river within the State’s jurisdiction, it is inappropriate for the Forest Service to manage that stretch of the Green River as a de facto WSR without expression authorization from the Utah State Legislature or Congress.

Designated Areas – Inventoried Roadless Areas

As mentioned earlier, the cutting, sale, and removal of some small diameter trees is permissible in Inventoried Roadless Areas. “to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure.”58 Unfortunately, these kinds of tools available under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule often go unused by the Forest Service during the management of Inventoried Roadless Areas. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently delegated additional authority to Regional Foresters to approve projects that utilize exceptions in the 2001 Roadless Rule.59 Meanwhile, the Forest Service and the State of Utah recently signed a “Shared Stewardship Agreement” to coordinate efforts to improve forest health, including restoration projects within Inventoried Roadless Areas.60 While “timber production” within Inventoried Roadless Areas may be prohibited by the prescriptions in the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Forest Service should analyze which acres in Inventoried Roadless Areas are suitable for timber cutting and sale based on a need to maintain ecosystem composition through active vegetation management.

57 Proposed Plan, at 72. 58 36 C.F.R. § 294.13(b)(1)(ii). 59 Approval of Exceptions to the 2001 Roadless rea Conservation Rule, October 24, 2018, available at https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/11/08/document_gw_02.pdf. 60 Agreement for Shared Stewardship between the State of Utah and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Region, May 22, 2019, available at https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/utah-shared-stewardship-agreement.pdf

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 24

Such projects are already occurring in other national forests in Utah, such as the Canyons Project on the Manti – La Sal National Forest.61 The Canyons Project is expected to mechanically treat 15,490 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas, utilizing skid trails and other forest management techniques allowed under the 2001 Roadless Rule.62 The Proposed Plan should include an objective for accomplishing mechanical treatments where needed in Inventoried Roadless Areas within Ashley National Forest. The Proposed Plan should also include a map showing where timber cutting and sale for the purposes of maintaining ecosystem composition in Roadless Areas may be appropriate and necessary.

Management Areas – Protection Fire Management Area

Protection Fire Management Areas are important to protecting communities, infrastructure, and natural resources from hazardous fuel conditions. Hazardous fuel reduction treatments and fire protection are critical components of reducing fire risk and creating fire resilient landscapes.

However, Fire Protection Management Zones should not be limited to areas near permanent infrastructure, structures, or communities. Many remote areas of the Ashley National Forest contain critical watersheds that provide culinary and irrigation water to nearby municipalities, and in some cases the Wasatch Front. These watersheds can be gravely damaged by uncharacteristic or catastrophic wildfires that later harm the available water supply for Utah municipalities, even if these watersheds are far from permanent infrastructure, structures, or communities.

The Forest Service should consider whether certain watersheds and other sensitive areas should be included in the protection Fire Management Area, even if these watersheds may be far away from structures, permanent infrastructure, or communities. These watersheds may also require hazardous fuel reduction activities to protect social, economic, and ecological values at risk from high-severity fire effects.

Comments on Chapter 4: Plan Monitoring Program

The Forest Service should remove the specific utilization levels and stubble heights from the Monitoring Questions and Indicators in the Plan Monitoring Program.63 A forest plan is an inappropriate place to include such specific indicators. This may detract from permittees using a rest rotational grazing system and does not adhere to adaptive management. Specific utilization rates and stubble heights should be indicated in allotment management plans. Areas throughout the forest differ in terms of forage production, which show that it is inappropriate to give forest wide utilization rates and stubble heights.

