Grass Valley Creek
United States Watershed Restoration Department of Agriculture Environmental Assessment Forest Service
Intermountain Region
Dixie National Forest
Pine Valley Ranger District
March 2019
Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Title Page Photo Description: Forest community surrounding Reservoir Canyon.
For More Information Contact: Nick Glidden Pine Valley District Ranger Dixie National Forest 196 E. Tabernacle, Suite 38 St. George, UT 84770 (435) 652-3100 Email: [email protected] Fax: (435) 652-3191
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
1 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Contents
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 3 1.1 Introduction ...... 3 1.2 Background ...... 3 1.3 Relationship to the Forest Plan ...... 5 1.4 Existing and Desired Conditions ...... 7 1.5 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 22 1.6 Modified Proposed Action ...... 23 1.7 Decision Framework ...... 24 1.8 Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policy ...... 24 1.9 Public Involvement ...... 25 1.10 Issues ...... 25 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Modified Proposed Action ...... 28 2.1 Introduction ...... 28 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 28 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 38 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 45 3.1 Introduction ...... 45 3.2 Cultural Resources ...... 45 3.3 Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Resource ...... 47 3.4 Fisheries Resource ...... 50 3.5 Hydrology and Soils Resource ...... 59 3.6 Range Resource ...... 62 3.7 Recreation & Scenery Resource ...... 63 3.8 Vegetation Resource ...... 71 3.9 Wildlife Resource ...... 74 3.10 Other Disclosures...... 76 Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 81 4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 81 4.2 Tribes ...... 81 4.3 Others: ...... 81 4.4 Pine Valley Allotment Permittees ...... 82 4.5 Public Meeting Participants ...... 82 4.6 Commenters ...... 82 Appendix A - MAPS ...... 83 Appendix B ...... 89 Bibliography ...... 90
List of Tables
Table 1. Management area and acres within the Grass Valley Creek Watershed project area ...... 5 Table 2. Acres of Potential Treatment in each Vegetation Class ...... 9 Table 3. Aspen Woodland Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource...... 10 Table 4. Ponderosa Pine Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource...... 11 Table 5. Pinyon-Juniper, Mahogany, Oak Brush and Mountain Shrub Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource...... 13 Table 6. Sagebrush/Grass Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource...... 14 Table 7. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Hydrology resource...... 16 Table 8. Total acres burned in West Valley Fire and percentage of total subwatershed acres burned in the Main Canyon, Mill Canyon and Water Canyon subwatersheds...... 16
1 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 9. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Fisheries resource...... 19 Table 10. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Wildlife resource...... 21 Table 11. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Trails resource...... 22 Table 12. Acres proposed for treatment...... 31 Table 13. Project system roads...... 32 Table 14. Project Design Features for all action alternatives...... 33 Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 38 Table 16. BlueSky Playgrounds estimated emission productions per 100 piles for the application of prescribed fire pile burning under the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2)...... 49 Table 17. Aquatic biota that are Dixie National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) and/or Intermountain Sensitive Species, whether they have suitable habitat within the project area, and if not why...... 51 Table 18. Riparian Level III monitoring study sites within the CEA through 2016, the years they were sampled, , their percent (% ) effective ground cover, their greenline successional rating (PNC = Potential Natural Community), their greenline bank stability rating, their trend (if available) and whether they met current Forest Plan objectives at their last reading...... 52 Table 19. Stream, location and bank stability and bank cover measurements collected using Multiple Indicator Monitoring methodology (Burton et al., 2011)...... 53 Table 20: Cumulative Effects Comparison by Alternative Using: Area Disturbed/Percent of Watershed Disturbed (refer to Hydrology and Soild Report: Appendix C Cumulative Effects Worksheets)...... 62 Table 21. Grazing Allotment and permitted use for the allotment within the Grass Valley Watershed Improvement Project...... 62 Table 22. Effects of the Modified Proposed Action on Wildlife and Plant Species and their habitat...... 74
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conifers interspersed with hydric and deciduous riparian species along Water Canyon...... 17 Figure 2. Cumulative Effects Area for aquatic habitat, boreal toad and MIS nonnative trout...... 54 55 Figure 3. Reservoir Canyon trail crossing looking upstream in September 2016...... 55 Figure 4. Reservoir Canyon trail crossing looking upstream in November 2018...... 55 Figure 5. Reservoir Canyon temperature probe location looking downstream September 2016...... 55 Figure 6. Reservoir Canyon temperature probe location looking downstream November 2018...... 55 Figure 7. Vicinity Map ...... 83 Figure 8. Inventoried Roadless Area Map ...... 84 Figure 9. Management Areas Map ...... 85 Figure 10. Vegetation Map ...... 86 Figure 11. Modified Proposed Action ...... 87 Figure 12. Transportation Map ...... 88
2 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1.1 Introduction The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment for the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The environmental assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found on the project website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45916; or in the project planning record located at the Pine Valley Ranger District Office in St. George, Utah.
1.2 Background The Grass Valley Creek Watershed, located in southern Utah, is within the Pine Valley Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest in Washington County. Grass Valley is approximately one mile north of Pine Valley, Utah, and approximately twelve miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15). A portion of the Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness is in the western part of the watershed. The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration project area encompasses the entire Grass Valley Creek hydrological unit code (HUC) 6 watershed, and a portion of the Pinto Creek HUC 6 watershed, and is approximately 21,568 acres (See Figure 7 Vicinity Map in Appendix A). The Forest Service offered a 30-day Opportunity to Comment on this Environmental Assessment (EA) on April 30, 2018. The EA included proposed actions in Alternative 2 for prescribed fire in the wilderness on 8,974 acres (Action 3); riparian treatments (Action 4) that included Mill Canyon, Reservoir Canyon and Main Canyon within the wilderness (157 acres); and Defensible Fire Area treatments (Action 7) on 651 acres in wilderness. All of Action 3 and the wilderness portion of Action 4 and Action 7 have been eliminated from the proposed actions due to the changed conditions caused by the West Valley fire. The West Valley fire started on June 27, 2018 caused by an abandoned campfire. Approximately 11,771 acres burned, the majority of that acreage being in the Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness. The discussion included in the April 2018 version of this Environmental Assessment regarding prescribed fire in the wilderness has been removed from this document to help improve clarity and to avoid redundancy. Over half (14,874 acres) of the project area is within the Pine Valley Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (See Figure 8 IRA Map in Appendix A), and there are 9,268 acres within the Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness. Prior to the West Valley fire, there were 14,373 acres proposed for treatment within the project area. Removing treatments proposed in the Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness from Action 3, Action 4, and Action 7 in Alternative 2 (the Modified Proposed Action) results in a total of 4,571 acres proposed for treatment (see Table 16, Acres Proposed for Treatment). There are approximately 1,412 acres of private inholdings within the project area. Although there are no actions proposed on private land for this project, the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands is engaged with private landowners on a separate fuels reduction project on private lands. In September 2011, the Dixie National Forest entered into a Challenge Cost Share Agreement with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to apply TNC’s Landscape Conservation ForecastingTM (LCFTM) process to the Pine Valley Ranger District. This process maps ecological systems and their vegetation classes, analyzes
3 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration threats to the landscape’s ecological integrity, and defines actions to improve ecological conditions and reduce hazards while providing multiple uses to the public. The LCFTM process includes satellite imagery, remote sensing, predictive ecological models, and cost-benefit assessments. Future conditions of the Pine Valley Ranger District’s major ecological systems, under alternative proposed management scenarios, were predicted with computer state-and-transition models. By combining such predicted future conditions with known current conditions, Forest managers can plan restoration and management actions to achieve management objectives within the constraints of realistic budgets (Tuhy et al., 2014). The complete report, Landscape Conservation ForecastingTM Pine Valley Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, may be found in Appendix B and is incorporated herein by reference. A series of interrelated ecological changes and management concerns have developed over a period of time in and around the Pine Valley Ranger District. Chief among these is the invasion, spread and proliferation of non-native annual grasses, particularly cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), through much of the lower and middle elevations of the District. This has created copious volumes of fine fuels that have contributed to significant increases in fire frequency and intensity in the past few decades. Not only has this degraded the ecological integrity of the affected vegetation communities, it has also led to large ignition risks and wildfire hazards to human populations and infrastructure – which have also increased dramatically around parts of the District (Tuhy et al., 2014). Increases in coverage of coniferous trees, primarily Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla and Pinus edulis) at middle elevations, and montane conifers at upper elevations, have degraded the ecological integrity of shrublands and forests. These out-of-balance buildups of conifers have also led to alteration of fire regimes and development of greater fire hazards (Tuhy et al., 2014). In addition, prior to the West Valley fire, the Grass Valley Creek watershed contained two core conservation populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) (BCT) in the streams associated with Reservoir Canyon and Water Canyon. Both these populations were small, disjunct populations at risk of extirpation from a large disturbance. During the past 20 years, wildfires (Sequoia, Sanford, Twitchell, and West Valley) in areas with high fuel loadings, disproportionate portions of vegetative communities in late successional stages, and poor riparian conditions, have resulted in significant negative impacts to core and conservation populations of BCT and their habitat in the Southern Geographic Management Unit (GMU). Populations that were most impacted lacked redundancy and resilience as defined by Haak, Williams, & Colyer (2011) and Haak & Williams (2012). In 2012 the BCT Range-wide Conservation team conducted a summer field tour to discuss wildfire impacts and possible ways to mitigate this threat. Recommendations from the Team were for Forest biologists to pursue proactive vegetation management projects that would both reduce the risk of uncharacteristically large, severe wildfires and improve the ability of riparian areas to buffer the effects of future disturbance impacts. The West Valley fire changed this condition. The resulting flooding and debris flows following the fire appear to have extirpated Bonneville cutthroat trout in Reservoir Canyon and the mixed Bonneville cutthroat trout/rainbow trout fishery in Main Canyon. Sampling in autumn 2018 found Bonneville cutthroat trout surviving in Water Canyon (Mike Hadley, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, personal communication). Starting in 2014, the Pine Valley Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest, using The Nature Conservancy data and field collected data, identified Grass Creek watershed as an area where proactive fuel reduction and vegetation management, an increase in water availability, and road and trail relocations could
4 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration increase ecosystem function and benefit wilderness character, BCT, wildlife habitat, and watershed conditions.
Project Area Description
The project’s legal description is: T38S R14W Sections 8-10, 14-17, 19-23, 26-36; T38S R15W Sections 25- 26, 35-36; T39S R14W Sections 1-20; T39S R15W Sections 1-2, 10-15 (See Figure 7 Vicinity Map in Appendix A). Access to the project area is by Forest Road (FR) 30011 and FR 30035.
1.3 Relationship to the Forest Plan This analysis incorporates by reference the direction provided in the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan)(Service, 1986). All resource plans are required to be consistent with the Forest Plan (16 U.S.C. 1604 (i)). The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and provides the overall guidance for management activities by specifying goals and objectives, desired future conditions, management direction, and standards and guidelines. All administrative activities affecting the National Forest must be based on the Forest Plan. The Management Areas map (see Figure 9 Management Areas Map Appendix A) displays Forest Plan Management Areas (MA) and the proposed treatments. The project area includes the following Forest Plan Management Areas: 1 (General Direction), 2A (Semiprimitive Recreation), 2B (Roaded natural Recreation), 4A (Fish and Aquatic Habitat), 6A (Livestock Grazing), and 8A (Wilderness). Guidance for development of the purpose and need for action came from the Forest Plan (USDA, 1986, as amended). Table 1 provides the acres for each management area within the project area.
Table 1. Management area and acres within the Grass Valley Creek Watershed project area Management Area Description Management Area Code Acres General Direction 1 1,413 Semiprimitive Recreation 2A 3,477 Roaded Natural Recreation 2B 5,743 Fish and Aquatic Habitat 4A 35 Livestock Grazing 6A 220 Wilderness 8A 9,268 Total 20,156 Private Inholdings 1,412 Total Project Area 21,568
Inventoried Roadless Areas Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) are those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000 (USDA, 2000b), and any subsequent update or revision of those maps through the land management planning process (36 CFR 294.11). The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration project area includes 14,874 acres of the Pine Valley Mountain IRA. No roads will be constructed for this project in IRA.
5 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
The 2001 Roadless Rule (36 CFR Part 294.13(b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2)) allows for the cutting or removal of timber in IRA’s with the following exemption: (ii) 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. Paragraph (b)(2) allows timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas when incidental to implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by this rule. Examples of these activities include, but are not limited to trail construction or maintenance; removal of hazard trees adjacent to classified roads for public health and safety reasons; fire line construction for wildland fire suppression or control of prescribed fire; survey and maintenance of property boundaries; other authorized activities such as ski runs and utility corridors; or for road construction and reconstruction where allowed by this rule.
Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670
Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 provides management direction for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals (FSM 2670). Forest Service policies for designated sensitive species (FSM 2670.32) states: • Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species.
Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout
The Forest Service is a partner in implementing the Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) (Lentsch et al., 2000). The Forest Service has committed to cooperate and assist in range-wide habitat enhancement, re-introduction, non-indigenous species control and monitoring projects on National Forest System (NFS) lands where appropriate. The Conservation Strategy directs signatories to: a) Protect the genetic integrity of Bonneville cutthroat trout populations. b) Expand Bonneville cutthroat trout populations and distribution through introduction and reintroduction from either transplanted or brood stock Bonneville cutthroat trout. Objectives: Maintain or restore water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems; Maintain or restore stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed; Maintain or restore riparian vegetation to: a) provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristics of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems; b) provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and aquatic zones;
6 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
c) help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristic of those under which the communities developed. Actions: Enhance and maintain habitat • Restore altered channel and habitat features to historic conditions. Actions may include stream bank stabilization, large woody debris introduction, and vegetation planting for improved riparian areas. • Restore natural hydraulic and sediment regimes, restore floodplain and riparian function, and expand available spawning and rearing habitat. This action includes securing instream flow needs through water acquisition or regulation. • Control and prevent the spread of whirling disease.
Utah Wildlife Action Plan (Utah Wildlife Action Plan Joint Team, 2015)
This plan lists inappropriate fire frequency and intensity as a high level threat for BCT and aspen-conifer ecosystems with the following as potential conservation actions: 2.3.14 Conduct upland vegetation treatments to restore characteristic upland vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings. 2.3.15 Conduct riparian vegetation treatments to restore characteristic riparian vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings. 2.3.17 Apply or allow more fire in habitats/locations where fire was historically more frequent or intense. The plan also lists channel downcutting as a high level threat to BCT, aquatic forested habitat, aquatic scrub/shrub habitat and riverine habitat with the following as potential conservation actions. 2.3.6 Restore aquatic habitat complexity. 2.3.8 Restore floodplain connectivity. 2.3.15 Conduct riparian vegetation treatments to restore characteristic riparian vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings.
1.4 Existing and Desired Conditions
Vegetation Vegetation types, termed ecological systems or biophysical systems (BpS) were mapped in the Landscape Conservation ForecastingTM Pine Valley Ranger District, Dixie National Forest (Tuhy et al., 2014) by conducting remote sensing of satellite imagery and ground truthing methods. The following vegetation types will be included in this analysis: • Montane sagebrush steppe (3,926 acres) • Curl-leaf mountain mahogany (5,159 acres) o About 566 acres of this vegetation type is within the defensible fire area. For the remaining acres, there are uncertain outcomes on treating this vegetation type due to the long regeneration and growth-rate of mahogany.
7 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
• Gambel oak-mountain shrub (1,237 acres) o About 148 acres of this vegetation type is within the defensible fire area. For the remaining acres, retention of this vegetation type is desired for wildlife benefits. • Pinyon-juniper (1,400 acres) • Aspen woodland (171 acres) • Ponderosa pine (3,044 acres) The following vegetation types, with departed acres shown, will not be carried forward in this analysis for the following reasons: • Aspen-mixed conifer (3,001 acres) o The West Valley fire burned this area. • Aspen-spruce/fir (1,479 acres) o The West Valley fire burned this area. • Mixed conifer (77 acres) o The West Valley fire burned this area. • Spruce-fir (18 acres) o The West Valley fire burned this area. • Basin big sagebrush-basin wildrye (26 acres), black sagebrush (198 acres), Wyoming big sagebrush (2 acres) o There is small representation and noncontiguous arrangement of these vegetation types in the project area. • Montane meadow (28 acres) o There is small representation of this vegetation type in the project area. • Montane riparian (6 acres) o There is small representation of this vegetation type in the project area, and it is desired to allow succession to older age class. • Mountain shrub-Stansbury cliffrose (0.2 acres) o There is small representation of this vegetation type in the project area, and it is desired to retain for wildlife benefits. • Mountain shrub-Utah serviceberry (191 acres) o It is desired to retain for wildlife benefits. • Wet meadow (67 acres) o It is desired to allow succession to older age class. Nature Conservancy Landscape Forecasting Summary The following table (Table 2) shows the potential acres that could be treated in each vegetation class that would move towards desired conditions for each biophysical setting (Bps). More detailed descriptions of the methods used to determine the biophysical settings (BpS) found in this analysis can be found in Tuhy et al. 2014. Also see Figure 10, Vegetation Map, in Appendix A.
8 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 2. Acres of Potential Treatment in each Vegetation Class Vegetation Class Departure from Desired Condition– Potential for Treatment (Acres) Montane Sagebrush Steppe 3749.0 Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany 2002.4 Gambel Oak-Mountain Shrub 361.1 Pinyon-Juniper 740.0 Ponderosa Pine 583.6 Aspen Woodland 162.0
Fire/Fuels
Aspen Woodland Fuels: Existing Condition The average total surface fuel loading is 6-12 tons per acre. Stand is trending towards late succession conditions where prolonged fire exclusion allows dominance by conifers. Existing conditions indicate that conifers will eventually replace many aspen stands leading to a loss of biodiversity. Fire: Existing Conditions Crown fire, spotting, and torching of individual and groups of trees are more frequent with conifer encroachment, leading to potential fire control difficulties and high resistance to control. Fuels: Desired Condition Early succession with 50-100% aspen cover. A mosaic of age classes across the landscape. Shrub, forb, and grass species typical of mesic sites are very diverse and plant cover is very high. Snags per acre in accordance with the Goshawk amendment. Fire: Desired Conditions Slow-burning ground fires with low flame lengths, isolated individual tree and small group torching with resultant moderate/low resistance to control. Only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds do the fuels pose fire hazards.