Comments on Appendix A: Priority Watersheds

61 https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mantilasal/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD629237. 62 Canyons HFRA Project, Final Decision Notice, Manti-La Sal National Forest, July 15, 2019, at 2, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/108095_FSPLT3_4662841.pdf. 63 Proposed Pan, Chapter 4, at 90.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 25

The Forest Service should clarify the role that the 2011 Watershed Condition Framework plays in the Ashley National Forest Plan Revision. The Watershed Condition Framework identified eight “priority watersheds” within the Ashley National Forest.64 It is unclear in the Proposed Plan whether the Forest Plan Revision will identify new priority watersheds under the Watershed Condition Framework, or rather this list is static. It is the understanding of the State that substantial restoration work has already occurred or been completed in all eight priority watersheds, and it would appear appropriate for the Forest Service to identify new priority watersheds under the Watershed Condition Framework where future restoration is necessary.

Comments on Appendix B: Management Approaches

The State recommends that the Forest Service include a set of management approaches for livestock grazing. It is vital that the Forest Service recognize and include livestock grazing as an essential multiple use of Ashley National Forest. The Forest Service should include a section for livestock grazing and include the following, or similar, management approaches:

1. Collaborate with livestock grazing permittees to allow maximum sustainable use of rangelands. 2. Vegetation management would support forage production for wildlife and domestic livestock. Restoration treatments include treating for non-native/invasive species and encroaching native species; reseeding using native seed mixes when possible and desirable non-native seed mixes when necessary to prevent the establishment of invasive species such as cheatgrass. Utilize all available vegetation treatment methods to result in best outcomes and cost effectiveness. 3. Apply adaptive management while working with permittees to allow flexibility of stocking rates as rangeland conditions allow, including increased stocking rates when appropriate.

Comments on the Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report

In its May 2019 Draft Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report, the Forest Service identified 4 river segments as meeting the “Eligibility Criteria” and thus determined eligible for consideration under the WSRA.65 The 4 rivers segments identified as eligible are 3.1 miles of Dowd Creek, 2.3 miles of Honslinger Creek, 1.8 miles of North Skull Creek, and 6.8 miles of Spring Creek 2.66 As stated earlier, Section 5(d) of the WSRA authorizes the Forest Service to study and identify river segments for potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River system, but no to manage eligible rivers for as WSRs until authorization by Congress or the respective state legislature. The results of the Forest Service’s Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report may be provided to Congress or the Utah State Legislature at their request, but the State opposes any kind of “interim protection

64 Proposed Plan, Appendix A, at 105. 65 Ashley National Forest Draft Wild and Scenic River Elegiblity Report, May 2019, 3-1 to 3-6, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd662038.pdf. 66 Id.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 26 measures” for Dowd Creek, Honslinger Creek, North Skull Creek, or Spring Creek 2 until specific designation by Congress or the Utah State Legislatures of those rivers.

Conclusion

Thank you for considering the State of Utah’s comments. The planning process for the Ashley National Forest Plan Revision will be strengthened as the Forest Service continues to coordinate its efforts with the plans and input of the State and other local governments.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Clarke, Director

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 27

ATTACHMENT #1

Ashley National Forest Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas

As the Forest Service continues the planning process for potential wilderness areas, the Forest Service should consider the factors listed here to justify the removal of several polygons from the analysis phase of wilderness planning. Areas that already have similar wilderness restrictions should not be analyzed for wilderness because the result would be duplicative and over burdensome. Areas in need of treatment such as fire management and water quality should also be removed from analysis for wilderness as the wilderness restrictions would not allow for the needed treatments to occur. Areas with legally established rights should not be infringed upon and not have appropriate access restricted. Lastly, areas close to communities and areas receiving motorized use should also be removed from analysis as they do not fit the intent of the Wilderness Act.