9 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 3. Aspen Woodland Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource. Aspen Woodland Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Fuels Conifer Percent cover Aspen at 3-5 tons Average total surface fuel Increase aspen encroachment. of aspen and per/acre. loading is 6-12 tons per cover, especially in the percent acre. the early Surface cover of successional stages. vegetation and conifer (TNC Reduce Conifer fuels Report). component. Restore composition, understory diversity loading and consistent with BPS distribution. classification. Reduce ladder fuels. Fire Flame length Percent area in Majority of area would Preliminary modeling using Reduce potential Flame length exhibit an average of 1 - existing conditions and 90th flame lengths, groups: 1-8 8 foot flame lengths and percentile fire weather Reduce potential foot and 8 foot 10% of area not suggests that 38% of this fire type. and greater. supporting fire. area would exhibit flame lengths averaging 8 foot and greater, 42 % would exhibit an average of 1 - 8 foot flame lengths and 10% of area not supporting fire. Resistance to Resistance to Crown fire, spotting, Crown fire, spotting, and Reduce resistance to control control. torching of individual torching of individual and control. and groups of trees are groups of trees are more limited to isolated frequent with this fuel discontinuous patches, situation, leading to leading to reduced fire potential fire control control difficulties and difficulties and high lower resistance to resistance to control. control. Increased resistance to DMC is fire adapted and control. resilient. At risk from negative fire effects.
Ponderosa Pine Fuels: Existing Condition Late succession where prolonged fire exclusion allows increase representation of understory conifer less than 17 ft. Due to lack of disturbance, levels of surface vegetation and fuels is uncharacteristically high. Fire: Existing Condition There are uncharacteristic levels of needle litter and dead and down surface fuels which increase fire behavior and risk of unwanted fire effects. Mixed severity surface fire with crowning, spotting, and torching of individual and groups of trees are more frequent with this fuel situation, leading to potential fire control difficulties and high resistance to control.
10 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Fuels: Desired Condition Majority of stand is late succession open. Open, park like forest with understory consisting of grasses, and a scattered mosaic of ladder fuels (forbs, shrubs and understory trees). Snags per acre in accordance with the Goshawk amendment. Fire: Desired Condition Frequent low intensity surface fire with occasional single or isolated group tree torching. Low resistance to control. Fine fuels (grasses and needles) are primary carrier of fire. Only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds do the fuels pose fire hazards.
Table 4. Ponderosa Pine Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource. Ponderosa Pine Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Fuels Conifer Ladder fuels Understory consisting Percent early encroachment of grasses, and a succession conifer scattered mosaic of cover in the early ladder fuels (forbs, successional stage A. shrubs and understory Increase ponderosa trees). pine in the mid-open succession stage C. Surface Surface fuels Surface fuels loads of Average total surface fuel Reduce surface and vegetation Conifer 5-7 tons per acre, where loading is 24.6 tons per acre. ladder fuels, especially and fuels encroachment fine fuels (grasses and Dead tree density averages 78 trees 9" and smaller. composition, needles) are the primary snags per acre, 69% of which, loading and carrier of fire. are 9” diameter size class or less. distribution. Live tree density average is 554 Ladder Fuels. trees per acre and trees less than 9” in diameter account for 88% (489 trees per acre) of the average per acre tree density. Fire Flame length. Flame length Majority of ponderosa Preliminary modeling using Reduce potential pine would exhibit an existing conditions and 90th flame lengths, Reduce average of 1 - 8 foot percentile fire weather suggests potential fire type. flame lengths and 10% that 37% of this area would of area not supporting exhibit flame lengths averaging fire. 8 foot and greater, 55% would exhibit an average of 1 - 8 foot flame lengths and 8% of area not supporting fire. Mixed severity surface fire with crowning, spotting, and torching of individual and groups of trees are more frequent with this fuel situation, leading to potential fire control difficulties and high resistance to control.
11 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Ponderosa Pine Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Fire type. Fire type. Crown fire, spotting, torching At risk from negative fire Reduce resistance to Resistance to Resistance to of individual and groups of effects. control. control. control. trees are limited to isolated discontinuous patches, leading to reduced fire control difficulties and lower resistance to control. Ponderosa pine is fire adapted and resilient.
Pinyon-Juniper, Mahogany, Oak Brush and Mountain Shrub Fuels: Existing Condition Area is dominated by late-succession with 21-60% cover of pinyon-juniper greater than 100 yrs. old. Herbaceous cover is less than 20%, often with greater than 5% cheatgrass. Pinyon-juniper has spread into the mountain shrub community. Fire: Existing Condition Historic fire suppression and lack of management activities has led to continuous closed canopy pinyon- juniper. This becomes a fire hazard under dry, windy conditions, which leads to uncharacteristically large, intense wildland fires and limits fire management decision space. Mixed severity surface fire with crowning, spotting, and torching of individual and groups of trees are more frequent with this fuel situation, leading to potential fire control difficulties and high resistance to control. “Fires would have historically prevented or slowed the spread of pinyon-juniper and sagebrush into the mountain shrub community, but attempted fire exclusion have allowed for their encroachment” (USDA, 2000c). Fire exclusion and livestock grazing may be responsible for the expansion of oak on bench lands and lower slopes. Despite the lack of fire, stand structures and conditions are sustainable and viable statewide” (USDA, 2000c). Fuels: Desired Condition Pinyon-juniper in open stands, understories are diverse and productive. A mosaic of stands of different sizes and ages across the landscape occurring in habitats that provide partial protection for fire, such as rocky sites or ridges. Regeneration is consistent with seral stage. Mountain shrub, especially mountain mahogany and Gambel oak, reduced in mosaics of seral stages to its reference condition with of patches with grass/forb interspaces. Fire: Desired Condition Open heterogeneous stands of discontinuous pinyon-juniper with a varied understory dominated by native grasses. Establish and maintain seral stage mosaics in the mountain shrub communities which result in an acceptable hazard and spread potential of wildfire, and allows an appropriate wildfire management response. Restore the historic fire regime.
12 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
A mosaic of pinyon-juniper and mountain shrub in varying age classes with perennial grass/forb patches. This will allow firefighters to work around and catch fire between more flammable patches of brush. Table 5. Pinyon-Juniper, Mahogany, Oak Brush and Mountain Shrub Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource. Pinyon-Juniper, Mahogany, Oak Brush and Mountain Shrub Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Fuels Conifer Percent Pinyon/juniper in open, Dominated by late- Reduce continuous encroachment. pinyon- savannah-like or confined to succession 21-60% cover of canopy and stand Surface juniper rocky sites or ridges. pinyon greater than 100 yrs. density on pinyon- Mountain shrub, especially old. Herbaceous cover is vegetation and canopy cover juniper. Restore a mountain mahogany and less than 20%, often with > fuels (5-60%). Gambel oak, reduced if 5% cheatgrass. mosaic of successional composition, Discontinuous necessary to its reference Pinyon-juniper has spread stages with grass and loading and spatial condition range in a mosaic of into the mountain shrub shrub understory, distribution. arrangement patches with grass/forb community. especially in the early Percent annual interspaces. Average total surface fuel successional stages. grass cover. loading is 2.68 tons per Reduce trees per acre, acre. Dead Number of especially in the 9" tree density averages 90 trees per/acre. snags per acre, 92% of and less size classes. which, are 9” diameter size Restore brush/shrub class or less. to a mosaic of Live tree density average is successional stages 456 trees per acre and trees with grass and shrub less than 9” in diameter understory, especially account for 81% (373 trees in the early per acre) of the average per acre tree density. successional stages. Fire Flame length. Flame length Open heterogeneous stands of Preliminary modeling using Reduce potential Fire type. Fire type discontinuous pinyon-juniper existing conditions and 90th flame lengths, reduce Resistance to Resistance to with a varied understory percentile fire weather potential fire type. control. control. dominated by native grasses. suggests that 49% of this Reduce resistance to Establish and maintain seral area would exhibit flame control. stage mosaics in the mountain lengths averaging 8 foot and shrub communities which greater, 42% would exhibit result in an acceptable hazard an average of 1 - 8 foot and spread potential of flame lengths, and 9% of wildfire, and allows an area not supporting fire. appropriate wildfire Mixed severity surface fire management response. with crowning, spotting, and Historic fire regime. torching of individual and A mosaic of pinyon-juniper groups of trees are more and mountain shrub in varying frequent with this fuel age classes with perennial situation, leading to grass/forb patches. This will potential fire control allow firefighters to work difficulties and high around and catch fire between resistance to control. more flammable patches of At risk from negative fire brush. effects.
13 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Sagebrush/Grass Fuels: Existing Condition These vegetation types are late seral and dominated by uncharacteristic vegetation with from 5% to over 15% cheatgrass cover. Pinyon pine and juniper are encroaching, occasionally reaching greater than 30% canopy cover. Fire: Existing Condition The presence of cheatgrass is shortening the fire frequency and leading to a type conversion from sagebrush communities to annual grasslands. Mixed severity surface fire with torching of individual and groups of brush and encroaching trees are more frequent with this fuel situation, leading to potential fire control difficulties and high resistance to control. Cheatgrass provides a continuous fine fuel bed that is flammable early in the season and facilitates rapid fire spread and large fire growth and alters the fire regime to one where fires burn more frequently. Fuels: Desired Condition Vegetative patterns create discontinuous clumps that limit fire spread. Fire: Desired Condition Establish and maintain vegetation mosaic of perennial grasses and sagebrush in the Basin big sagebrush communities which result in an acceptable hazard and spread potential of wildfire, and allows an appropriate wildfire management response. Perennial grasses are more fire resistant. Their typical bunch-grass growth form inhibits fire spread by breaking up horizontal continuity, and fuel moistures remain higher longer in the season.
Table 6. Sagebrush/Grass Existing and Desired Conditions for the Fuels resource. Sagebrush/Grass Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Fuels Vegetation Mosaic patches A landscape This vegetation type Restore a mosaic of succession of successional dominated by is dominated by successional stages stages. stages. perennial grasses with uncharacteristic especially in the early a mix of sage brush in vegetation with 5- Fuels Percent successional stages. proper successional 14% cheatgrass composition, cheatgrass cover. age classes. cover. Pinyon pine Remove cheatgrass loading and and juniper are component. distribution. encroaching - occasionally reaching 50% canopy cover.
Fire Fire frequency. Flame length. Restore/maintain fire Increased fire Reduce potential Resistance to Resistance to frequency. frequency. flame lengths. control. control. Lower resistance to Increased resistance Reduce resistance to control. to control. control. At risk from negative fire effects.
14 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Wildand Urban Interface (WUI) Fuels / Fire Existing Condition There has been minimal, if any, vegetation treatments implemented within the project area that would modify vegetation in a manner or scale sufficient to reduce fuels and/or fire hazard, particularly near the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area, immediately adjacent to the Forest Service boundary. The project area and WUI portion thereof, is comprised of continuous late succession vegetation that leads to high intensity, large scale fires and increases risk to suppression forces and adjacent landowners. Potential high fire intensity and large scale fire near WUI limits fire managers decision options (generally full suppression) when providing for fire fighter and public safety along with protection of resource and infrastructure values. The majority of the project area, and particularly the WUI area, has limited ground based fire equipment accessibility. This puts limitations on available fire suppression resources and fire management tactics resulting in increased fire management incident response times and safety considerations. Fuels /Fire Desired Condition The project area and WUI portion thereof, is comprised of a mosaic of early, mid and late succession vegetation, where the variations in vegetation seral stages provide barriers to large fire spread and large areas of high intensity. Within the project area this reduces the risk of large scale, high intensity fire and creates increased fire management decision space and safety for firefighters and the public. Within the WUI area, the creation and maintenance of a Defensible Fire Area (DFA) to strategically arrange or place early, mid and late successional vegetation treatments in a mosaic pattern to reduce fire intensity and impede fire flow paths within the DFA (toward or away from adjacent areas and/or ownerships). Strategically breaking up the vegetation successional stages to limit fire intensity and spread results in conditions that promote a safe and effective wildfire response, improve landscape resiliency, and create fire adapted communities as described in the National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy (USDA and USDOI, 2014).
Hydrology
Existing Condition Currently there are damaged wetlands adjacent to spring and stream channels in Mill Creek, Water Canyon, Main Canyon and Reservoir Canyon. Trail grades in Water Canyon and Mill Canyon are greater than 7%. Desired Condition Watershed Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic and biotic integrity relative to their ecological capability. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses. This allows a level of stability to develop that permits the stream channel and associated watershed area to absorb and reduce impacts from storm and runoff energies without producing rapid erosional changes in the system.
15 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Wetlands Riparian wetland plant communities found in conjunction with perennial, ephemeral and intermittent waters, including vernal pools are healthy, self-perpetuating and contain a diverse mix of desired species in varied structural stages. These communities are capable of maintaining themselves during dry periods and are resistant to rapid change from large disturbances such as floods and fire. The sponge filter system associated with the wetlands is storing and releasing enough water to maintain flows in streams throughout the forest. Stream Channels and Floodplains Stream channels and their floodplains are hydrologically linked and are in balance with climate, geology, soil, water, wildlife, vegetation and management. Streams and floodplains exhibit a stability which although subject to change from large flood events and has the ability to rebound quickly to something resembling its former condition with respect to crossectional area, slope, vegetative cover and substrate size and distribution. Table 7 describes the existing/desired conditions, and the need for change for the Hydrology resource.
Table 7. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Hydrology resource. Element Measure Desired Existing Need for Change Soil erosion and % Trail grade Trail grade ≤7% 15%+ 8% gullying Bank and ground % Bank stability ˃80% bank stability 80% Current data indicates that alteration and trails All trails constructed bank stability is on the margin within 100 ft. of with a 100 ft. buffer of being below our minimum channel objective
Fisheries
Existing Condition Changes to the existing condition include the West Valley Fire which burned approximately 11,771 acres (Table 8). The resulting flooding and debris flows following the fire appear to have extirpated Bonneville cutthroat trout in Reservoir Canyon and the mixed Bonneville cutthroat trout/rainbow trout fishery in Main Canyon. Sampling in autumn 2018 found Bonneville cutthroat trout surviving in Water Canyon (Mike Hadley, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, personal communication).
Table 8. Total acres burned in West Valley Fire and percentage of total subwatershed acres burned in the Main Canyon, Mill Canyon and Water Canyon subwatersheds. Subwatershed Acres Acres High Moderate Low burned severity (%) severity (%) severity (%) Main Canyon 8,818 3,311 7 26 4 Mill Canyon 8,226 3,459 5 29 8 Water Canyon 3,994 92 0 1.6 0.6
Water Canyon contains remnant, core, conservation populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) and these populations are identified as core populations in the Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for BCT.
16 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Habitat in the stream is marginal and is limited by flow volume and habitat quality. BCT standing crop is variable but considerably below average when compared to other southern Utah trout streams. In areas where flow volume is an issue (primarily downstream the Middle Fork confluence) ameliorating other habitat issues, sedimentation, water temperature stream channel configuration) would improve the ability of BCT to expand into and persist in these areas. Water Canyon pebble counts showed 29% of the substrate being covered by fine sediments (< 3.2mm). Water Canyon riparian vegetation is meeting objectives along the greenline as of 2015; however, two previous trend points show that the vegetation has improved from being early seral in 2005 to late and mid seral in 2010. Off the greenline visual observations show little hydric vegetation and a scarcity of riparian woody browse. Downstream from the confluence with the Middle Fork observations off the greenline show that upland vegetation has moved into the historic floodplain on the first terrace as well as the active floodplain. Vegetation typing from The Nature Conservancy’s Landscape Conservation Forecasting typed very little vegetation surrounding Water Canyon as riparian indicating that hydric species generally did not dominate widths of 5 meters (pixel resolution) surrounding the stream (Tuhy et al., 2014). Data from this exercise shows stream side vegetation communities dominated by basin big sagebrush, mountain mahogany, Gambel oak- mountain shrub and montane sagebrush-steppe communities. Downstream from the confluence with Reservoir Canyon visual observations indicate that upland vegetation has moved into the historic floodplain on the first terrace as well as the active floodplain in some cases completely underlying and growing into the canopies of legacy cottonwood galleries (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conifers interspersed with hydric and deciduous riparian species along Water Canyon.
17 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
The Forest Service Watershed Condition Class Assessment currently shows the Grass Creek 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code watershed as Functioning at Risk.
Desired Condition Desired condition for BCT across the Forest is to maintain and improve the amount of existing occupied habitat for conservation populations, as well as maintain recruitment and population size structure. Within the Southern Geographic Management Unit the desire is to maintain the representation of unique genetic lineages and to provide redundancy and resiliency for those lineages (Lentsch et al., 2000; Haak et al., 2011). Desired conditions for riparian areas are for them to be healthy and viable, having mostly riparian dependent species that are healthy and vigorous. Riparian areas should be, at a minimum, meeting Forest Plan objectives for late seral vegetation communities along the greenline, bank stability effective ground cover and trend. No more than 25% of stream substrate should be covered by inorganic sediment less than 3.2 mm in size. Within portions of Water Canyon that are in the Fish Habitat emphasis Management Area, desired conditions stream channel stability to be maintained or improved to at least minimally acceptable standards. Forest cover types should consist of healthy stands that provide tree cover and high water quality to maintain and enhance wildlife and fish habitat. Ground cover should be maintained at least 80% of potential within 100 feet from the edges of all perennial streams, lakes and other water bodies, or to the outer margin of the riparian ecosystem, where wider than 100 feet. Delineated 7th Field HUC watersheds for Water Canyon should be functioning properly. That is to say they have minimal undesirable human impact on affecting their natural, physical, or biological processes, and are resilient and able to recover to the desired condition when disturbed by large natural disturbances or land management activities. Resilient watersheds would not have an elevated risk of large uncharacteristic wildfire. Table 13 describes the existing/desired conditions, and the need for change for the Fisheries resource.
18 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 9. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Fisheries resource. Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Occupied stream Distributional Maximum miles known or Water Canyon – Water Canyon – 1.2km kilometers electrofishing able to maintain self- 1.2km Water Canyon population BCT standing crop – stream sustaining BCT in these two (Hadley et al., has a standing crop 54 kilometers streams. Estimated at 1.2-2.9 2011b) kg/ha below average for Depletion km for Water Canyon southern Utah electrofishing Standing crop > 65kg/ha, – kg/ha which is average for southern Utah trout streams (Hepworth and Beckstrom, 2004) Fine sediment Wolman No more than 25% of stream 29% Reduce the amount of fine deposition pebble count substrate should be covered sediment generation into by inorganic sediment less Water Canyon. than 3.2 mm in size. (IV-33) Bank stability Multiple Maintain 50% or more of 80% Current data indicates that Indicator total stream bank length in bank stability is on the Monitoring stable condition. margin of being below our Best available science would minimum objective. In indicate that bank stability order to improve habitat along Water Canyon should capability bank stability be greater than 80%. would need to be maintained and improved from its current state. Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change % late seral vegetation Level II The minimum objective for Water Canyon - The difference between along the greenline Riparian the site is 60% of potential 53% late seral current late seral Inventory late seral vegetation along the vegetation along vegetation along the greenline (51% for Water the greenline greenline and the potential Canyon). Expected potential is 29%. later seral vegetation along the greenline would be 82%.
Upland vegetation Ocular 0 (unless identified as Water Canyon - Reduce conifer succession succeeding into estimation contributing >20% into areas that should be riparian area (% and Level II disproportionately to bank dominated by hydric and Pinyon-Juniper Within Riparian stability) deciduous riparian species 100 feet from either Inventory. by 20%-50% side of the stream.)
19 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Wildlife
Existing Condition The Nature Conservancy data indicates “the aspen woodland system exhibits complete (100%) unified ecological departure at the current time.” Therefore, most of the aspen woodland is in the depleted class. There is a risk of losing these aspen clones permanently. This aspen type is being heavily encroach by mixed conifer. Currently there are approximately 2.4 snags (>8” DBH) per/acre and zero downed logs per/acre. Pinyon-juniper encroachment exists within the montane sagebrush steppe and Gambel oak-mountain shrub vegetation types within the Wood Bench and Grass Valley areas. The existing pinyon-juniper encroachment in these areas would be considered an early co-dominant phase II stage (Tausch, 2009). This encroachment reduces the amount of quality foraging habitat for wildlife. Currently there are limited water resources in the Wood Bench area. Most ponds in the surrounding area only hold water for small portions of the year. Wildlife uses the private property to the south (Rencher Ranch area) to water. Desired Condition Within the aspen woodland vegetation type it is desired to stimulate aspen regrowth to promote healthy clones in uneven age classes. It is desired to have approximately three snags (>8” DBH) per/acre and five downed logs per acre (USDA, 2000d). Within the montane sagebrush steppe and Gambel oak-mountain shrub vegetation types it is desired to have a mosaic of openings (created and natural) within the matrix of pinyon-juniper. This promotes species diversity and composition of grasses, forbs and shrubs surrounded by mature stands of pinyon-juniper vegetation types. It is desired to restore a valuable water resource for wildlife within the Wood Bench area. The availability of water in this area is critical during the fawning season and throughout the summer. Creating a water source on the north end of Wood Bench would help draw some use off of the private property, and provide a year round drinking source for wildlife in crucial mule deer summer habitat.
20 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 10. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Wildlife resource. Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Encroaching Percent Within the Montane There is approximately 43% To increase the pinyon- cover of Sagebrush Steppe vegetation within the Shrub-Annual- structural diversity juniper in desired plant type: move towards Grass-Perennial Grass Class. of grass, shrub and previous composition. approximately 20% of area in Approximately 12% within the herbaceous treated areas Early: 10-80% grass and forb Seeded-Introduced-Early-Mid- vegetation. and lack of cover. Closed + Annual Grass Class. openings in 44% of area in Mid-Open: Approximately 24% within the the overall 11-30% cover of mountain Seeded-Introduced-Mid-Open pinyon- brush. + Annual grass class. juniper 23% of area in Mid-Closed: And approximately matrix. 31-50% cover of mountain 13% in Tree-Encroached- brush/herbaceous cover. Annual-Grass Class. 10% of area in Late-Open: 10-30% pinyon-juniper cover Wildlife Distance and To install one water resource Wildlife in the area are heavily Currently lack of water source availability on the north end of Wood using the private property to reliable water (guzzler) to reliable Bench. the south of Wood Bench to resources. Desired water water. Nearest steam is South value of having resources. Fork Pinto Creek adequate water approximately 1.5 miles west resources to provide of proposed water resource optimal habitat and site. distribution.
Trails
Existing Condition There are four sections of trail that need reroutes due to steep grades (25% +) and soil type. • Water Canyon Trail: Prior to entering the wilderness, as the trail approaches Reservoir Creek, and as the trail climbs out of Bare Flat. • White Rocks Trail: Where the trail climbs from Wood Bench to Rosebud Spring. Desired Condition Trails in the project area will meet or trend towards meeting Trail Management Objectives and reduce impacts to the biophysical setting. Table 11 describes the existing/desired conditions, and the need for change for the Trails resource.
21 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 11. Existing/desired conditions, and need for change for the Trails resource. Element Measure Desired Value Existing Value Need for change Trail grade and Reduction of Tread Tread Trail grade and trail drainage features erosion and Design Grades: Target Design Grades: Target cross-slope that are reduced Grade: 3% – 12% Grade: 3% – 12% appropriate for maintenance needs. Short Pitch Max: 20% Short Pitch Max: 25+ the soil type. Max Pitch Density: 5% Max Pitch Density: – 15% of trail 10% – 25% of trail Design Cross Slope: Design Cross Slope: Target: 3% – 5% Target: 0% – 5% Max: 8% Max: 12%
1.5 Purpose and Need for Action The overall objective of the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration project is to improve the resiliency of ecological systems that are currently threatened and in an undesirable state; and to reduce risk to natural and cultural resources, and infrastructure from wildfire. Based on the analysis of existing and desired conditions, and the gap between them, the purpose of this project is to: 1) Improve ecosystem function by maintaining or improving the overall ecological condition of the major native vegetation types, and reduce, to the extent possible, the expansion of “high-risk” vegetation classes in the Grass Valley Creek Watershed. High risk vegetation is defined as difficult or expensive to treat successfully, such as invasive annual grasses;
2) Create conditions to maintain and improve riparian areas and streams, which will benefit Bonneville cutthroat trout and other wildlife species;
3) Comply with Executive Order Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and 11988 (Floodplain Management);
4) Maintain and enhance the quality of habitat for wildlife outside the wilderness area;
5) Reduce wildfire hazard to National Forest resources and to human settlements and infrastructure (WUI) in and around the Grass Valley Creek Watershed;
This purpose translates into the following specific needs: A. In order to improve ecosystem function, there is a need for vegetation treatments designed to restore and maintain ecosystems, maintain structural diversity, and control insect infestation and disease. In order to reduce the likelihood of future undesirable effects from wildfire, there is a need to reduce the amount of fuel loading, remove unwanted competing conifer, and increase vegetative patchiness promoting small openings within these stands restoring a mix of early, mid, and late seral stages (see Figure 10, Vegetation Map in Appendix A). i. There is a need to modify vegetation on ~171 acres within the aspen woodland type (345 acre area) in the project area promoting a mosaic of vegetation classes (seral/structural stages) to allow for fire to function as an ecological process on the landscape;
22 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
ii. There is a need to modify vegetation on ~3,040 acres of ponderosa pine vegetation type in the project area promoting a mosaic of vegetation classes (seral/structural stages) to allow for fire to function as an ecological process on the landscape. B. In order to maintain or improve desired mountain shrub, sagebrush and grassland vegetation types and create a more diverse mix of grasses/forbs, shrubs, and fauna, there is a need to reduce conifer density and limit invasive annual grasses in the Montane sagebrush steppe areas; C. In order to maintain and enhance habitat for Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT) and fulfill the Intermountain Region’s commitment to the Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, there is a need to: (1) reduce fine sediment deposition into Water Canyon; (2) maintain and improve the amount of later seral riparian vegetation within the riparian areas along Water Canyon; and (3) move select upland and riparian vegetation communities back toward their proper functioning conditions; D. In order to decrease erosion generated from trails, there is a need to relocate short sections of system trails (White Rocks Trail and Water Canyon Trail) to meet Forest Service trail standards and reduce the amount of fine sediment generation into streams. E. As mandated by Executive Order 11990 and 11988, there is a need to re-locate a section of FR 3396 above Grass Valley Reservoir to protect wetlands and floodplains. F. In order to maintain and improve viable management indicator species (MIS) populations as outlined in the Forest Plan, and to decrease deer usage of water resources on private property, there is a need to provide a water development along the northwest side of the Wood Bench area. G. In order to reduce wildfire hazard to National Forest resources and to human settlements and infrastructure in and around the Grass Valley Creek Watershed there is a need to: i. Restore and maintain the characteristics of healthy ecosystem composition and structure to reduce the risk of unwanted wildfire effects, to within a range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. ii. Modify the current vegetation communities to more heterogeneous mosaics across the landscape creating a healthier forest with higher resiliency to disturbance.
1.6 Modified Proposed Action The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are as follows (a detailed description of the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2) can be found in Chapter 2):
Action 1: Aspen Woodland Treatment (345 acres) Action 2: Pinyon-Juniper Removal Treatments (3,214 acres) Action 3: Prescribed Fire – Action removed from the Modified Proposed Action due to the West Valley fire Action 4: Riparian Treatments (Fisheries/Vegetation) (90 acres) The Mill and Main Canyon treatments originally proposed in this action were removed due to the changed conditions following the West Valley fire Action 5: Road and Trail Relocation Action 6: Guzzler (Wildlife)
23 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Action 7: Defensible Fire Area (DFA) (Vegetation/Fuels) (922 acres) The wilderness treatment acres were removed from this action due to the changed conditions after the West Valley fire
1.7 Decision Framework The Responsible Official for this analysis and decision is the Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest. Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:
The Responsible Official will decide whether to implement the Modified Proposed Action as described, a modification thereof, another alternative, or No Action; or whether further analysis is needed through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The Environmental Assessment will be made available for administrative review before the final decision is made per Forest Service Objection Regulations at 36 CFR 218 subparts A and B.
1.8 Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policy The following laws, regulations and policy were considered as part of the environmental analysis for the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Project: See Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and resource specialist reports located on the project website.
• National Environmental Policy Act • National Forest Management Act • National Historic Preservation Act • Archaeological Resources Protection Act • Clean Water Act • Endangered Species Act • Wilderness Act • 2001 Roadless Rule • Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management • Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands • Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice • Executive Order 13186 Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species • Forest Service Manual 2670 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals • Forest Service Manual 2300 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management • Dixie National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan 1986, as amended • Utah Smoke Management Plan • Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout • Utah Wildlife Action Plan
24 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
1.9 Public Involvement The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Project was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in December 2014. Scoping The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Project was available for a 45-day public scoping period from June 1 to July 13, 2017. This scoping notice was mailed to a list of 62 Federal, State and local elected officials, Tribal governments and interested parties. A legal notice announcing the scoping period was published in The Spectrum, newspaper of record, on June 1, 2017. Notice of Opportunity to Comment A 30-day Notice of Opportunity to Comment period was offered from April 30 to May 30, 2018. A letter announcing the comment period was mailed to 103 Federal, State and local elected officials, Tribal governments, and interested parties. A legal notice announcing the comment period was published in The Spectrum, newspaper of record, on April 30th, 2018. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-key issues and reasons regarding their categorization may be found in the Comment Analysis, included in the project record on the project website https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45916. Public Meetings Two public meetings were be held during the scoping period: • Pine Valley, Utah. June 6th at the Pine Valley Fire Station from 6:00-8:00 p.m. • New Harmony, Utah. June 8th at the New Harmony Fire Station from 6:00-8:00 p.m.
1.10 Issues Scoping Period - June 1 to July 13, 2017 Five letters were received and 29 comments were extracted from the letters. The Interdisciplinary Team reviewed all comments to identify issues for this proposal. The comment analysis may be found in the project record and on the project website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45916. The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: Key and Non-Key issues. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-Key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, or policy; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; 5) general comment, opinion, or position statement; 6) comment is part of the Proposed Action/Purpose and Need; 7) comment is a component of the Environmental Document and/or Project Record.
Comments identifying a concern to be addressed and tracked through the analysis were be designated as: 8) Comment identifies important concern and is designated “Non-Key Issue” to be addressed as Project Design Feature.
25 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
9) Comment identifies important concern and is designated “Key Issue” to be addressed as an Alternative or component of a current Alternative. There were no Key Issues or Non-Key Issues identified during the scoping period.
30-Day Notice of Opportunity to Comment Period - April 30 to May 30, 2018
During this comment period 2,861 letters were received. The letters were identified as a form, duplicate, or unique letter. A form letter is a standardized letter with the same comment(s), and 2,708 of the letters received were in this category. A duplicate is an identical copy of a letter received from the same person or entity, and 149 of the letters were in this category. A unique letter is neither a form letter nor a duplicate, and four letters were in this category.
Comments were extracted from the letters and coded into issue/action categories. Form letters having identical comments were placed in the same category and counted as one comment. The following table lists the issue/action category and number of comments received in each category:
Table 12.Number of Comments in Each Coded Category Code # Code Name Comment Count 102 No Further Response Required - General Position 103 110.04 Laws, Policies 5 141.03 Invasive Vegetation Treatment 3 142 Timber Management 14 143 Wildlife/Animals Management 2 150 Transportation Management System 3 171 Land Designations/ Management - Wilderness 14 171.01 Roadless Areas 2 Total Comments 146
All of the General Position comments were in regards to prescribed fire and vegetation treatments in the Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness. Due to the West Valley Fire in 2018, the wilderness treatments proposed in Action 3, Action 4, and Action 7 were all removed in the Modified Proposed Action due to changed conditions in the project area.
Comments in relation to law and policy included opposing only one action alternative. The Forest Service considered an alternative that fit the purpose and need of the project. No additional alternatives were identified through the public scoping process. In addition, comments were received on considering opposing views regarding science. The Forest Service systematically reviews and considers opposing views where applicable to the proposal. The Forest Service uses high quality information and science as part of the analysis.
The comments received related to invasive vegetation treatments opposed the use of glyphosate, the chemical used in Roundup and similar herbicides. The use of herbicides for the control of noxious weeds, forest-wide has been analyzed and approved through the Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management on the Dixie National Forest in April of 2000. Therefore, analyzing the use of glyphosate is outside the scope of the Grass Valley Watershed Restoration project.
26 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
The wildlife comments were in regards to the effects on migratory birds. Migratory birds were analyzed in the Wildlife Specialist report, located in the project record on the project website. The Project Design Feature WL-6 was designed to protect migratory birds.
The transportation management system comments were concerning the unauthorized route of 0.5 miles discussed in this proposal. The unauthorized route is located on the west side of Grass Valley reservoir and is not located in an inventoried roadless area or wilderness. The unauthorized route is slated for obliteration.
Comments specific to land designations, specifically the Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness, opposed the use of prescribed fire and vegetation treatment in the wilderness area. Due to the West Valley Fire in 2018, the wilderness treatments proposed in Action 3, Action 4, and Action 7 were all removed in the Modified Proposed Action due to changed conditions in the project area.
Roadless area comments were concerned with the building of roads or temporary roads in the Inventoried Roadless Area to achieve project objectives. There are no new or temporary roads proposed in this project. See Section 2.2.3 Transportation Plan.
The full comment analysis is available for review in the project record on the project website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45916.
27 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Modified Proposed Action 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service analyzed two alternatives, the No Action Alternative and Modified Proposed Action Alternative, in response to issues raised by the Interdisciplinary Team and the public.
2.2.1 Alternative 1
2.2.1.1 No Action Under the no action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. The existing conditions and processes described in Chapter 1 will continue.
2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action The actions proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are as follows: Action 1: Aspen Woodland Treatment (345 acres) • Mechanically remove small diameter conifer trees on 345 acres of aspen woodland outside of the wilderness area using chainsaws. The 345 acre treatment polygon includes 88 acres of the aspen vegetation class scattered throughout. In this case, these treatments will be focused on reducing the composition of conifer trees within these stands in order to help protect the health and vigor of the remaining large over-story trees. Stands will be fenced after treatment to prevent livestock browsing. This treatment will remove mid-level ladder fuels, reducing the potential for an active crown fire under 90th percentile weather conditions. These treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan and create conditions where surface fire intensities may be increased but crown fire potential is reduced providing greater decision space for fire managers. This action responds to purpose 1, 2, and need A. Action 2: Pinyon-Juniper Removal Treatments (3,214 acres) • Aerial seed and mechanically treat encroaching pinyon-juniper within the Wood Bench, Dry Flat, and Grass Valley areas leaving clumps and islands of trees (groups of 7 or more) dispersed throughout the area to maintain hiding cover. Treatments will consist of motorized mechanical activities such as mechanical mastication and bull hog on slopes up to 30%. On slopes greater than 30% or areas inaccessible by motorized machinery, hand cutting with chainsaws will be used. These treatments would allow for and include the maintenance of desired vegetative conditions within the
28 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
area to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the pinyon-juniper woodlands and shrublands lack species diversity. This lack of diversity allows more surface runoff to occur and less infiltration causing more sedimentation to the streams. Pinyon-juniper treatments are designed to increase species diversity, decrease the presence of annual grasses (cheatgrass), and promote infiltration thus helping to improve water quality within the Grass Valley watershed. • Mechanically remove encroaching conifers in the ponderosa pine stringers in the Wood Bench and Dry Bench areas. Treatments will consist of motorized mechanical activities such as bull hog on slopes up to 30 %. On slopes greater than 30% or areas inaccessible by motorized machinery, hand cutting with chainsaws will be used. These treatments will focus on removing ladder fuels and help protect the health and vigor of ponderosa pine stands. This treatment will remove mid-level ladder fuels, reducing the potential for an active crown fire under 90th percentile weather conditions. The treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan and create conditions where surface fire intensities may be increased but crown fire potential is reduced providing decision space for fire managers. This action responds to purpose 1, 5, and need A, B, and G. Action 3: Prescribed Fire – treatments were removed from the Modified Proposed Action due to the West Valley Fire Action 4: Riparian Treatments (Fisheries/Vegetation) (90 acres) • Remove encroaching conifers in the Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) (100 feet slope distance; 200 feet including both sides of the stream channel) of Water Canyon downstream from the wilderness boundary (2.54 stream miles) and in Bark Hollow downstream of the wilderness boundary (1.24 stream miles) where they are impairing riparian woody vegetation establishment.
o Within the AMZ, but outside of riparian influence zones, tracked machinery with mastication heads may be used to remove trees. Riparian influence zones will include the area from the edges of the active stream channel to whichever of the following widths is most appropriate, based on landform: . To the top of the inner gorge; . To the outer edges of the riparian vegetation; . To a 100 feet slope distance (200 feet, including both sides of the stream channel).
o Trees will be hand thinned within the riparian influence zone (inner gorge), lopped and scattered. • Treatments will rearrange mid-level ladder fuels to a surface fuel, reducing the potential for an active crown fire under 90th percentile weather conditions. The treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan and create conditions where surface fire intensities may be increased, but crown fire potential is reduced providing decision space for fire managers. • The Main Canyon proposed treatments were removed from this action due to the West Valley fire. • The Reservoir Canyon proposed treatments were removed from this action due to the West Valley fire • The Mill Canyon proposed treatments were removed from this action due to the West Valley fire.