Inventory Unit Rationale for removal from potential wilderness evaluation Name/Number Alkali Canyon - Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, 181 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Big Ridge - 274 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Carter Creek - 526 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Cottonwood - 187 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Cow Hollow - 440 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Motorized Trails, RNA, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Dry Ridge - 325 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Dyer Mountain - Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, 450 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Flat Top Mountain - Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, 365 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Goslin - 583 Fire Management, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Grizzly Ridge - 464 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 28

Indian Spring - 171 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Lake Fork Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Mountain - 343 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Lambson Draw - Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, 490 Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Mill Hollow - 44 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, RNA, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Mount Lena - 517 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI North Slope East Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Uintas - 530 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, RNA, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Nutters Canyon - Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, 184 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Pole Creek - 384 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Right Fork Indian Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Canyon - 183 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Sheep Creek East - Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, 562 Motorized Trails, RNA, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Sheep Creek West - Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, 574 Motorized Trails, RNA, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI South Fork Rock Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Creek - 320 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality South Slope East Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Uintas - 463 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, RNA, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Timber Canyon Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, East - 204 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Timber Canyon Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, West - 205 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, RNA, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Wagon Road Ridge Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, - 242 Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 29

Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Water Hollow - 201 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI Wire Fence - 190 Fire Management, Invasive and Encroaching Species, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI # 317, 332, 370, Fire Management, IRA, Legally Established Rights, Motorized 380 (less than 5,000 Trails, Shape and Configuration, Water Quality, WUI acres and adjacent to existing wilderness)

Explanations of rationale for removal from potential wilderness evaluation:

Existing Designated Areas

Polygons containing existing special land use designations that protect the area’s current characteristics and outstanding resources should not be carried forward into wilderness analysis. These areas have specific designations meant to preserve the important characteristics of their respective landscapes. Thus, a wilderness designation on top of the existing designations would be unnecessary and could impede the Forest Service’s ability to manage for the outstanding resources that the original special land use designations were meant to protect. Many of the polygons listed above are made up wholly or partially by special land use designations and should be filtered out from a wilderness designation due to adequate existing protections and the potential adverse management impacts that wilderness recommendation and subsequent management could have.

Fire Management (Current and Future)

Utah faces significant catastrophic wildfires every year, which damage watersheds, destroy wildlife habitat and livestock forage, and have significant economic and health impacts on residents of the state. The ability to manage forest areas to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk should be a principal concern of the Forest Service. A key tool that the Forest Service should utilize to determine the risk of catastrophic wildfire alongside their existing tools, is the Utah Department of Natural Resource’s Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal (WRAP), which indicates the risk of wildfire in specific areas throughout the state of Utah. All management tools should be kept available to minimize the risk of wildfire through vegetation treatments, thinning, chaining, prescribed burns, etc. Although some of these activities are technically permitted in wilderness areas, the use of cost-efficient mechanical treatments are not. Both the State of Utah and the Forest Service have very limited budgets and thus, recommending an area as potential wilderness significantly decreases the amount of treatment and wildfire risk reduction that can be accomplished in an area per dollar spent. Consequently, potential wilderness recommendations in reality restrict the ability of land managers to manage wildfire risk. All units that are made up of areas that have extremely high risk of catastrophic wildfire should be precluded entirely from wilderness evaluation

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 30 and analysis, or at least have the risk of wildfire considered as a factor in their wilderness characteristics.

Pinyon-Juniper Forests are highly susceptible to catastrophic wildfires and thus pose a significant risk if not managed properly.67,68 The ability to manage the density and spread of pinyon-juniper throughout the Ashley National Forest is vital to protect wildlife, watershed health, domestic livestock grazing, and other natural resources. A wilderness designation increases the difficulty of managing an area through restrictions on the tools that are readily available for management, as well as increasing treatment costs significantly, which in reality restricts the ability to perform many types of vegetation management due to constrained budgets. The Forest Service needs to be able to minimize wildfire risk for the greatest number of acres possible with limited funds. A wilderness designation would reduce the effectiveness of each dollar spent on wildfire prevention in this area. Consequently, the Forest Service should take into consideration wildfire risk and the necessity of managing pinyon-juniper forests to reduce fuel loads in all pinyon-juniper ecosystems throughout the Ashley National Forest.