29 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
This action responds to purpose 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and need A and C. Action 5: Road and Trail Relocation • Re-locate 0.28 miles of FR 3396 East of its current location to provide access to a dispersed campsite and obliterate 0.48 miles of the existing FR 3396 road template (see Figure 11 Modified Proposed Action). In addition, obliterate 0.47 miles of user-created route located within the high water level of Grass Valley Reservoir. • Re-route three sections of the Water Canyon Trail 31024 (0.34 miles, 0.05 miles, and 0.15 miles), 1.25 miles of the White Rocks Trail 31014, and 0.75 miles of the Cut-Off Trail 31038. Trails will be re-routed within the same area, but to a location with better grade. This action responds to purpose 3, 4, C, D, and need E. Action 6: Guzzler (Wildlife) • Install a 10,000 gallon or greater wildlife guzzler that may include: large apron, holding tanks, pipeline, drinker box, trough and a fenced enclosure. Total area is approximately ¼ acre on the northwest end of Wood Bench. This action responds to purpose 5 and need F. Action 7: Defensible Fire Area (DFA) (Vegetation/Fuels) (922 acres) Create an area adjacent to private land of reduced vegetation density and fuel loading to limit potential fire behavior. These treatments will lower potential wildfire flame lengths under 90th percentile weather conditions and reduce the risk of active crown fires. The treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan and create safer conditions and more opportunities for firefighters to engage in necessary suppression actions under reduced fire behavior adjacent to private property. In addition, these treatments will provide additional opportunities to allow fire to function as an ecological process with reduced risk to values outside the wilderness. Treatments will consist of motorized activities such as mastication and bull hog on slopes up to 30%. On slopes greater than 30% or areas inaccessible by motorized machinery, hand cutting with chainsaws will be used. Slash generated from activities may be piled and burned or lopped and scattered to a combined fuel load of no more than 3-5 tons per acre. Diameters referenced below will be measured at breast height (dbh, 4.5 feet from the ground) for typical tree species (ponderosa pine, fir, spruce, and Douglas-fir). Diameter will be measured at the top of the rooting collar for all other species (pinyon-juniper). Treatments proposed in the wilderness were removed from this proposal due to the West Valley fire. Montane Sagebrush Steppe • Remove all conifer less than 13” in diameter. • Create a mosaic of vegetation seral stages that are arranged to impede fire spread toward and away from adjacent private property. Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany • Remove 80-90% of all conifer less than 13” in diameter favoring ponderosa pine and pinyon pine as leave trees.
30 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
• Remove 30-40% of curl-leaf mountain mahogany less than 5” in diameter to disrupt continuity across the vegetation type. • Create a mosaic of vegetation seral stages that are arranged in an irregular pattern with some clumps of varied sizes (1-10 acres) dispersed across the type to impede fire spread toward and away from adjacent private property. Gambel Oak-Mountain Shrub • Remove 80-90% of all conifer less than 13” in diameter favoring ponderosa pine and pinyon pine as leave trees. • Remove 30-40% of Gambel oak less than 5” in diameter to disrupt continuity across the vegetation type. • Create a mosaic of vegetation seral stages that are arranged in an irregular pattern with some clumps of varied sizes (1-7 acres) dispersed across the type to impede fire spread toward and away from adjacent private property. Pinyon-Juniper • Remove 80-90% pinyon and juniper less than 5” diameter. • Remove 50-60% pinyon and juniper less than 9” diameter. • Remove 20-30% pinyon and juniper less than 13” diameter. • Create a mosaic of vegetation seral stages that are arranged in an irregular pattern with some clumps of varied sizes (1-3 acres) dispersed across the type to impede fire spread toward and away from adjacent private property. Ponderosa Pine • Remove all pinyon and juniper less than 9” diameter. • Remove 40-50% of ponderosa pine trees less than 9” in diameter. • Create a mosaic of vegetation seral stages that are arranged in an irregular pattern with some clumps of varied sizes (1-5 acres) disbursed across the type to impede fire spread toward and away from adjacent private property. This action responds to purpose 1, 2, and 4 and need B and G.
Table 12. Acres proposed for treatment. Treatment Acres Not In Acres in Acres in Total Acres IRA or Wilderness IRA Wilderness Aspen Woodland 345 345 Pinyon-Juniper Removal 2,715 499 3,214
Riparian 60 30 90
Defensible Fire Area 213 709 922 Total Acres 2,988 0 1,583 4,571
31 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
2.2.3 Transportation Plan Access for the proposed activities will be provided through the use of existing National Forest System roads (see Table 13) totaling 17.23 miles (see Figure 12 Transportation Map in Appendix A). There will be no change in the post-project disposition of the roads identified below.
Table 13. Project system roads. Route 2 – High 3 – Suitable 4 – Moderate Admin Admin & Pub Non- Grand Number Clearance for Passenger Degree of User Motorized Forest Total Vehicles Cars Comfort Trail Road 2.41 2.41 30011 3.40 3.40 30035 0.27 0.27 30252 0.79 0.66 1.45 30255 1.50 1.50 30255A 0.04 0.04 30565 0.73 0.73 30834 0.37 0.37 30839 0.45 0.45 30916 0.06 0.06 30918 0.41 0.41 32113 2.57 2.57 32114 0.57 0.57 33391 0.27 0.27 33396 0.48 0.48 34784 0.02 0.12 0.15 U14092 0.09 0.09 U1483 1.52 1.52 U1715 0.49 0.49 Grand Total 7.36 3.40 0.27 0.47 0.37 5.35 17.23
2.2.4 Project Design Features Project design features are project and site specific measures that are taken to avoid or minimize impacts from implementing proposed project activities. Design features derive from federal laws and regulations, established Forest Service policies, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and best management practices. Design features are prepared by the interdisciplinary team specifically for this project, and are integral components of both action alternatives. Table 14 describes project design features for the Modified Proposed Action.
32 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 14. Project Design Features for all action alternatives. Aquatic Species
AQ-1. For prescribed fire implementation, if water needs to be drafted, all water intakes would be equipped with a screen to prevent intake of fish and amphibian species. Drafting sites would be approved by the Forest’s fish biologist prior to use.
AQ-2. Equipment would be cleaned and dried before moving from one water source to another to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). If equipment cannot be completely dried, equipment would be decontaminated following the 2014 Region 4 Fire AIS guidelines (USFS 2014a).
AQ-3. During hand and mechanical thinning in AMZs, in areas void of hydric vegetation where conifer trees are identified as needed to provide shade or bank stability conifer trees capable of providing needed shade and bank stability will be retained.
AQ-4. Large wood from riparian vegetation treatments may be added to sections of Water Canyon in areas agreed to by the Hydrologist and Fish Biologist, but would not exceed an average density comparable to reference reaches.
AQ-5. Prior to implementing Rx fire activities outlined in Actions 4 and 7 an Interdisciplinary Team will agree on an implementation plan, monitoring and adaptive management to minimize potential impacts and improve future implementation.
Cultural Resources
CR-1. All project activities will be cleared by a forest archaeologist to avoid impacts to Historic Properties. Should an unexpected discovery occur during the course of project implementation, work would cease within a 100 foot buffer around the resource, as permitted by safety, and the Forest Archaeologist would be contacted immediately for the appropriate course of action.
CR-2. The Forest Archaeologist must be contacted prior to implementation of proposed project activities to ensure the protection of Historic Properties within the project boundary.
CR-3. Operation of tracked or wheeled equipment will occur in areas identified by the archaeologist only when soils are dry or frozen.
Fire and Fuels
F-1. Prescribed Fire Plans will be developed that are based on the best available science, project objectives and site- specific fuel types and geography. Implementation of prescribed fires will be in accordance with these plans.
F-2. While conducting prescribed fires, Environmental Protection Agency and Utah Department of Environmental Quality air quality standards through compliance with the Utah State Smoke Management Plan will be maintained.
Hydrology
HS-1. Applicable Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) will be adhered to during the implementation of this project (USDA, 1988).
HS-2. Equipment Slope Restrictions All mastication equipment will be restricted to ground slope below 30%.
33 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
HS-3. Use of ground mastication equipment will be restricted during period of wet soil. This is defined as any time the equipment ruts greater than 2 inches in a moist soil. The preferred time of treatment is when soils are dry, frozen or snow levels are sufficient to prevent tracks from coming in contact with soil.
HS-4. All constructed fire lines on slopes greater than 10% and/or within line of sight of open routes will be be obliterated following prescribed fire.
HS-5. During implementation of Action 4, no direct fire ignitions will occur in AMZs where side slopes are greater than 40 percent.
HS-6. For Rx fire treatments described under Action 7, no direct fire ignitions would occur in AMZs. Ignitions can occur on the outside edge so that the prescribed fire could back towards the interior of the riparian area.
HS-7. Within AMZ burn units, fire prescriptions will be adaptively managed and designed to minimize soil temperatures over the entire area. Fire prescriptions will be designed so that soil and fuel moisture are such that fire intensity is minimized and soil health and productivity are maintained to the greatest extent possible wile meeting desired objectives. High intensity areas would be patchy to provide a discontinuous mosaic. Before and after fire effects monitoring plots and instream substrate transects will be used to better understand how structural riparian habitat and stream substrate features may be affected by burn activities. Collaborative review of prescriptions, data, and field visits between fire and aquatics personnel may lead to adaptive management changes to meet desired conditions.
HS-8. Treatment of AMZs will be implemented in a staged manner so that effects can be dispersed over time and space, learning can take place, and new information can be applied to future treatments to minimize adverse effects to those species and habitat.
HS-9. Pile burning will occur at least 50 feet away from perennial and intermittent stream channels and outside the Riparian Influence Zone.
HS-10. Riparian Vegetation Retention Intermittent, and perennial streams containing any deciduous vegetation that enhances stream or floodplain stability will be retained during hand thinning and mastication treatments. These species include: Acer negundo – Boxelder Betula occidentalis – River Birch Actaea rubra – Baneberry Cornus sericea – Red-osier Dogwood Picea pungens – Blue Spruce Prunus virginiana – Chokecherry Salix bebbiana – Bebb’s Willow Amelanchier alnifolia – Saskatoon Serviceberry Rosa woodsii – Wild Rose Sorbus scopulina – Mountain Ash Salix lutea – Yellow Willow Salix exigua – Coyote Willow HS-11. Fuel Storage and Distribution All equipment staging and refueling will be located 100 ft. from any surface water
34 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
HS-12. Maintain sufficient litter and duff material on the soil surface to meet the Desired Condition of the soil and water resource. (Page IV-22, USDA, 1986, as amended) • Litter is defined as the surface layer (Oi-horizon) of recently deposited and decomposed needles, plant remains, leaves and twigs (branches less than three inches in diameter). • Duff is defined as the typically unidentifiable decomposed plant material (Oe and Oa horizon). Litter and duff is necessary to provide soil ecological functions needed to maintain site productivity on forest and also provides for on-site moisture retention. . “Retain or plan for sufficient ground cover to prevent erosion of the burned sites” (SWCP 18.03 HS-10) The minimum recommended retention depth will vary by site by site but the overall minimum depths of litter and duff retained after prescribed fire treatments are as follows:
Minimum Litter Retention Depth Oi Minimum Duff Retention Depth Oe-Oa
4 millimeters 2 millimeters
Litter and duff cover is expected to be maintained as outlined above on 85% or more of the project areas within one year following implementation.
HS-13. Vegetation treatment with the Riparian Influence Zone will be accomplished with non- mechanized methods and will exclude any species in HS-9 or any vegetation that directly stabilizes the stream channel. Riparian influence zones will include the area from the edges of the active stream channel to whichever of the following widths is most appropriate To the top of the inner gorge To the outer edges of the riparian vegetation To a 100 foot slope distance (200 feet, including both sides of the stream)
HS-14. As a general rule, treated and seeded sites should not be grazed until at least the end of the second growing season following treatment. Livestock will be monitored and herded away from treatment areas for two growing seasons to allow for vegetation to regenerate. Following the rest period, these pastures may be used prior to September 15th and then only lightly grazed for the next five years or until aspen suckers reach at least 500 stems per acre and 72 inches in height in accordance with Guidelines for Aspen Restoration in Utah National Forests. Grazing should remain light and preferably occur in early-to mid-summer in order to avoid fall browsing due to lack of forage and late season vegetation preferences.
Noxious Weeds NW-1. If used for rehabilitation purposes, only certified noxious weed free hay, straw, and mulch will be used.
NW-2. Noxious weeds will be controlled on all disturbed areas should they become established in accordance with the 2000 Noxious Weeds Environmental Analysis/Decision Notice (USDA, 2000a). NW-3. Ground disturbing heavy equipment and equipment will be thoroughly washed to remove dirt, mud and plant materials at an off-forest location prior to being transported to the project area. Public Safety
PS-1. The public will be kept informed through timely media and signage of impending or occurring activities and changes in access.
35 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Recreation
REC-1. Landscape architect and recreation staff will collaborate, identify and flag specific trees and/or clumps of trees to remain along roads and trails to ensure retention of scenery, recreation and cultural values, specifically leaving trees in clumps varying from 1-15 trees per clump with 50% cover along the length within 200 ft. of the edge of the roadway and trails. REC-2. Maintain existing dispersed campsites.
REC-3. Place boulders where the defensible fire space intersects with forest routes identified through the 2009 Dixie NF Motorized Travel Plan (MTP) and non-forest routes (city, state, and county). These will be marked and laid out through coordination with the Pine Valley RD recreation staff. REC-4. Place boulders in areas where potential OHV intrusions may occur after the implementation period (to be marked and laid out through collaboration with the Pine Valley RD recreation staff).
REC-5. Project implementation ingress and egress routes will be rehabbed in accordance with methods described in A Guide for Road Closures and Obliteration in the Forest Service (USDA 1996). No temporary road construction will occur. REC-6. Flush cut stumps and remove/burn debris created from project implementation within areas designated as Very High SIO.
REC-7. Flush cut stumps and remove/burn debris created from project implementation within 300 feet of roads and trails located within High SIO. REC-8. Leaving P-J in clumps varying from 1-15 trees per clump along the forest/private boundaries.
REC-9. The perimeter of the treatment areas will follow an undulating pattern. This will be accomplished by following natural vegetative changes; landscape features such as rock outcroppings, ridgelines, and drainage bottoms; or in a pattern determined by the district recreation specialist during implementation. This will remove hard lines from the landscape and improve aesthetics. Although the treatments will undulate along their extents, they will remain within the footprint of the mapped treatment areas.
REC-10. Brush will be left in managed clumps and patches varying in size and in irregular shapes. Sizes will vary from 1 – 50 acres. Range
RG-1. Livestock grazing will continue to be administered through existing range allotment decisions and annual operating instructions to minimize impacts on regeneration and seeding establishment of vegetation. Measures may include livestock management activities such as herding, salt placement, timing of grazing, fencing, and rest. Rest will follow established DNF guidelines. Normally, the Forest requires that burned or treated areas be rested for two full years. Prior to stocking these areas an evaluation is needed to make sure that the rangelands are within 80% of desired effective ground cover values for the site and desirable plant species are established and producing seed. These timeframes may be modified based on documented consensus from an Interdisciplinary Team. Utilization standards are described in the Forest Plan and apply to this project.
36 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Roadless Areas
IRA-1. The seed mix used within the IRA would focus on native species appropriate for elevation and site potential. Outside of the IRA a seed mix including more non-native species would be allowed for the purposes of out- competing invasive plants and noxious weeds. Timing and sequence of treatment efforts would be strategically timed to give germinants a competitive advantage against invasive plants such as cheatgrass. For example, where feasible, the site would be seeded prior to mastication and harrowing, so that the mastication and harrowing process would further cover the seed and prepare the seed bed.
Wildlife and Plant Species
WL-1. Prohibit forest vegetative manipulation within active Northern goshawk nest areas (30 acres) during the active nesting period between March 1st and September 30th, as outlined in the Utah Northern Goshawk Project (2000), to avoid impacts to breeding northern goshawks and other bird species.
WL-2. Vegetative management treatments in forested cover types should retain the following minimum amount and size of down logs and woody debris, distributed over each treated 10 acres to meet the needs of prey and other wildlife species that utilize this habitat (Utah Northern Goshawk Project 2000). This would average 5 logs per acre in the spruce/fir, mixed conifer and aspen sites. Cover Type Minimum Down Logs Minimum Log Size Minimum Coarse Woody Debris >= 3 inch diameter (per 10 acres) Down (Diameter <__>Length) (Tons per 10 acres, logs take precedence If minimum size is not available, inclusive of down logs. over tons of coarse retain largest available on the site. woody debris. Mixed Conifer and 50 12 inch<__>8 feet 100 Spruce/Fir
Ponderosa Pine 30 12 inch<__>8 feet 50 Aspen 50 6 inch<__>8 feet 30
WL-3. Maintain a minimum average of 300 snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches dbh and 30 feet tall) in mixed conifer and spruce/fir cover types. Maintain an average of 200 snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches dbh in ponderosa pine and 8 inches dbh in aspen, and 30 feet tall in ponderosa pine and 15 feet tall in aspen). If the minimum numbers of snags are unavailable, green trees should be substituted. If the minimum size is unavailable, then the largest trees on site should be substituted (USDA, 2000d).
WL-4. Surveys will be conducted for the northern goshawk a minimum of two years prior to treatment (USDA, 2000d)
WL-5. Locations of sensitive plants which may include the Pine Valley goldenweed will be marked out and flagged to avoid disturbance.
WL-6. To provide protection and avoid or minimize impacts to breeding migratory bird species, a buffer and associated timing restriction will be established for all occupied migratory bird nests found during the design or implementation of proposed activities. Buffer size, timing restriction, and restrictions of treatment activities will be made on a case-by-case basis determined by the forest biologist, by the taking into consideration site-specific needs, use, and conditions.
37 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.
Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives Resource Element Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Cultural Resources
Historic Properties No Impact No Impact
Fisheries
Riparian vegetation Short-term: No change from existing Short-term: Potential reduction in riparian hydric and conditions. Continued loss of riparian hydric woody deciduous vegetation. Possibly moving away species through conifer succession. from Forest Plan objectives. Long-term: Potential for moving away from Long-term: Improved riparian hydric and woody Forest Plan objectives as conifers succeed into deciduous vegetation. Possibly moving toward Forest riparian areas, along with increased risk of Plan objectives. Reduced risk of uncharacteristically uncharacteristically high severity fire. high severity fire.
Bank Stability Short-term: No change from existing Short-term: Potential reduction in bank stability, conditions. which should be minimized with implementation of Long-term: Potential for moving away from BMPs and PDFs. Forest Plan objectives as conifers succeed into Long-term: Maintained and/or improved bank riparian areas, along with increased risk of stability via improved riparian hydric and woody uncharacteristically high severity fire. deciduous species, improved upland and riparian ground cover and reduced risk of uncharacteristically high severity fire.
Fine Sediment Short-term: No change from existing Short-term: Potential increase in fine sediment conditions. Continued fine sediment inputs deposition, which should be minimized with from bare ground caused by conifer implementation of BMPs and PDFs. succession and roads and trails within riparian Long-term: Reduced fine sediment deposition stability areas. via improved riparian hydric and woody deciduous Long-term: Potential for moving away from species, improved upland and riparian ground cover Forest Plan objectives as conifers succeed into and reduced risk of uncharacteristically high severity riparian areas, along with increased risk of fire. uncharacteristically high severity fire.
Water temperature Short-term: No change from existing Short-term: Potential increase in water temperatures conditions. via loss of shading, which should be minimized with Long-term - Potential for moving away from implementation of BMPs and PDFs. Forest Plan objectives as conifers succeed into Long-term: Maintained and/or improved water riparian areas, along with increased risk of temperature via improved riparian hydric and woody uncharacteristically high severity fire. deciduous species, and reduced risk of risk of uncharacteristically high severity fire.