Ponderosa Pine forests are also highly susceptible to catastrophic wildfires and thus pose a significant risk if not managed properly.69,70 The ability to manage the density of Ponderosa Pine throughout the Ashley National Forest is vital to protect wildlife, watershed health, domestic livestock grazing, and other natural resources. A wilderness designation increases the difficulty of managing this area through restrictions on the tools already available for management, as well as increasing treatment costs significantly, which in reality restricts the ability to perform many types of vegetation management due to constrained budgets. The Forest Service needs to be able to minimize wildfire risk for the greatest number of acres possible with limited funds. A wilderness designation would reduce the effectiveness of each dollar spent on wildfire prevention in this area. Consequently, the Forest Service should consider wildfire risk and the necessity of managing Ponderosa Pine forests to reduce fuel loads throughout the Ashley National Forest.

Engelmann Spruce are also highly susceptible to catastrophic wildfires and thus pose a significant risk if not managed properly.71 The ability to manage the density of spruce

67 Huffman, D. W., Fule, P. Z., Crouse, J. E., and Pearson, K. M. 2009. A Comparison of Fire Hazard Mitigation Alternatives in Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands of Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 628-635. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.539.8841&rep=rep1&type=pdf 68 Miller, R. F. and Tausch, R. J. 2001. The Role of Fire in Juniper and Pinyon Woodlands: A Descriptive Analysis. In Fire in Juniper and Pinyon Woodlands.

69 Graham, R. T., Harvey, A. E., Jain, T. B., and Tonn, J. R. 1999. Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technician Report PNW-GTR-463. 70 Pollet, J. and Omi, P. N. 2002. Effect of Thinning and Prescribed Burning on Crown Fire Severity in Ponderosa Pine Forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11 (1):1-10. 71 Jenkins, M. J., Hebertson, E., Page, W., and Jorgensen, C. A. 2008. Bark Beetles, Fuels, Fires, and Implications for Forest Management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 16-34.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 31 throughout the Ashley National Forest is vital to protect wildlife, watershed health, domestic livestock grazing, and other natural resources. Due to spruce beetle outbreaks, multiple areas within the forest face severe risk of wildfire. A wilderness designation increases the difficulty of managing this area through restrictions on the tools already available for management, as well as increasing treatment costs significantly, which in reality restricts the ability to perform many types of vegetation management due to constrained budgets. The Forest Service needs to be able to minimize wildfire risk for the greatest number of acres possible with the limited funds. A wilderness designation would reduce the effectiveness of each dollar spent on wildfire prevention in this area. Consequently, the Forest Service should remove areas with bark beetle kill from wilderness evaluation and analysis or at least give those areas a low characteristics designation due to the level of management that needs to occur and that departure from naturalness.

Utah’s aspen stands are declining alongside aspen stands throughout the nation.72,73,74 These declines are attributable to the spread of insects and diseases,75 differing fire regimes,76 and conifer invasion.77,78 Aspen stands support a substantial number of plant and animal species and are vital for the diversity of Utah’s environment and ecosystems.79,80,81

Research shows that active management improves the health and reproduction of aspen stands.82,83,84 Stand thinning at mid-age resulted in greater basal area and increased reproductive stems.85 In addition to thinning, bulldozing aspen stands has been shown to increase the root suckering more than other types of management.86 Prescribed fire is an