38 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Bonneville cutthroat Short-term: No change from existing Short-term: Potential impacts to occupied habitat and trout conditions. loss of individuals during project implementation. Long-term: Potential for moving away from Long-term: Potential for improved aquatic habitat and Forest Plan objectives through loss of maintained occupied habitat and redundancy in the occupied habitat and loss of redundancy in the Southern GMU via reduced risk of risk of Southern GMU in the event of an uncharacteristically high severity fire. uncharacteristically high severity fire. Determination: May impact individual BCT and/or Determination: May impact individual BCT the Water Canyon core populations and their habitat; and/or the Reservoir and Water Canyon core however, potential impacts would not lead to a trend populations and their habitat; however, toward federal listing for the species. potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species.
Nonnative trout Short-term – No change from existing Short-term: Potential impacts to occupied habitat and conditions. loss of individuals during project implementation. Long-term: Potential for moving away from Long-term: Potential for improved aquatic habitat and Forest Plan objectives through loss of maintained occupied habitat and improved standing occupied habitat and reduction in standing crop via improved habitat and reduced risk of risk of crop in the event of an uncharacteristically uncharacteristically high severity fire. high severity fire. Determination: May impact MIS nonnative trout Determination: May impact MIS nonnative individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of trout individuals or habitat, but will not cause viability to the population or species. a loss of viability to the population or species.
Fuels and Fire and Air Quality
Fire and Fuels In the long-term surface and ladder fuels Fire behavior modeling shows lower Rates of Spread would continue to accrue along with needle and lower Flame lengths. Both of these will help in litter and snags. The area is currently suppressing fires during initial attack. characterized as a condition class IV and V and would continue to depart from historic levels with each missed fire return interval. Without treatment in the other proposed areas, the project area would remain at risk to a high intensity stand replacing fire situation, due to fire spreading from adjacent vegetation types. Current fuel configurations are prone to high intensity stand replacement fires. Fires of this nature are difficult to control and costly to suppress.
Air Quality No effect unless a large wildfire occurs. All effects to air quality are short duration lasting a few days to a week.
Hydrology and Soils
Water Quality Within beneficial use thresholds unless a large Adherence to the Design Criteria and SWCPs in this wildfire occurs. report will minimize the effects of this project on the water resource.
39 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Watersheds Since past direct and indirect effects do not This project is expected to contribute to the Desired exceed the estimated 15% threshold in any of Future Condition of the watersheds involved because the watersheds, channel response and long the Stream Management Zones will be treated to term water quality changes are not anticipated reduce the risk of stand replacing fires and will at the confluence of each of the watersheds. maintain their natural function. This includes the 9A However, there is increased risk of area associated with Water Canyon. uncharacteristically high severity fire which could have negative effects.
Soil Disturbance Increased risk of uncharacteristically high Cumulative detrimental soil disturbance does not severity fire could lead to detrimental exceed the 15% threshold in any of the cumulative disturbance. effects watersheds so changes in channel geometry and substrate within each watershed are not anticipated.
Stream Management Increased risk of uncharacteristically high Removal of ladder fuels within a 100 ft. of streams in Zones severity fire could lead to negative effects on the project area is intended to reduce the risk of a the soil profile and increased erosion. stand replacing crown fire in the cottonwood galleries. Since no mechanized equipment will be utilized within the Stream Management Zone (SMZ) effects to the soil profile and erosion of that soil profile within these zones are not anticipated.
Bank Stability Potential for moving away from Forest Plan The retention of all deciduous vegetation found along objectives as conifers succeed into riparian any intermittent or perennial water will help preserve areas, along with increased risk of the bank stability and the sponge filter system. uncharacteristically high severity fire.
Sensitive Soils No effect unless a large wildfire occurs. Burning on Rock outcrop – Dollarhide family complex and Rock outcrop-Bollarhide-Gralic Families complex will occur in the shoulder seasons when a light mosaic burn will result and much of the ground cover will be maintained thereby ameliorating the effects of the fire on these two soil families.
Range Resource
Grazing Resource No change in permitted numbers. No chance No change in permitted numbers. Modest opportunity for disturbance or temporary displacement of for livestock to be disturbed or temporarily displaced. livestock. Permit resiliency and amount of Possible that permit resiliency will be improved available forage will remain the same. through modest increase in the amount of available forage.
Encroaching Continued increase in density of pinyon- A reduction in density of pinyon-juniper pinyon- juniper juniper
Recreation and Scenery
Recreation The long term impact from selecting the no The ROS designations throughout the project area are Opportunity action alternative may lead to a denser, not expected to change from implementing the Spectrum (ROS) overstocked forest that that may be less Modified Proposed Action. However, recreation resistant to disease, insect infestation and visitors may be temporarily impacted during project
40 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
large wildfires. Loss of vegetation would implementation. It is expected that future recreation negatively impact Non-Motorized Trail use, visitors may experience a more resilient and healthy camping and other recreational activities. forest from implementing the Modified Proposed Action.
Scenic Integrity The long term impacts from selecting the no The SIO designations throughout the project area are Objective (SIO) action alternative may be a denser, not expected to change from implementing the overstocked forest that may decrease the Modified Proposed Action because of included design scenic quality over time. features. It is expected that future visitors may experience an improved visual resource because of more diversity of vegetation across the landscape, and a more resilient and healthy forest from implementing the Modified Proposed Action.
Inventoried The No Action Alternative is expected to It is expected that the Inventoried Roadless Area and Roadless Areas / result in increased fuel loading over time, and the Undeveloped/Unroaded resources will be Undeveloped no increased diversity of vegetation within the improved from implementing this project because the Unroaded project area. It is expected that this area may landscape will look more naturally appearing, the experience a large wildfire and may reset diversity of vegetation will increase and scenic succession to an early seral stage, thus attractiveness will be improved. Also, it is expected creating an even aged vegetation component. that project implementation will create a more Soil and water resources may also be resilient forest to large fires, insects and disease. negatively impacted in the event of a large fire in the project area.
Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered Species
Mexican Spotted Owl No Effect May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect. (Strix occidentalis lucida) Potential short term disturbance in fall/winter; (Threatened) alteration of dispersal habitat.
California Condor No Effect May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect (Gymnogyps californianus) Potential short term disturbance during project (Endangered) activities; alteration of foraging habitat. Long-term improvement in habitat conditions.
Wildlife - Intermountain Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species
Peregrine Falcon No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Falco peregrinus anatum) likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No disturbance; net improvement of upland foraging habitat. Beneficial Impact
Flammulated Owl No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Otus flammeolus) likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Minor loss of nesting habitat, net gain in foraging habitat.
41 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Northern Goshawk No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Accipiter gentilis) likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Temporary loss of potential nesting habitat, long term improvement in forested stands and foraging habitat.
Spotted Bat / Townsend’s No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not big-eared Bat likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or (Corynorhinus townsendii cause a loss of viability to the population or species. pallescens) No disturbance; net improvement of upland foraging habitat. Beneficial Impact
Three-toed Woodpecker No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Picoides dorsalis) likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Temporary loss of potential nesting habitat, long term beneficial impacts to forested stands, nesting and foraging habitat.
Pine Valley Goldenweed No Effect May impact individual plants or habitat, but will not (Haplopappus crispus) likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Potential disturbance to suitable habitat in rocky outcropping in wilderness area.
Wildlife - Management Indicator Species
Mule Deer / Rocky No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not Mountain Elk cause a loss of viability to the population or species. (Odocoileus hemionus) Viable populations maintained. (Cervus Canadensis) Short term disturbance; loss of hiding cover along edges; long-term improvement of foraging habitat
and migration corridors.
Northern Flicker No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Colaptes auratus) cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Viable populations maintained. Short term disturbance; minor loss of foraging and or nesting habitat. Long-term improvement in foraging habitat with increase ground cover
Wild Turkey No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Meleagris gallopavo) cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained Short term
displacement; net loss of roosting habitat. Long- term improvement in foraging habitat.
42 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Wildlife - Other Species of Concern
Virginia’s Warbler No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Vermivora virginiae) cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained. Limited short term displacement. Some impacts to secondary nesting habitat; some impacts to foraging habitat in mountain shrub cover types.
Gray Vireo No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Vireo vicinior) cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained. Limited short term displacement. Some impacts to pinyon-juniper woodland breeding habitat.
Broad-tailed humming- No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not bird cause a loss of viability to the population or species. (Selasphorus platycercus) Viable populations maintained. Limited short term displacement. No impacts to primary nesting and foraging habitat in riparian areas (Design Criteria).
Brewer’s Sparrow No Effect May impact individuals or habitat, but will not (Spizella breweri) cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained. Limited short term displacement. Some impacts to shrub component breeding habitat.
43
Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Table 15, Comparison of Alternatives in Chapter 2. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found project website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45916; or in the project planning record located at the Pine Valley Ranger District Office in St. George, Utah.
3.2 Cultural Resources This section presents a summary of the Heritage Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Heritage Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. Humans have utilized the lands that are now within the Dixie National Forest for over 10,000 years. Physical remnants of these people are found in the form of artifacts and sites throughout the Pine Valley Ranger District. Each proposed project within the boundaries of the National Forest requires these resources be located and evaluated as to their eligibility for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) prior to implementation of the project activities (36 CFR 800). Physical locations are surveyed by heritage personnel on the ground in addition to literature searches of previous records and historical documents. Those sites which meet the criteria for inclusion in the NRHP are considered Historic Properties and need to be protected from any negative impact by proposed projects. Given the size and scope of this project, a phased approach will be implemented as described at 36CFR800.4(2)(b). As individual project areas and funding are identified, an intensive level (Class III) pedestrian survey will be conducted to identify and evaluate cultural resources. 3.2.1 Affected environment Preliminary investigations indicate the presence of significant cultural resources within the project area. Natural processes such as erosion, fire, decay of organic materials or disturbance by animals have the potential to affect cultural resources. The desired condition for all known Historic Properties on the Pine Valley District is that they retain the characteristics which make them eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Prior to project implementation, a Class III cultural resources inventory will be conducted to identify and evaluate cultural resources potentially affected. Historic properties will be avoided, unless conditions exist where removing the vegetation on the site would benefit the condition of the site and not compromise the characteristics which make that site eligible for the NRHP. 3.2.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action)
45 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Direct and Indirect Effects Cultural Resources on the District will continue to be effected as part of the natural environment under the No Action alternative. The primary effect to cultural resources would likely be erosion caused by natural processes, but potentially exacerbated by a loss of soil stabilizing vegetation and/or severe wildfire. Cumulative Effects Natural processes will continue to impact Cultural Resources and the increase of any human use or use by wildlife and livestock will increase the rate at which the resources are impacted. Management of all known Historic Properties will continue under the No Action alternative. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Effects • Action 1: Aspen Woodland Treatment
o There is little to no ground disturbance associated with removing conifer trees via chainsaw and therefore there is a low potential to impact Historic Properties and other cultural resources. The installation of a fence after the treatment has the potential to impact resources if it is constructed directly on top of or very near to a resource. Potential indirect effects after fence installation consist of trampling of the ground by ungulates as they walk along the fence line. The potential for direct and direct effects to Historic Properties from the fence installation is low and impacts can be avoided by strategically constructing the fence in locations which will avoid potential resource impacts. • Action 2: Pinyon-Juniper Removal Treatments
o Aerial seeding is not a ground disturbing activity and generally has no negative impact to cultural resources. Mastication has the potential for ground disturbance resulting from heavy equipment, therefore eligible sites will be either avoided or reviewed for the potential to masticate the vegetation on the site without compromising the characteristics that make that site eligible. The resulting mulch from a masticator can also reduce erosion of resources within the Pinyon-Juniper treatments which will have positive indirect effects. In areas with a slope greater than 30%, hand cutting will occur which has low potential for direct or indirect effects to cultural resources. Hand cutting of vegetation can also occur in areas to avoid potential impacts to resources. • Action 3: Prescribed Fire - this action was removed from the Modified Proposed Action due to the changed conditions following the West Valley Fire. • Action 4: Riparian Treatments
o Lop and scatter of vegetation has a low impact on resources and can act as an additional barrier against erosion and looting. • Action 5: Road and Trail Relocation
o These actions will have positive direct and indirect effects to resources in the area by removing the impact to the resource. The routes will be relocated and/or obliterated in a
46 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
way that protects the resource and does not cause further damage. Trail reroutes are also planned as part of this action. These reroutes have a low potential for direct and indirect effects to cultural resources due to the steep slope where the reroutes will take place. • Action 6: Wildlife Guzzler
o This action has the potential of direct and indirect impacts from installation and use of the guzzler by ungulates and other animals after installation. These impacts can be avoided by placing the guzzler in areas that do not contain cultural resources. • Action 7: Defensible Fire Area
o The potential effects from Action 7 are the same as those discussed under Actions 2 and 4. Please reference these sections above for a discussion of effects. Cumulative Effects
As stated above, there is a potential for direct and indirect effects to cultural resources and Historic Properties as part of this project. Although effects are possible, no Historic Properties will be impacted from project activities by utilizing the avoidance techniques described above and in the Heritage Specialist report in addition to the Project Design Features listed in Table 14. Through avoidance or selected on-site treatments, some project activities will benefit cultural resources within the project area. Cultural resources determined to be Not Eligible for the NRHP have the potential to be affected by treatment activities.
3.3 Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Resource Fire and Fuels This section presents a summary of the Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Reports. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Specialist Reports contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. 3.3.1 Affected environment Fire and Fuels The Grass Valley Creek Watershed, located in Southern Utah, is within the Pine Valley Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest in Washington County. Grass Valley is approximately one mile north of Pine Valley, Utah, and approximately twelve miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15). A portion of the Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness is in the western part of the watershed. The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration project area encompasses the entire Grass Valley Creek HUC 6 watershed, and a portion of the Pinto Creek HUC 6 watershed, and is approximately 21,568 acres. Over half (14,874 acres) of the project area is within the Pine Valley Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area and there are 9,268 acres within the Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness. However, only 14,373 acres are proposed for treatment within the project area. Air Quality There are 16 separate airsheds within the state of Utah, and the Grass Valley Creek Restoration Project area falls solely within Utah’s airshed number 16. However, due to close proximity of the project area to airshed
47 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
13, topography and prevailing wind direction, treatments would also affect airsheds 3 and 13. Therefore airsheds 3, 13 and 16 will be utilized for the air quality cumulative effects area. These airsheds encompass a large portion of southern Utah including portions of land in the following Counties: Kane, Iron, Garfield, Piute, Sevier and Washington. 3.3.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct Effects Fire and Fuels Under the No Action Alterative, no treatment is to take place, however the effects of no action would have an effect. Surface and ladder fuels would remain relatively constant in the short term. In the long-term surface and ladder fuels would continue to accrue. For example, needle litter would accumulate and dead snags would fall. There would not be an improvement to current condition class. The area is currently characterized as a condition class IV and V and would continue to depart from historic fuel levels with each missed fire return interval. Air Quality Under the no action alternative, no treatments would occur and there would be no direct effect on air quality. Indirect Effects Fire and Fuels Without treatment in the other proposed areas, the project area would remain at risk of a high intensity stand replacing fire situation, due to fire spreading from adjacent vegetation types. Current fuel configurations are prone to high intensity stand replacement fires. Fires of this nature are difficult to control and costly to suppress. Air Quality Taking no action is not a risk free decision (Agee and Skinner, 2005). With the abundant fuels there could be a wildfire in the area that could burn for an extended period of time, burn a large number of acres and significantly deteriorate air quality during the duration of the wildfire. This could occur under the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2) or the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). BlueSky Playground software was used to estimate wildfire behavior under the Very Dry weather conditions, this program uses LANDFIRE spatial data to determine fuel beds. Cumulative Effects Fire and Fuels Within the cumulative effects area, past and present activities along with fire suppression policies have led to conditions that are prone to large-scale, catastrophic wildland fires (USDOI., 1995). Contain, confine, and control strategies of all past wildland fire ignitions have led to condition classes and fire return intervals which are further from historic conditions. The management strategies of contain, confine and control will still be used in the present and future to minimize the effects of naturally occurring fires when environmental conditions are above the historic thresholds determined acceptable for fire use fires. All non-natural ignitions will continue to be suppressed consistent with the Dixie LRMP and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5100 and the 2015 Dixie N.F. Fire Management Plan.
48 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Air Quality Taking no action in this area will ensure that this ecosystem continues on the present trajectory toward the possibility that a large stand replacing wildfire burns through the area producing large amounts of emissions that go into the downwind airsheds and possibly exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (EPA, 2016) in some downwind areas. No long term effects to air quality are expected. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Direct and indirect Effects Fire and Fuels Aspen Woodland, Aspen-Mixed Conifer and Aspen-Spruce-Fir Treatments in Aspen Woodland will not change site conditions to a different fuel model. Slow-burning ground fires with low flame lengths are generally the case, although the fire may encounter and occasional “jackpot” or heavy fuel concentration that can flare up. Only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds do the fuels pose fire hazards. Closed canopy stands of short- needled conifers or hardwoods that have leafed out support fire in the compact litter layer. This layer is mainly needles, leaves, and occasionally twigs because little undergrowth is present in the stand. Pinyon-Juniper Treatments in the pinyon-juniper are likely to change the site to a Grass Shrub 2 (GS2) (Scott, 2005). GS2 is a Moderate Load Dry Climate Grass Shrub model with the main fire carrier being grass and shrubs 1-3 feet in height. This change in fuel type has a dramatic change in rates of spread (ROS) and Flame Length (FL) which allows for personnel to provide better suppression responses. Air Quality Table 16 shows the estimated emission production from burning in the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration project area. Emissions are expected to be heaviest on ignition days and then be greatly reduced each day after. Depending on precipitation, the burned area could continue producing small amounts of smoke for a week or more. The effects of these emission productions are expected to be short term. The smoke produced will increase airborne particulates and gaseous pollutants and possibly decrease visibility downwind of the project. It is estimated that applying prescribed fire would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (EPA, n.d.) in any of the downwind areas.