72 Bartos, D. L. 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests. Aspen Bibliography Paper 782. 73 Bartos, D. L. and Campbell, R. B. Jr. 1998. Decline of Quaking Aspen in the Interior West – Examples from Utah. Rangelands 20 (1): 17-24. 74 Kay, C. E. 1997. Is Aspen Doomed? Journal of Forestry 95 (5): 4-11. 75 Marchetti, S. B., Worrall, J. J., Eager, T. 2011. Secondary Insects and Diseases Contribute to Sudden Aspen Decline in Southwestern Colorado, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41: 2315-2325. 76 Bartos, D. L. 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests. Aspen Bibliography Paper 782. 77 Bartos, D. L. 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests. Aspen Bibliography Paper 782. 78 Smith, A. E. and Smith F. W. 2005. Twenty-Year Change in Aspen Dominance in Pure Aspen and Mixed Aspen/Conifer Stands on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 213: 338-348. 79Bartos, D. L. 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests. Aspen Bibliography Paper 782. 80 Harniss, R. O. and Harper, K. T. 1982. Tree Dynamics in Seral and Stable Aspen Stands of Central Utah. Aspen Bibliography Paper 4310. 81 Kuhn, T. J., Safford, H. D., Jones, B. E., Tate, K. W. 2011. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Stands and their Contribution to Plant Diversity in a Semiarid Coniferous Landscape. Plant Ecology 212: 1451-1463. 82 Bartos, D. L. 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests. Aspen Bibliography Paper 782. 83DeByle, N. V. and Winokur, R. P. 1985. Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States. Aspen Bibliography Technical Report RM-119. 84 Perala, D. A. 1991. Renewing Decadent Aspen Stands. USDA Forest Service. Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 85 Mueggler, W. F. 1994. Sixty Years of Change in Tree Numbers and Basal Area in Central Utah Aspen Stands. USDA Forest Service Research Paper No. INT-RP-478. 86 Shepperd, W. D. 1996. Response of Aspen Root Suckers to Regeneration Methods and Post-Harvest Protection. Aspen Bibliography Paper 1655.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 32 additional tool that helps regenerate aspen stands.87,88 Due to the decline in this vital type of ecosystem, it is extremely important that the Forest Service maintain the ability to access, treat, and maintain aspen stands on the Ashley National Forest. If aspen stands were designated as wilderness it would restrict the Forest Service’s ability to maintain aspen stand health and would lead to further decline in aspen ecosystems in Utah.

Invasive and Encroaching Species

All polygons with invasive weed species should be removed from potential wilderness consideration. Noxious weeds require active management, treatment, and containment. If the Forest Service were to manage areas with noxious weeds as wilderness areas, treatments become harder, more expensive, and noxious weeds would be allowed to spread to the detriment of native species and ecosystems. Furthermore, noxious weeds reduce the naturalness of areas they invade and continue to decrease the natural appearance by replacing native species.89

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)

The Forest Service should remove the polygons that have an existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) designation be removed completely from further wilderness consideration, or if not the entire polygon, at least the areas that are designated IRA be removed from within the polygon as potential wilderness areas. An IRA designation should be used as a filtering criterion for potential wilderness lands due to the similar protections that both designations provide. IRAs were originally created in an attempt to achieve protections similar to those offered by a wilderness designation through the Wilderness Act of 1964. Both early attempts at Roadless Area Review and Evaluations (RARE I and II) were attempts to find areas suitable as wilderness but were stopped through the Courts. However, the Forest Service’s use of IRAs to achieve protections similar to those found in wilderness areas is apparent. The criteria for an IRA overlap significantly with wilderness criteria including a size of 5,000 acres, naturalness of ecosystems, natural management, and a lack of improvement or the presence of man. Consequently, polygons with existing IRA designations should be completely, or at least partly, precluded from further wilderness evaluation and analysis because the area is already protected.

Legally Established Rights

One of the principle established rights that the Forest Service must consider is the

87 Fule, P. Z., Cocke, A. E., Heinlein, T. A., Covington, W. W. 2004. Effects of an Intense Prescribed Forest Fire: Is it Ecological Restoration? Restoration Ecology 12 (2):220-230. 88 Kilpatrick, S. and Abendroth, D. 2001. Aspen Response to Prescribed Fire and Wild Ungulate Heribory. Aspen Bibliography Paper 532. 89 Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J., Brown, M. L., Carrithers, V., Clark, J. K., DiTomaso, J., Lym, R. G., McDaniel, K., Renz, M., Rice, P. M. 2004. Assessing the Economic, Environmental, and Societal Losses from Invasive Plants on Rangelands and Wildlands. Weed Technology 18: 1411-1416. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Renz2/publication/232670919_Assessing_the_Economic_Environ mental_and_Societal_Losses_from_Invasive_Plants_on_Rangeland_and_Wildlands1/links/02e7e52de77a3984 9f000000.pdf