Table 16. BlueSky Playgrounds estimated emission productions per 100 piles for the application of prescribed fire pile burning under the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2). Pollutant Broadcast Prescribed Fire in Tons PM < 10 microns 0.12 PM < 2.5 microns 0.1 Nitrogen Oxides 0.03 Carbon Monoxide 0.61 Carbon Dioxide 28.82 Methane 0.04 Cumulative Effects The Modified Proposed Action would have an immediate yet short-term impact on air quality. Burning would take place when conditions are predicted to clear the smoke away in accordance with the Utah
49 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Division of Air Quality and Utah Smoke Management Plan. The most intense smoke would occur on ignition days. Smoke would be visible for days. During the night, smoke is expected to settle into the area and possibly drain down slope toward New Harmony and Pine Valley. This smoke is expected to clear out during the daytime. Settling of nighttime smoke could occur for up to several nights. 3.4 Fisheries Resource This section presents a summary of the Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation of Fish and Amphibian Sensitive Species. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation of Fish and Amphibian Sensitive Species contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. For the fish, amphibian and aquatic habitat effects analysis (direct, indirect, and cumulative) short and long term will be defined as less than or equal to 5 years, and greater than or equal to 30 years, respectively (the time in between will generally be regarded as long term). Direct effects are impacts that result in the direct mortality of a fish. One example would be a water quality impact such as a major chemical spill. Another example would be equipment in a creek that directly crushes and kills trout eggs incubating in the gravel. Indirect effects are impacts that are not directly connected in space and time. One example would be the spread of an aquatic nuisance species that changes the ecology of an aquatic habitat, indirectly reducing the habitat quality for a native species. Another example would be sediment from a disturbance that embeds gravels, reducing spawning success and decreasing aquatic macroinvertebrate food production. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities (regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions) combined with the proposed activities considered in this document (40 CFR 1508.7). The analysis of cumulative effects recognizes that separate activities can combine and interact to provide effects that are beyond the impacts of individual actions. 3.4.1 Affected environment The potentially affected watersheds contain current and historic habitat for BCT (Table 17). In addition to being on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List BCT are managed under Conservation Agreement and Strategy to which the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service is a signatory (Lentsch et al., 2000). Fish bearing perennial streams within the project area and CEA include: Main Canyon, Pinto Creek (including its Forks), Reservoir Canyon, the Santa Clara River and Water Canyon. Streams within the project area flow into Pinto Creek which is part of the Escalante Desert Basin, or the Santa Clara River, which is part of the Virgin River Basin. Water Canyon contains remnant, core populations of BCT. Their genetics are represented in the Manning Meadows brood stock and are replicated in the Leeds Creek, South Ash Creek and Leap Creek populations on the southeast side of the Pine Valley Mountains. The Water Canyon population has expanded and contracted in unison with the marginal habitat in this stream. Standing crop and distribution of this population have varied with flow conditions since they were first monitored in 1980. On the whole this population has occupied less than 1 mile of stream and has a standing crop that would be considered low to below average when compared to other southern Utah trout
50 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration streams (Hepworth and Beckstrom, 2004; Hadley et al., 2011a). The current overall trend for BCT on the Forest and in the Southern GMU is stable to increasing. With the exception of Water Canyon fish-bearing stream habitat within the CEA is occupied by nonnative trout, in particular brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Within the project area and CEA MIS nonnative trout are present in Main Canyon, Pinto Creek and the Santa Clara River and between years within streams. This is probably related to flow volume as many of the streams are diverted for irrigation delivery (Pinto Creek, Santa Clara River, serve as irrigation delivery conduits (Pinto Creek, South Fork Pinto Creek, Santa Clara River) or are susceptible to natural drying during low precipitation years (Water Canyon, Reservoir Canyon). Currently nonnative trout are present across all five Ranger Districts on the Dixie National Forest. Approximately, 379 miles of occupied or historically occupied stream habitat and approximately 3,115 acres of currently occupied lake habitat exist across the Forest. Average resident nonnative trout standing crop in Forest streams sampled by Forest personnel from 2002-2015 has been 132 kg/ha, which is above average when compared to other southern Utah trout streams (Hepworth and Beckstrom, 2004; USDA, 2014, 2015)(DNF Unpublished data).
Table 17. Aquatic biota that are Dixie National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) and/or Intermountain Sensitive Species, whether they have suitable habitat within the project area, and if not why. Species MIS Intermountain Suitable Habitat Unsuitable for the following reasons Sensitive Habitat
Nonnative trout Y N Y
Southern leatherside Y Y N No current or historic records of southern (Lepidomeda aliciae) leatherside chub exist for the project area or CEA. With the exception of the Pinto Creek (Escalante Desert) watershed the rest of the CEA is in the Virgin River drainage, which is outside the range where southern leatherside chub naturally occur. Virgin spinedace Y N N Virgin spinedace are endemic to the Virgin River (Lepidomeda Basin are present in the Santa Clara River mollispinis downstream but suitable habitat is below Veyo Hot mollispinis) Springs, downstream from the project area. Boreal toad Y Y N (Anaxyrus boreas)
Bonneville cutthroat Y Y Y trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) Colorado River Y Y N No known core or conservation populations of cutthroat trout Colorado River cutthroat trout currently exist, nor (Oncorhynchus clarki are there any historical records, in the project area pleuriticus) or CEA.
Riparian vegetation throughout the CEA is monitored using the greenline vegetation portions of Level III Riparian Inventories (Winward, 2000). Through 2016 there were twelve established Riparian Level III Inventory locations within the CEA, six of which are in the project area itself (5022, 6045, 8051, 8055, 8056, 8152; Table 22). Ten of the twelve Inventories have been read more than once and all show a stable or upward trend in riparian vegetation (Table 18). Nine of the ten inventories with trend information were
51 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
meeting Forest Plan objectives for riparian vegetation are being met at their last reading. The three sites not meeting Forest Plan objectives are all along Pinto Creek and are not in the project area.
Table 18. Riparian Level III monitoring study sites within the CEA through 2016, the years they were sampled, , their percent (% ) effective ground cover, their greenline successional rating (PNC = Potential Natural Community), their greenline bank stability rating, their trend (if available) and whether they met current Forest Plan objectives at their last reading. Study Site Name Years Effective Greenline Greenline Trend Meeting ID Sampled Ground Successional Bank objectives Cover Rating Stability (%) Rating 1404 Pinto Creek - Cove Hollow 2014 67.5 early seral moderate not No Confluence a available 1479 Lower Pinto Creek a 2014 89 early seral moderate not No available 3081 Upper Pinto Creek a 2011, 2016 83 PNC good slightly Yes (high) upward 5022 Water Canyon 2005, 2010, 80.5 late seral moderate slightly Yes 2015 upward 5023 Upper Pinto Creek a 2005, 2010, 88.5 late seral moderate upward Yes 2015 6045 Mill Flat 2006, 2011, 82.5 PNC good upward Yes 2016 (high) 7009 Cove Spring 2007, 2012 82 late seral moderate stable Yes
8051 Bare Valley 2008, 2013 73.5 PNC good upward Yes (high) 8055 Second Water 2008, 2013 78.5 late seral moderate upward Yes
8056 Reservoir Canyon 2008, 2013 88.5 PNC good upward Yes (high) 8152 Slew Spring 2008, 2013 72 PNC good slightly Yes (high) downward 9020 South Fork Pinto Creek GL 2009, 2014 73.5 mid seral moderate stable No
a Location is within Management Area 9A (Riparian Management) Bank stability and bank cover has been measured at seven areas containing adjustable channel types in 2013 using the Multiple Indicator Monitoring methodology (Table 19) (Burton et al., 2011). All of these locations overlapped Riparian Level III Inventory locations. The Forest Plan objective is 50% bank stability; however, best science would indicate for all stream types, that in the absence of disturbance most stream channel types should have bank stability greater than 80% (Overton et al., 1995). While Mill Flat was the only location below 80% bank stability, professional judgment would indicate bank stability should probably be upwards of 90% for the Cove Spring, Pinto Creek - Cove Hollow Confluence and Water Canyon study areas. The Mill Flat study area needs reread to get a more accurate assessment of bank stability as bank alteration by livestock was high (41%) when last assessed.
52 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Table 19. Stream, location and bank stability and bank cover measurements collected using Multiple Indicator Monitoring methodology (Burton et al., 2011). ID Stream Date Bank stability Bank Cover 5022 Water Canyon 6/1/2015 80% 80% 5023 Upper Pinto Creek 5/22/2014 91% 97% 7009 Cove Spring 5/27/2015 80% 83% 1404 Pinto Creek - Cove Hollow Confluence 7/2/2014 84% 88% 6045 Mill Flat 10/20/2014 68% 85% 3081 Pinto Creek 5/27/2015 91% 92% 8056 Reservoir Canyon 8/27/2014 93% 94% a Location is within Management Area 9A (Riparian Management) In the past 15 years Wolman pebble counts have been conducted on Water Canyon within the proposed project area. Fine sediments (< 3mm) were shown to be near 30% at two locations in Water Canyon in 2005 Adjacent trail segments, trail crossings and bare ground in the riparian and adjacent uplands may all play a role in sediment loading in Water Canyon. In particular the Water Canyon trial (Trail 31024) has a 0.5 mile section that is immediately adjacent to the stream in Water Canyon and is crossing spring seeps and directly contributing sediment to the stream. The Water Canyon trail also has a 0.1 mile section leading into Reservoir Canyon that is steep and eroding causing it to contribute sediment to Reservoir Canyon. Additionally 0.5 miles of FSR 33396 and 0.5 miles of user created unauthorized routes are impacting the riparian areas of lower Water Canyon and Grass Valley Reservoir contributing sediment to these locations. Continuous temperature was recorded in Water Canyon from October 2015 through September 2016. Similarly water temperature data has been collected in Reservoir Canyon in 2006, 2009 and from October 2015-September 2016. Continuous temperature data has been collected at two locations on the lower Santa Clara River since 2013 and the location just below the town of Pine Valley. It appears that in the perennially watered sections of Water and Reservoir Canyons, average and maximum temperatures may be within the tolerances of Bonneville cutthroat trout; however, the more marginal sections of Water Canyon Creek appear to exceed the 20.0 °C. The two areas monitored on the Santa Clara River have seen maximum temperatures exceed 20.0 °C in every year they have been deployed. 3.4.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct Effects and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, the project area would not undergo any of the activities associated with the Modified Proposed Action. No direct impacts to riparian vegetation, stream bank stability, fine sediment deposition into aquatic habitat and water temperature are expected however, direct and indirect impacts from past and current management activities, such as livestock grazing, roads and trails, conifer succession, channel incision and water diversion. Conifer succession into riparian areas and legacy cottonwood galleries would continue elevating the risk of a crown fire in legacy cottonwood galleries and of fire carrying in remaining existing riparian deciduous shrubs. Poorly placed roads/trails would continue to impact bank stability and introduce fine sediment to Water Canyon.
53 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Cumulative Effects The Cumulative Effects Area (CEA) for aquatic habitat and MIS nonnative trout for the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration project consists of the Grass Valley Creek, Pinto Creek (Escalante Desert) and Mahogany Creek-Santa Clara River 6th field HUCs (Figure 4). The CEA for BCT conservation is the Southern Geographic Management Unit (GMU) as defined in the BCT Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Lentsch et al., 2000). The essentially encompasses the entirety of the of the Sevier River Basin, as well as the Escalante Desert and Pine Valley mountains populations of BCT.
Figure 2. Cumulative Effects Area for aquatic habitat, boreal toad and MIS nonnative trout.
Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities potentially effecting aquatic habitat in the CEA include: vegetation management projects, wildfire, wildfire suppression, grazing, off- road ATV use, roads, trails, dispersed campsites, water diversion, nonnative fish stocking, riparian exclosure construction, and future BCT restoration activities (including barrier construction and nonnative fish removal). Effects from all these activities will continue under both the no action and proposed action alternatives. The risk of uncharacteristically high severity fire has been reduced in the Main Canyon and Mill Canyon subwatersheds, as portions of these watersheds burned during the West Valley Fire. Potential effects from a wildfire, as described under the No Action Alternative in the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Project Fish, Amphibian and Aquatic Habitat Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation of Fish and Amphibian Sensitive Species, are now likely in these two watersheds and in some cases have already come to fruition. Loss of upland and riparian vegetation has led to elevated runoff during storm events changing channel morphology and extirpating fish populations in Reservoir Canyon and Main Canyon (Figures 4-7).
54 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Figure 3. Reservoir Canyon trail crossing looking Figure 4. Reservoir Canyon trail crossing looking upstream in September 2016. upstream in November 2018.
Figure 5. Reservoir Canyon temperature probe Figure 6. Reservoir Canyon temperature probe location looking downstream September 2016. location looking downstream November 2018.
Determinations In terms of nonnative trout trend across the Forest is stable to increasing and the loss of populations in select watersheds will only temporarily impact Forest-wide trend for nonnative trout. Because of these factors implementation of the no action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species for MIS nonnative trout. Based on the anticipated fire behavior and other similar fires in Southern Utah, a future stand replacing fire could impact the ability of these streams to hold fish for decades. Based on this the no action alternative may impact individual BCT and/or the Water Canyon core populations and their habitat; however, potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species.
55 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Direct Effects and Indirect Effects Aquatic habitat Action 1: While some riparian habitat and wetlands are within proposed treatment area, mechanical removal of conifers using chainsaws should have no impact to riparian vegetation, bank stability, fine sediment or water temperature. No machinery will be used. No fish bearing streams are within the proposed treatment area. Action 2: The treatments proposed in Action 2 overlap 1.2 miles of perennial stream, none of which are fish bearing, and 7.6 miles of intermittent stream channel. Removing tree canopy and/or the use of ground-based equipment could directly impact riparian vegetation by removing riparian ground cover and hardwood species. Implementation of PDFs HS-1, HS-10, and HS-13 preclude disturbance of hydric vegetation so there should be no impacts to riparian vegetation from mastication and mechanical thinning of trees. Loss of ground cover, displacement of soil, and compaction of soils from machinery could increase overland flow and upland erosion rates. Similarly, prescribed fire can impact ground cover and increase soil hydrophobicity changes flow and erosion rates (Certini, 2005). PDFs HS-1, HS-10, and HS-13 preclude disturbance of hydric vegetation so there should be no impacts to riparian vegetation from mastication and mechanical thinning of trees. PDFs HS-1, HS-2, HS-3 and HS-12 limit machinery use on slopes and during certain moisture conditions to reduce soil compaction, rutting and other hydrologic impacts, as well as specifying appropriate amounts of ground cover remain following project implementation. This should limit direct and indirect impacts to riparian vegetation, bank stability, fine sediment deposition and water temperature to aquatic habitat in the project area and CEA. Action 3: This action has been removed from the Modified Proposed Action due to the changed conditions following the West Valley Fire. Action 4: The proposed hand thinning of conifers from Riparian Influence Zones is designed to benefit riparian hydric species. Since the action is hand thinning, no direct impacts to riparian hydric species are expected. Indirect effects to riparian vegetation, include the potential reduction in fire risk and the removal of competitive upland species which should improve the health and vigor or riparian species. Similar past projects that used hand thinning and/or mastication to remove conifers from riparian areas on the Escalante and Powell Ranger Districts resulted in an almost immediate influx of regenerating riparian woody browse. The Modified Proposed Action specifies size, spacing and timing recommendations which should result in dispersing any effects, as well as preventing effects over a large portion of the AMZs to be treated. Additionally these timing and spacing constraints should allow for monitoring and adaptive management to improve project implementation and reduce potential impacts over the life of the project (see PDF AQ-7). Finally PDFs F-1, HS-5, HS-7, HS-8, and HS-9 should also help to minimize negative impacts to riparian vegetation. Potential uncertainty around the impacts of these proposed activities should be addressed by developing the implementation, monitoring and adaptive management plan described in AQ-7.
56 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Action 5: No direct impacts to riparian vegetation are expected as the current road bed and trail tread within the AMZ is devoid of vegetation. After the road and trail segments are decommissioned and recontoured there is a potential for riparian vegetation improvement. Action 6: Action 6 occurs outside of riparian influence zones and should not have a direct or indirect effect on aquatic habitat, or individuals or populations of BCT or nonnative trout. Because of the lack of impacts to aquatic species and their habitats posed by Action 6 it will not be addressed further in the analysis. Action 7: Removing tree canopy and/or the use of ground-based equipment could directly impact riparian vegetation, bank stability, fine sediment deposition and water temperature through removal of riparian and upland ground cover, as well as riparian hardwood species and other tree canopy for shading. As with the potential sediment generation effects discussed under Actions 1 and 2 hand thinning and machine mastication under Action 7 are predicted to have little if any impact on elevated sediment generation to streams and wetlands in the project area. Use of Rx fire can have direct effects to riparian vegetation through removal of hydric species ground cover and riparian hardwood species Implementation of PDFs HS-1, HS-10, and HS-13 preclude disturbance of hydric vegetation so there should be no impacts to riparian vegetation and bank stability from mastication or hand thinning. PDFs HS-1 and HS-6 should ameliorate some of the potential for direct effects to riparian vegetation along perennial streams by precluding ignition of broadcast burning in AMZs and Riparian Influence Zones as described in HS-13. PDF HS-9 should ameliorate pile burning concerns for direct effects to riparian vegetation along intermittent streams by specifying piles must be placed more than 50 feet from the stream channel PDF HS-6 specifies that active ignition of any broadcast Rx fire would occur outside of riparian areas. All of this in conjunction with PDF AQ-7, which specifies development of an implementation plan, should ameliorate the impact of Action 7 on riparian vegetation and stream bank stability. Canopy removal is associated with all activities proposed in Actions 1, 2, and 7; however, PDFs HS-1, HS-6, HS-10, HS-11 and HS-13 preclude most activities from the Aquatic Management Zone (100 feet on either side of the stream). Riparian buffers as small as 10-33 feet have been shown to provide adequate stream shading to prevent stream temperature increases, although vegetation height and density also play a role (Hawes and Smith, 2005; DeWalle, 2010; Clinton, 2011). With riparian buffers in place, the Actions proposed in Actions 1, 2, 3 and 7 should not have an appreciable impact on water temperature. Bonneville cutthroat trout BCT populations are present in the CEA in both the Water Canyon and Reservoir/Main Canyon drainage; however, fish in Main Canyon appear to be highly hybridized with rainbow trout and at this time are not considered a conservation populations of BCT (Lentsch et al., 2000; Hadley et al., 2011a). Given this effects to individuals, core and conservation populations, BCT habitat and BCT status in the Southern GMU will only consider potential effects to Water Canyon and Reservoir Canyon. Direct impacts to fish from proposed project activities would be caused by machinery crushing fish and/or eggs, spilling gas, oil, or some other toxic compound directly into a fish-bearing stream, or high severity fire burning over stream courses and causing direct mortality to fish. Actions 1 and 2 do not occur along Water
57 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Canyon so no direct impacts to BCT individuals, conservation populations or BCT habitat will occur from these activities. While Action 5 will be using machinery to decommission routes associated with the road reroute, BCT distribution in Water Canyon does not extend that far downstream and no BCT are known from Grass Valley Creek (Hadley et al., 2011a). Both streams are intermittent in this area and if work is down in late summer early fall, there should be no aquatic impacts. Actions 4 and 7 could have direct impacts to BCT individuals and the core populations in Water Canyon. PDFs HS-1, HS-7, HS-8 and HS-11should ameliorate any direct impacts to the core population of BCT in Water Canyon associated with the use of mechanized equipment and their associated fuel. High intensity/severity burn overs of stream courses have been known to cause direct mortality to fish (Burton, 2005; Neary et al., 2005; McCormick et al., 2010). Given the fuel loading and vegetation types present across the project area, areas of high severity are expected. PDFs AQ-5, F-1, HS-1, HS-5, HS-6, HS-7 and HS-8 should limit the potential for high severity fire in Aquatic Management Zones. The section addressing direct and indirect effects of the Modified Proposed Action to Aquatic Habitat discusses changes to existing riparian vegetation, bank stability, fine sediment deposition and shading/temperature across the project area. Changes in overland flow and erosion from the combined effects of all the proposed treatments could negatively affect bank stability and channel morphology, as well as increase fine sediment deposition. Implementation of PDFs AQ-5, A1-6, AQ-7, HS-1, HS-2, HS-3, HS-4, HS-7, HS-8, HS-9, and HS-12 should minimize the amount of fine sediment transported into Reservoir Canyon and Water Canyon from the Modified Proposed Action. Trail improvements in Action 5 should improve stream channel configuration, bank stability and shading on Water Canyon and reduce sediment transport into both Reservoir and Water Canyons. Nonnative trout The MIS nonnative trout populations in Main Canyon would potentially be impacted by Actions 4 and 7. Potential direct and indirect effects to nonnative trout populations from these Actions are the same as those outlined for BCT. As described in the direct and indirect impacts of the Modified Proposed Action to Aquatic habitat, as well as the Hydrology and Soils Specialist report, detrimental effects of the Modified Proposed Action to MIS nonnative trout habitat are expected to be short-term. In the long-term, Action 4 is expected to improve riparian vegetation density, diversity and vigor which should result in less sedimentation, higher bank stability and maintenance or improvement of stream temperatures in the long- term. Additionally the vegetation treatments proposed in Actions 4 and 7 should reduce the risk of uncharacteristically large, severe wildfire in the project area subwatersheds, subsequently reducing the risk of impacts to MIS nonnative trout and their habitats in these watersheds over the No Action alternative. The impacts of wildfire to MIS nonnative trout are disclosed under the No Action Alternative Analysis. Cumulative Effects Overall implementation of the Modified Proposed Action would not be expected to negatively change the trend or condition of Sensitive and MIS fish and amphibian or aquatic habitat in the CEA. Long-term improved habitat and reduced fire risk should benefit BCT conservation in the Southern GMU as the Water Canyon populations will be protected and opportunities to develop BCT populations with average standing crop will be improved.