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 33 presence of state and private land within or adjacent to polygons that are being evaluated for wilderness designation. Polygons that contain private or state inholdings should either be removed from wilderness evaluation or be designated as having a low to moderate listing due to the inability of the Forest Service to manage the activities that occur on these lands. Furthermore, the state of Utah and private land owners need to have unimpeded access to their lands, including unrestricted motorized access, a full suite of tools for land management, motorized recreational opportunities, and the ability to develop these lands without restriction.

Polygons areas with legally established rights, such as mining claims, timber production, etc. should be removed from wilderness consideration or be designated as having low wilderness characteristics due to the fact that the area has been impacted by the activities in the past, has those activities currently occurring, or these activities could occur in the potential future and would be restricted by a potential wilderness designation.

Drawing artificial lines around an active mine or quarry area does not address how these operations actually impact the wilderness characteristics within the area. An active mine produces significant traffic, noise, and clearly impacts the opportunities for solitude and naturalness of the area. These considerations need to be included in the proposed level of wilderness characteristics and remove such polygons from wilderness evaluation and analysis or at least reduce their designation for naturalness to low. In addition, designating the areas surrounding communities’ water sources could impede management and restrict activities needed to protect water sources such as motorized access, prompt water quality testing, vegetation management, and wildfire management. The areas surrounding these drinking water sources should be removed from wilderness evaluation and analysis to keep all available management tools available to protect water sources.

Motorized Trails

The practice of drawing artificial lines on a map to cherry-stem roads or use motorized roads/trails as unit boundaries does not remove the impacts that they have on wilderness characteristics. The State opposes the practice of cherry-stemming roads to include land in wilderness evaluations and analyses that in reality does not appear “untrammeled by man”, is not in a state of naturalness, and is neither undeveloped nor primitive. Cherry stemmed motorized roads and trails significantly reduce the potential for solitude and the naturalness of an area. The sounds of recreationists using OHVs and other forms of motorized recreation reach far and should be a factor in determining the potential for solitude. It is difficult to feel alone with the echoes of motorbikes, ATVs, and side-by sides constantly ringing throughout the forest. Furthermore, the roads impact the primitive character of the landscapes. Polygons with presence of motorized roads and trails, and especially those that cut deep into polygons but have been cherry-stemmed out, should be removed completely from wilderness consideration or at least be reflected by a low wilderness characteristic designation.

Research Natural Areas (RNA)

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 34

Research Natural Areas, are meant to protect areas that support high quality examples of ecosystems and habitats. These RNAs are managed in a way that allows natural processes to predominate, with minimal human intervention. This purpose is very similar to those contained in the Wilderness Act to preserve federal land so that it retains its “primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Consequently, a potential wilderness designation and an RNA seeks to achieve the same type of land management and purposes, and should not therefore both be designated on the same area of land. Polygons containing an RNA, or at least the portion of the polygon containing the RNA, should be filtered out of consideration for a wilderness area designation.

Shape and Configuration

The shape and configuration of different polygons directly impacts their ability to be managed for wilderness characteristics. One serious issue is the presence of motorized roads and trails as boundaries, because this reduces the potential for realistic solitude along the edges of these polygons. Narrow polygons with motorized trails and roads as boundaries are much more difficult to manage for actual solitude. Furthermore, polygons with many dissecting cherry-stemmed roads also change the configuration and shape of areas within a unit that hold real potential for solitude and aloneness. The Forest Service should factor in, the distance between cherry-stemmed roads and other landmarks that could affect wilderness characteristics (i.e. the distance between a cherry-stemmed road and a private inholding, another cherry-stemmed road, or the boundary of the polygon) when calculating manageability for solitude and pinch points. Polygons or areas of polygons should be removed from wilderness evaluation completely or at least have their characteristics reduced to a low designation in the areas surrounding all motorized trails and roads to accurately reflect their actual impact on wilderness characteristics. This includes areas that are too narrow or too dissected by motorized trails and roads that have been cherry-stemmed, thus creating pinch points and eliminating the potential for solitude and aloneness.