58 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Determinations If all BMPs and PDFs noted in this document are implemented, implementation of the Modified Proposed Action is unlikely to result in any long-term direct, indirect or cumulative effects to riparian vegetation, sediment deposition, banks stability or water temperature that would move Water Canyon away from their desired condition. The projected long-term improvement in riparian vegetation and the potential for substantially reduced risk of large scale, high severity fire would maintain and improve habitat in these streams and for the remnant BCT populations that inhabit them. Given these factors the Modified Proposed Action may impact individual BCT, the Water Canyon populations and current and future BCT habitat in the CEA; however, any potential impacts would not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the species. In terms of nonnative trout trend across the Forest is stable to increasing and any short-term impacts to populations in select watersheds will only temporarily impact Forest-wide trend for nonnative trout. Given this and the effects disclosure described above implementation of the Modified Proposed Action may impact MIS nonnative trout individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 3.4.3 Summary of effects The proper use of BMPs and Project Design Features make it unlikely that the Modified Proposed Action will directly, indirectly, or cumulatively have any measureable effects to Sensitive and MIS fish and amphibian species, or to aquatic habitat, that would be contrary to the Forest Plan and desired future conditions. Overall implementation of the Modified Proposed Action could cause short-term elevations in fine sediment delivery to aquatic systems and small, short-term elevations in water temperature. In the long- term implementation of the proposed project is expected to improve composition and vigor of late seral riparian vegetation along the greenlines of and reduce sedimentation into Bark Hollow and Water Canyon. Implementation of riparian and upland vegetation treatments will also to reduce the risk of a high severity, large scale fire and the associated undesirable impacts to aquatic habitats throughout the CEA.
3.5 Hydrology and Soils Resource This section presents a summary of the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. 3.5.1 Affected environment The Grass Valley Watershed (150100080701), is a 6th HUC level watershed encompassing 21,281 acres. This area extends from just above the confluence of Santa Clara River at an elevation of 6,575 feet to Big Point at an elevation of 9,931 feet. In addition, much of the watershed also drains into Pinto Creek thru a trans-basin diversion. The combination of infrastructure and land use in this watershed is responsible for the condition class of 1.9 assigned to this watershed indicating that it is functioning at risk (USDA, 2010b).
The Utah State Division of Water Quality assigns beneficial uses to all waters within the State to protect them from controllable pollution (Utah, 2014). The beneficial uses for the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, from Gunlock Reservoir to headwaters and Ash Creek from Ash Creek Reservoir to the headwaters are recreation, cold water species of game fish and cold water aquatic life, and agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and livestock watering.
59 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Grass Valley 6th HUC Watershed containing this project is not on the 303d list as an impaired water but the water that exits the watershed through a trans-basin diversion into Pinto Creek is impaired for aluminum and temperature (UDAQ, 2015).
There are no municipal watersheds within the cumulative effects watersheds. There are no Drinking Water Source Protection Zones located within any treatment areas.
Soils in the area include the 63-Rock outcrop-Bollarhide-Gralic families complex and the 64- Rock outcrop- Dollarhide-Gralic families complex which are prone to irreversible resource damage associated with soil or watershed condition during surface disturbance. Burning on Rock outcrop – Dollarhide family complex and Rock outcrop-Bollarhide-Gralic Families complex will occur in the shoulder seasons when a light mosaic burn will result and much of the ground cover will be maintained thereby ameliorating the effects of the fire on these two soil families.
Cumulative Effects Watersheds for this analysis were chosen because each watershed was uniquely separated from the other two based on topography and vegetation. Below are the 7th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds based on their uniqueness:
• Mill Canyon, a 7th Hydrologic Unit Code watershed, encompassing an area of 8,226 acres. This watershed extends from just above the confluence with Grass Valley Creek with an elevation of 6,903 ft., to the headwaters of the Mill Canyon at an elevation of 9,928 ft.
• Main Canyon a 7th Hydrologic Unit Code watershed encompasses 8,818 acres. This watershed extends from just above the private property at an elevation of 6,903 ft. to the divide with Mill Canyon at 9,937 ft.
• Water Canyon 7th Hydrologic Unit Code watershed encompasses and area of 3,994 acres. This watershed extends from the lower end of Grass Valley reservoir at an elevation of 6,522 ft. to and elevation of 9,728 ft. at Pine Ridge.
Method of Analysis for Cumulative Effects
The choice of analysis for this project was to equate all past, present and proposed disturbances to a “detrimentally disturbed soil” which is a soil that has been displaced, compacted or severely burned (Bayer and Jaros, 1996). According to Forest Service Manual (FSH 2550) for Soil Management, the area of detrimentally disturbed soils should not exceed 15% of an area or watershed. Assumptions are that all road acreages constitute a detrimentally disturbed soil since they perform like a compacted soil. Additional acres of detrimentally disturbed soils are attributed to machine and hand pile burning following the fuel treatment. 3.5.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects As there is no proposal to change the existing condition, there are no direct or indirect effects to the soil and water resource from this alternative. Cumulative Effects Since there are no direct or indirect effects to any of the watersheds within the project area, there are no cumulative effects other than those existing. Since past direct and indirect effects do not exceed the estimated
60 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
15% threshold in any of the watersheds, channel response and long term water quality changes are not anticipated at the confluence of each of the watersheds. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Effects • Action 1: Aspen Woodland Treatment Surface disturbance and detrimental effect to the soil and water resource from chainsaw thinning will not result in any detrimental disturbance because this action will not displace or compact any of the soils. • Action 2: Pinyon Juniper Removal Treatments Surface disturbance and detrimental effects to the soil and water resource from mechanical mastication and thinning will amount to about 7% of the treatment area (Bayer and Jaros, 1996). • Action 3: Prescribed Fire This action has been removed from the Modified Proposed Action due to the West Valley Fire • Action 4: Riparian Treatments Remove encroaching conifers in the Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) (100 feet slope distance; 200 feet, including both sides of the stream channel) of Water Canyon downstream from the wilderness boundary (2.54 stream miles) and in Bark Hollow downstream of the wilderness boundary (1.24 stream miles) where they are impairing riparian woody vegetation establishment. Mixed conifer less than 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), will be hand thinned in the 90 acre Aquatic Management Zone and the resultant slash will be lopped and scattered. Ponderosa pine and cottonwood will be favored for retention because ponderosa pine is tolerant to fire and cottonwood is a species that is slowly disappearing from Aquatic Management Zones across the western US. Surface disturbance and detrimental effects to the soil and water resource will be minimal from the hand thinning of pinyon- juniper trees within 100 ft. of aquatic management zones areas. This conclusion is based on the premise that hand thinning will damage only about 5% of the wetland/riparian areas within the project area and will not lead to further sedimentation (Bayer, 1997). Removal of the ladder fuels associated with pinyon, juniper, blue spruce and white fir within a100 ft. of the stream in the project area is intended to reduce the risk of a stand replacing crown fire in the cottonwood galleries. Removal of ladder fuels will involve of the removal of trees less than 18 inches dbh and the limb and trim of trees larger than 18 inches. Slash generated by this activity will be piled and burned outside of the inner gorge. This proposal is not expected add or detract to the watershed condition but will reduce the flame lengths of stand replacing fires within the cottonwood galleries within Water Canyon and thereby reducing the risk of the loss of the gallery. The opening of the crown within the AMZ will help promote the reproduction of the cottonwood and ultimately lead to the sustainability of the cottonwood gallery. • Action 5: Road and Trail Relocation Road and trail obliteration and relocation will result in a net loss of 0.55 miles of compacted surface or a decrease of 0.87 acres of compacted surface. • Action 6: Wildlife Guzzler
61 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Installation of the guzzler will result in about ¼ acre of compacted surface. • Action 7: Defensible Fire Area Surface disturbance and detrimental effects to the soil and water resource from mechanical mastication and thinning will amount to about 7% of the treatment area outside the wilderness area (Bayer and Jaros, 1996). Cumulative Effects
Table 20: Cumulative Effects Comparison by Alternative Using: Area Disturbed/Percent of Watershed Disturbed (refer to Hydrology and Soild Report: Appendix C Cumulative Effects Worksheets). Cumulative Effects Watershed Alt 1: No Action Alt 2: Modified Proposed Watershed Name Area (acres) Alternative (acres/% Action Alternative of watershed) (acres/% of watershed) Water Canyon 3994 46.29/1.2 160.26/4.0
3.6 Range Resource This section presents a summary of the Range Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Range Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. 3.6.1 Affected environment The Pine Valley Allotment is located in Washington County, Utah on the Dixie National Forest Pine Valley Ranger District (PVRD). This grazing allotment lies adjacent to the project area just north of the town of Pine Valley, Utah. The rangeland vegetation communities on these allotments have been used for livestock grazing since European settlement. Early livestock grazing had limited intensive management, with no established livestock numbers or seasons of use during this early settlement period. When grazing allotments were created the number and kind of livestock, as well as season of use, were established for the area. Over time, adjustments have been made to ensure vegetation communities are grazed in a sustainable manner. Table 21 below identifies the permitted season of use for the allotment in the proposed project area.
Table 21. Grazing Allotment and permitted use for the allotment within the Grass Valley Watershed Improvement Project. Allotment Permitted Livestock Use Number Class Season Pine Valley 786 Cow/calf 06/01-10/15
3.6.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct Effects
62 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Under the No Action Alternative, the permitted grazing use levels on the Pine Valley Allotment would not be changed during the short term (5-10 years). Maintaining the project area in its existing condition would preclude any vegetation treatment. The habitat conditions described in the affected environment section would continue in the short term. In the long term, pinyon-juniper trees will continue to encroach into the project area and will decrease the amount of ground cover and lead to a lack of diversity of grass and shrub component for livestock to use. Under the No Action Alternative, current fuel levels would remain high and may increase as fuel loading and fuel continuity across the surface increases. Snags would continue to increase from disturbance from disease and insects and eventually fall and accumulate on the forest floor which increases the surface fuels that contribute to increased fire intensity, burn severity on soils and crown fire initiation. Increased fuel loading and continuity would increase the chance of wildfires with high burn severity within the project area (See Fuels Specialist Report). Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area contains all of the Forest grazing allotments on the Pine Valley RD east of Highway 18. There are no foreseeable cumulative impacts to Range and Grazing Resources. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Direct Effects In general, there is a potential for short-term direct disturbance to livestock if project activities were to occur during the authorized grazing season. Vegetation treatment activities would produce noise and commotion in the area. The presence of people, noise, and equipment could disturb livestock in the immediate vicinity for one-to-seven days. Overall the Modified Proposed Action would result in a modest impact to range and grazing resources. The short term impact of the Modified Proposed Action would be that livestock may not have access to an area while vegetation treatment activity was occurring. Livestock could also access unauthorized locations if gates were left open and/or fences were compromised by vegetation treatment activities. The long term impact would likely be a modest increase in the amount of available forage on the allotments. However, such an increase in available forage is not expected to result in an increase in cattle numbers or available forage allotted for the allotments in the proposed project area. It could however, result in an increase in extra forage available to help defer drought impacts and decrease likelihood of needing to leave areas sooner due to hitting utilization standards. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area contains all of the Forest grazing allotments on the Pine Valley RD east of Highway 18. There are no foreseeable cumulative impacts to Range and Grazing Resources.
3.7 Recreation & Scenery Resource This section presents a summary of the Recreation and Scenery Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Recreation and Scenery
63 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the two alternative actions described in Chapter 2. 3.7.1 Affected environment Recreation Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) For management and conceptual convenience possible mixes or combinations of activities, setting, and experience opportunities have been arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. This continuum is called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and is divided into six classes. The ROS provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation opportunities the public might desire, and identifies that portion of the spectrum a given National Forest might be able to provide (USDA, 1982). The ROS classifications located within the Grass Valley Creek Watershed project area include 2,275 acres of Roaded Natural (RN), 4,151 acres of Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized (SPNM), 2,326 acres of Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) and 11,404 acres of Primitive (P). The setting characterization for RN is predominantly a natural-appearing environment with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Resource modification and utilization activities are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. The Setting characterization for P is essentially an unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use is not permitted. The setting characterization for SPNM is predominately a natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present. Motorized use is not permitted. The setting characterization for SPM is predominately a natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present. Motorized use is permitted. Current Recreational Activities Recreation use for the Grass Valley Area is low to moderate during the summer, and considered moderate during holiday weekends and the hunting season. There are several dispersed recreation sites within project area. Mill Canyon and Water Canyon Trailheads are located within the project area. Current recreation activities include: hunting, hiking, horseback riding, camping, driving for pleasure and sightseeing. Sightseeing -The Grass Valley Road (FS 011) is a well maintained road that is used for sightseeing and driving for pleasure. Approximately 3 miles of FS 011 travel through or are adjacent to the project boundary. Non-Motorized Trails- The following non-motorized trails are located within the project boundary: White Rocks, Rock Springs, Mill Canyon, Water Canyon, Canal, Gardner Peak and the Summit trails are at least partially within the project boundaries and receive low to moderate use. Special Uses- There is a spring collection development, water transmission line and pond. Water Activities- Fishing and other water activities may occur within the project area in Mill Canyon and Water Canyon, but are very limited and considered low to non-existent.
64 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Camping- There are undeveloped, dispersed camping opportunities located within and nearby the project area. Special Area Designations The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Project Area includes approximately 14,874 acres of the Pine Valley Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area and 9,268 acres of the Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness. Proposed treatments within the Pine Valley Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area are 1,583 acres, while the proposed actions in wilderness have been removed from the Modified Proposed Action due to the changed conditions from the West Valley Fire. Scenery Scenery Management System (SMS) The Dixie National Forest amended their Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) in April, 2000 to implement the Scenery Management System (SMS). The SMS is used for planning and design of the scenic aspects of multiple use land management. It is based on the criteria and guidelines in Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agricultural Handbook No. 701 (USDA 1995). Scenic Integrity Objective refers to the degree of acceptable change or alteration of the valued landscape theme. A high scenic integrity objective is appropriate for those landscapes where management activities would result in little or no deviation from the landscape characteristics valued by the public. A low scenic integrity objective is appropriate for those landscapes where greater alteration, or modification, of the landscape characteristics from management activities would be acceptable to meet other resource objectives (USDA 2000). The LRMP desired future condition allows some visual deterioration in managed areas, as long as the alterations meet scenic integrity objectives (SIO). The Modified Proposed Action is designed to meet the SIO’s required by the Management Areas. The Pine Valley Mountain is an island surrounded by desert. The topography of this area features steep cliffs, which are part of the intrusive rock outcrop, which forms the Pine Valley laccolith. The higher elevations support stands of Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, limber pine, aspen, and young stands of bristlecone pine. The high elevations also contain numerous meadows from 1 to 50 acres in size, with the majority of the meadows less than 25 acres. There are several non-motorized trails that access the Pine Valley Mountain. SIO’s located within the project area are: Very High (9,268 acres), High (3,874 acres), Moderate (5,601 acres) and Unassigned (1,413 acres). Management Area 2A. The landscape theme for Semi Primitive Recreation Management Area is Natural Appearing and the SIO is moderate (appears slightly altered). Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. Rural/Roaded Recreation Management Area 2B. The landscape theme for Semi Primitive Recreation Management Area’s is Natural Appearing and the SIO is high (appears unaltered). Deviations may be present but should repeat the form, line color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely, and at such scale, that they are not evident.