Water Quality

Many of the water quality testing methods are time sensitive and require samples to be processed in a lab within short amounts of time. A potential wilderness designation could impact motorized access and the ability to test remote water sources and bring samples to testing labs within necessary time intervals. Furthermore, a wilderness designation restricts the tools available to address water quality issues on the forest. Literature shows that active management can significantly improve water quality,90 beneficial uses,91,92 and wildlife

90 Thullen, J. S., Sartoris, J. J., Nelson, M. S. 2005. Managing Vegetation in Surface-Flow Wastewater- Treatment Wetlands for Optimal Treatment Performance. Ecological Engineering 25 (5): 583-593. 91 Novonty, V. 2003. Water Quality: Diffuse Pollution and Watershed Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 92 Rankin, E. T. 1995. Habitat Indices in Water Quality Assessments. In Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Edited by Wayne S. Davis and Thomas P. Simon. New York, NY: Lewis Publishers.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801

Mr. Brant Petersen, Forest Supervisor Attn: Lars Christensen November 8, 2019 Page 35 habitat.93,94 Additionally, increased water infrastructure has also been shown to significantly improve water quality.95,96,97,98,99

Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUI)

The State strongly opposes recommending areas for wilderness designation because of the impacts to forest thinning and other fire management strategies. Utah has experienced several severe fires that heavily impacted WUI areas. Inhibiting timber and fuel load management in WUIs is directly in opposition to the Forest Service’s three-part strategy to manage wild fires, which includes ecosystem restoration, community preparedness, and wildfire response. It is critical for the Forest Service to consider all resource conditions during the wilderness evaluation process, as well as the reality of past management, current conditions, and elements of future potential conditions. Designating or managing WUI areas as potential wilderness will result in future harm to Utahns due to the risk of severe wildfire that non-management poses.

93 Knight, R. L., Clarke, R. A., and Bastian, R. K. 2001. Surface Flow (SF) Treatment Wetlands as a Habitat for Wildlife and Humans. Water Science and Technology 44 (11):27-37. 94 Schlosser, I. J. and Karr, J. R. 1981. Water Quality in Agricultural Watersheds: Impact of Riparian Vegetation During Base Flow. Journal of The American Water Resources Association 17 (2): 233-240. 95 Godwin, D. C. and Miner, J. R. 1996. The Potential of Off-Stream Livestock Watering to Reduce Water Quality Impacts. Bioresource Tech 58 (3): 285-290. 96 Miner, R. J., Buckhouse, J. C., and Moore, J. A. 1992. Will a Water Trough Reduce the Amount of Time Hay-Fed Livestock Spend in a Stream (And Therefore Improve Water Quality)? Rangelands 14 (1): 35-38. 97 Obrien, C. S. Waddell, R. B., Rosenstock S. S., Rabe, M. J. 2006. Wildlife Use of Water Catchments in Southwestern Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (3): 582-591. 98Rosenstock, S. S., Ballard, W. B., Devos J. C. Jr. 1999. Benefits and Impacts of Wildlife Water Developments. Journal of Range Management 52 (1): 302-311. 99 Sheffield, R. E., Mostaghimi, D. H., Vaughan, E. R., Collins, Jr., Allen, V. G. 1997. Off-Stream Water Sources for Grazing Cattle as a Stream Bank Stabilization and Water Quality BMP. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 40 (3): 595-604.

5110 State Office Building, PO Box 141107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 · telephone 801-537-9801