65 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Fish and Aquatic Management Area 4A. The landscape theme for Fish and Aquatic Management Area’s is Natural Appearing and the SIO is high (valued landscape appears intact). Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident. Wildlife Habitat Management Area 4B. The landscape theme for Wildlife Habitat Management Area is Natural Appearing and the SIO is low (valued landscape appears moderately altered). Deviations may begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed. Livestock Grazing Management Area 6A. The landscape theme for Livestock Grazing Management Area’s is Natural Appearing and the SIO is Moderate (appears slightly altered). Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. Wilderness Management Area 8A. The landscape theme for Wilderness Management Area’s is Natural Evolving and the SIO is very high (valued landscape appears intact). The existing landscape character and sense of place should be expressed at the highest possible level. While there has been human influence from historic use or management activity, it should appear completely natural to the majority of viewers. Inventoried Roadless Areas The 2001 Roadless Rule establishes prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting on 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. The intent of the 2001 Roadless Rule is to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System in the context of multiple-use management. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) are those areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000 (USDA, 2000b), and any subsequent update or revision of those maps through the land management planning process (36 CFR 294.11). The 2001 Roadless Rule (36 CFR Part 294.13) does not allow cutting or removal of timber in IRA’s with the following exemption: (ii) 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. The seed mix used within the IRA would focus on native species appropriate for elevation and site potential. Outside of the IRA a seed mix including more non-native species would be allowed for the purposes of out- competing invasive plants and noxious weeds. Timing and sequence of treatment efforts would be strategically timed to give germinants a competitive advantage against invasive plants such as cheatgrass. For example, where feasible, the site would be seeded prior to mastication and harrowing, so that the mastication and harrowing process would further cover the seed and prepare the seed bed. The Pine Valley Mountains Inventoried Roadless Area is on the Pine Valley Ranger District and is about 10 air miles north of St. George, Utah. Access to the area varies from good to poor with low standard, dry weather roads suitable for pickup travel only, serving some parts of the area and paved, all weather roads serving some parts. This area includes most of the Pine Valley Mountain Range, with elevations from, 4,500 feet to the 10,365 foot top of Signal Peak. There are many steep cliffs, which are part of the intrusive rock outcrop, which forms the Pine Valley Laccolith. It is within this area that a major source of water originates
66 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration for the Ash Creek-Virgin River and Santa Clara River drainages. This is one of the valuable resources of this mountain range. The higher elevations support stands of Engelmann spruce. Also found are stands of spruce- fir, Douglas-fir, limber pine, aspen, and young stands of bristlecone pine. The high elevations contain numerous meadows from 1 to 50 acres in size. The majority of the meadows are less than 25 acres. The predominant vegetation is mat mubly, subalpine needlegrass, alpine timothy, dandelion, parry clover, shrubby cinquefoil, yarrow, fleabane, snowberry, and serviceberry. The middle elevations have pockets of ponderosa pine. Other predominant species found within the area are: manzanita, serviceberry, mahogany, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, aspen, gamble oak, and quinine bush. The Pine Valley Mountain, being a mountain island surrounded by desert, is more or less isolated from the Wasatch Range. Because of this isolation, there may be some subspecies of mammals that are distinct to the Pine Valley Mountain. The transportation system consists of roads and trails. The more popular trails are the Whipple Trail (which is a National Recreation Trail), originating in Pine Valley and connected with the Summit Trail, which goes the entire length of the Pine Valley Mountains. There are a number of other trails that also tie into Summit Trail. Unroaded/Undeveloped Areas Beginning in 2000 and continuing through 2006, the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests conducted a joint effort to revise their Forest Plans. Part of this revision included consideration of areas for wilderness potential, which was conducted to the direction in the Intermountain Region Planning Desk Guide: A Protocol for Identifying and Evaluating Areas for Potential Wilderness (USDA, 2004). This inventory only considered known classified system roads (with the exception of administrative use only roads) and thus identified areas as unroaded/undeveloped that currently contain numerous constructed roads and trails, as well as timbered areas, power lines and other infrastructure. The inventory findings did not undergo a formal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public review. A new inventory and reevaluation using current road inventory, timbered areas, and infrastructure data will be necessary to fully understand the character of these areas. There is no policy, law, or directive guiding the management of unroaded/undeveloped areas that lie outside of IRAs or wilderness. Currently, the only guidance for these areas is general forest or management area direction. It is the intent of the Dixie National Forest to manage these unroaded/undeveloped areas for multiple resource benefits while maintaining their undeveloped character to the extent possible. 3.7.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Recreation Direct and Indirect Effects Sightseeing - The effects from selecting the No Action alternative would result in no increase in visual diversity and no increase in varying age classes and vegetation species composition. The No Action Alternative would cause no changes in landscape character within the analysis area. The long term impact from selecting the no action alternative would be a denser, overstocked forest that may decrease the scenic quality over time. Non-motorized Trails- The No Action Alternative would cause no changes for Non-Motorized Trails within the analysis area, and several trails would not be re-routed to a more sustainable location. The long term
67 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration impact from selecting the no action alternative may lead to a denser, overstocked forest that that may be less resistant to disease, insect infestation and large wildfires. Loss of vegetation would negatively impact Non- Motorized Trail use. Special Uses- the No Action Alternative would cause no changes for Special Uses within the analysis area. Water Activities- the No Action Alternative is not expected to impact water activities in the project area. Water activities in the project area are considered low to non-existent. Camping- The No Action Alternative would cause no changes for camping within the analysis area in the short term. The long term impact from selecting the no action alternative may lead to a denser, overstocked forest that that may be less resistant to disease, insect infestation and large wildfires. Loss of vegetation may negatively impact camping. Other Recreational Activities- the No Action Alternative would cause no changes for other recreational activities within the analysis area in the short term. The long term impact from selecting the No Action Alternative may lead to a denser, overstocked forest that may be less resistant to disease, insect infestation and large wildfires. Loss of vegetation may negatively impact other recreational activities. Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative would cause no cumulative impacts within the analysis area in the short term. The long term impacts from selecting the no action alternative may be a denser, overstocked forest that may decrease the scenic quality over time. Inventoried Roadless Areas Cumulative Effects The no action alternative is expected to result in increased fuel loading over time, and no increased diversity of vegetation within the project area. It is expected that this area may experience a large wildfire and may reset succession to an early seral stage, thus creating an even aged vegetation component. Soil and water resources may also be negatively impacted in the event of a large fire in the project area. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Recreation Direct and Indirect Effects This section describes the effects from implementing the Modified Proposed Action and all of the project design criteria for the recreation resource. The recreation resource and in effect the forest visitor experience can be affected by changes to the characteristics of the area. Perceptions of a management activity vary depending on the biases of the individual, making objective measurements to change difficult. The environmental consequences disclosed in this section are presented. Sightseeing -The Modified Proposed Action would have positive impacts on sightseeing (see visual analysis). The effects from implementing the Modified Proposed Action would increase visual diversity across the project area by creating varying age classes and tree species composition. The forest within the project area may also be more resistant to insects, disease and large scale fires; thus facilitating a healthy
68 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration forest for future generations of recreation visitors to enjoy. The road relocation is located in Roaded Natural ROS setting, and is consistent with the desired character setting. Non-Motorized Trails- The Modified Proposed Action includes re-routing three sections of the Water Canyon Trail 31024 (0.34 miles, 0.05 miles, 0.15 miles), 1.25 miles of the White Rocks Trail 31014, and 0.75 miles of the Cut-Off Trail 31038. Trails will be re-routed within the same area, but to a location with better grade, resulting in a more sustainable trail system. There may be temporary impacts to non-motorized trail users from equipment noise, prescribed burning, drifting dust from vehicles and slash on trails and access roads during project implementation. Special Uses-The Modified Proposed Action is not expected to impact special uses. Water Activities- There may be temporary impacts to visitors engaging in water activities. However, because these activities are very limited and considered low to non-existent, impacts to visitors are expected to be very low to none. Camping- There may be impacts during project implementation at dispersed campsites located within or adjacent to the project area from slash in campsites, workers in the area, prescribed burning and dust and noise created from equipment and vehicles. It is expected that campers would continue to use this area once the project is completed. All existing dispersed campsites will remain. Other Recreational Activities-The impacts from implementing the Modified Proposed Action may temporarily impact people who are dispersed recreating and hunting because of project activity generated noise and prescribed fire within and adjacent to the project area during project implementation. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area consists of the project boundary. Disruptions in recreation use within the analysis area due to the proposed management actions may cause some recreation participants to move elsewhere during implementation. Such disruptions in recreation use would be short in duration. The Modified Proposed Action would cause no cumulative impacts within the analysis area. Scenery Direct and Indirect Effects Landscape Character The Modified Proposed Action would cause both short-term (< 10 years) and long-term (> 10 years) changes in landscape character within the analysis area. Short-term vegetation pattern changes would create a more colorful forest floor. Long-term vegetation changes would include more diversity of stand structure and age. The included design features will minimize impacts to the scenic resource because flush cut stumps, removal of slash and following characteristic landscape patterns of the surrounding area so that unnatural appearing lines are not created will give the project area a more natural appearance (see Table 14). Form Examples of form in the project area are tree lines. The Modified Proposed Action may modify form features in the project area when seen from middle ground views (1/2 to 4 miles) because of the removal of over story trees. However, these modifications would be considered an improvement of the scenery resource because there would be more diversity of vegetation and diversity of form.
69 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Line An example of line in the project area is ridgelines, sky lines and structures. The Modified Proposed Action may modify line features when seen from the background views because of the removal of over story trees. However, these modifications would be considered an improvement of the scenery resource because there would be more diversity of vegetation and line diversity. Hard lines created by past projects would also be removed from the view shed, and would create a more natural appearing landscape. Color An example of color in the project area is green trees, white clouds and a grayish-blue sky background. Overall, the color element in the landscape may be impacted in the short term with the loss of tree canopy cover. After one growing season, naturally regenerated grasses and forbs are expected to increase the yellow/green colors of the forest floor in the immediate foreground (0-300 feet). Texture An example of texture in the project area is coarse conifer needles or the smooth leaves of forbs. Under the Modified Proposed Action, the overall texture is expected to change from more coarse to more smooth in the short term with the removal of conifer trees and increase in forest floor vegetation and aquatic vegetation along stream management zones. The Modified Proposed Action will not change Scenic Integrity Objectives within the project boundary. Scenic resources benefit from vegetation treatments because they create a more diverse landscape for the viewing public while also creating a healthier forest that may be more resistant to disease, insect infestation and large wildfires. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area consists of the project boundary. There is the 2009 Mill Flat Fire and ongoing grazing throughout the project area. No negative cumulative effect to scenic resources is expected by implementing the Modified Proposed Action. There are positive cumulative impacts from implementing the Modified Proposed Action because hard lines would be removed from the landscape and visual diversity will be enhanced. This project is designed to create a more resilient forest, which is good for the scenery resource because vegetation may remain on the landscape in a patch-work, mosaic pattern of visual diversity for many years. Inventoried Roadless Area Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area consists of the project area. The cumulative effects of this project with past projects is expected to improve the scenic attractiveness by facilitating a more diverse and resilient vegetation component across the landscape. This project will also remove conspicuous line features on the landscape created by past projects, and will improve scenic attractiveness. Past circumstances have seen an increasing incursion of cheatgrass and pinyon-juniper trees in the project area. Adding a non-native species (i.e. crested wheatgrass) to the seed mix may result in reducing the ability of the area to be used as a reference landscape and reduce the natural integrity of the area. However, it should be noted that the ability of this area to be used as a reference landscape is limited, due to the previous
70 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration effects of past management actions and the dominance of cheatgrass and pinyon-juniper trees. Past management actions have also impacted the natural integrity of the area.
3.8 Vegetation Resource This section presents a summary of the Vegetation Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Vegetation Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. 3.8.1 Affected environment An uncharacteristic buildup of conifers, specifically pinyon pine and juniper, have degraded the ecological integrity of shrublands, forestlands, and grasslands. The loss of understory grasses and forbs and the resulting soil erosion are thought to be associated with high density pinyon- juniper woodlands (Brockway et al., 2002). Much of what is now pinyon- juniper woodland may have once been juniper savanna, dominated by grasses and forbs and containing maybe no more than 10-15 trees/hectare. Pinyon-juniper woodland has expanded its range five-fold and increased its density by 6-20 times (Cottam and Stewart, 1940), with densities now averaging 338 trees per hectare (Miller and Rose, 1995). These out of balance buildups of conifers have also led to alteration of fire regimes and development of greater fire hazards. The causes of pinyon and juniper expansion include livestock grazing, fire exclusion, and climatic changes (Miller and Wigand, 1994; Miller and Tausch, 2000). 3.8.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct Effects There are no direct effects to choosing the No Action Alternative. Indirect Effects Conifers will continue to increase in density (numbers of stems per unit area) and can be expected to continue to replace sagebrush, grasses, and forbs in areas not treated. Conifer establishment within upland meadows will result in less production, vigor and diversity of grass, forb and shrub species which would result in a further decline in habitat conditions (Monsen et al., 2004; Haugo and Halpern, 2007).The colonization of upland meadows by trees has been shown to rapidly alter soil properties to favor the new forest ecosystem. If future treatments did remove trees to restore meadow communities, conditions could be conducive to tree seedling survival to allow forests to rapidly re-colonize the treated sites (Griffiths et al., 2005). Disturbance Regime With no action, the potential for larger scale wildfires is increased. The increases in tree densities increase the opportunity for insect outbreaks and risk of wildfire. While wildfires could be used as a benefit to resource values such as opening of closed stands of pinyon-juniper, releasing understory vegetation and increasing herbaceous forage production, it is likely that a fire in this area, at this time, would be detrimental to the forest resources. Large scale wildfire could negatively impact areas of intact sagebrush habitat. These
71 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration areas recover slowly after wildfire, especially the shrub component (Connelly et al., 2000; Tausch and Hood, 2007). Vegetative Patterns With no action, conifer stands across the landscape will remain fairly homogeneous. Large scale patterns of similar forest conditions provide poor habitat for the suite of animal and plant species which historically inhabit the different conifer stands. Large scale homogeneous landscapes also increase the risk for large scale forest disturbances such as stand replacing fire and insect outbreaks (Graham et al., 1999b; Graham et al., 2004; Battaglia and Shepperd, 2007). Cumulative Effects Implementation of the No Action Alternative is expected to have no effects on size class distribution and canopy cover, within the Cumulative Effects Area (CEA). Conifers will continue to increase in density (numbers of stems per unit area) and can be expected to continue to replace sagebrush, grasses, and forbs in areas not treated. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) Direct Effects There would be a change to structure and size of vegetation with the removal of conifer from aspen stands. Future snags created by insects and disease would be left on site within the project area. Within the prescribed burn units, some snags may be consumed by fire, while others would likely be created as a result of prescribed fire. Coarse woody debris would increase within mechanical and hand treated areas, as a result of the slash created from treatments. In prescribed burn units, coarse woody debris may be consumed to a degree depending on fire behavior. Indirect Effects Structure, Composition, and Patterns The openings in the understory will receive more light, stimulating light tolerant vegetation such as grasses and forbs (Burns, 1989). More shade tolerant species will be expected to decline till shaded conditions return over time. Following treatments, species composition is expected to shift to favor grasses, forbs, and shrubs (Payton et al., 2011). Spruce, ponderosa pine, and aspen would be favored. Aspen is expected to resprout in greater amounts in those areas disturbed by treatment (due to additional light and damage to root systems) as compared to areas without these disturbances (McGinn et al., 1999; Eisenhauer et al., 2004). Within the aspen treatment areas both the understory and most of the overstory would be comprised of all aspen as all other conifer species would be removed with the exception of a few large conifer that would remain. The number of species or richness of grasses, forbs and shrubs is expected to increase as well through the removal of conifer trees (Miller, 2005; USDA, 2011). With reduced total canopy cover, shrubs, grasses and forbs increase, improving effective ground cover (Pyke, 2011). Downed Logs and Coarse Woody Debris The required amounts of downed logs would increase within the mechanically treated areas as contract specifications would require leaving the desired number of downed logs on site. Coarse woody debris would also increase within mechanically treated areas.
72 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Snags The number of snags would exceed the desired minimums for the mixed-conifer vegetation type. Disturbance Regime Processes The increased vigor through tree removal will allow the treated areas to be more resilient to insect, fire, disease and climate disturbances (Graham et al., 1999a). With any ground disturbing activity, there may be increased opportunities for noxious or invasive species, both native and nonnative, to increase in the project area. Invasive species disturbance is highly dependent on the timing of the project, proximity of invasive species to the disturbed area, and environmental factors (precipitation, soil conditions, etc.). Cumulative Effects Areas proposed for conifer removal in the Grass Valley area have not been previously cut. Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action is expected to have minimal effects on size class distribution and canopy cover, within the Cumulative Effects Area (CEA). The cumulative effects area is the project boundary. 3.8.3 Summary of effects Snags Stand exam data indicates that the number of snags per acre over much of the CEA generally meets or exceeds the desired amounts for the mixed conifer stands. Downed Logs and Course Woody Debris Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action would move toward meeting desired conditions in the CEA by leaving the desired number of snags, down logs, and down woody material within the treated acres. Vegetative Composition There would be no other cumulative effects to vegetative composition over what is described under the Modified Proposed Action. Vegetative Processes Insects Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action is expected to have minimal effects on insect processes within the CEA as the incidence of insect infestation would be reduced only within the treated areas. Diseases Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action is expected to have minimal effects on disease processes within the CEA as the incidence of disease would only be reduced within the treated areas. Fire
73 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
The cumulative effects of the Modified Proposed Action would be to lower the short-term fire hazard within the project area by reducing fine and coarse woody debris, and to lower long-term fire severity and intensity within the project area and the cumulative effects area by reducing the amounts of coarse woody debris.
3.9 Wildlife Resource This section presents a summary of the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report. For more detailed discussion and analysis, and for a complete list of references consulted, see the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report contained in the project record. Included in this section are summaries of the affected environment and environmental consequences of each of the three alternative actions described in Chapter 2. 3.9.1 Affected environment Wildlife species selected for this analysis include: (a) species that are listed as Threatened, Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Service, 2016), (b) Sensitive Species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List , (c) Management Indicator Species as designated by the Dixie National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (Service), and (d) Other Species of Concern. Plant Species selected for this analysis include: (a) species that are listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Service), and (b) Sensitive Species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Any Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or MIS species that does not have suitable habitat or is not known to occur in the proposed project area will receive a programmatic “No Effect” determination and not be analyzed further. For a complete list of species considered and specific effects to species analyzed, refer to the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report. 3.9.2 Environmental consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Under the No Action alternative, current management would continue to guide management of the project area. No vegetation treatments would be implemented to accomplish project objectives. There would be no actions taken to restore vegetative conditions, improve riparian areas, streams and wildlife habitat, and create a more fire resilient landscape. The No Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing the Modified Proposed Action alternative to what would occur if an action alternative is not chosen. Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) The following table summarizes the determinations and effects of the Modified Proposed Action alternative on wildlife and plant species and their habitat analyzed for the Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration Project.
Table 22. Effects of the Modified Proposed Action on Wildlife and Plant Species and their habitat. Determinations or Conclusions Species Modified Proposed Action Rationale (Common Name) Threatened and Endangered Species
74 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Mexican Spotted Owl May Affect, but Not Likely to Potential short term disturbance in fall/winter; (Strix occidentalis lucida) Adversely Affect alteration of dispersal habitat. (Threatened) California Condor May Affect, but Not Likely to Potential short term disturbance during project (Gymnogyps californianus) Adversely Affect activities; alteration of foraging habitat. Long- (Endangered) term improvement in habitat conditions. Intermountain Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Peregrine Falcon May impact individuals or habitat, No disturbance; net improvement of upland (Falco peregrinus anatum) but will not likely contribute to a foraging habitat. Beneficial Impact trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Flammulated Owl May impact individuals or habitat, Minor loss of nesting habitat, net gain in (Otus flammeolus) but will not likely contribute to a foraging habitat. trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Northern Goshawk May impact individuals or habitat, Temporary loss of potential nesting habitat, (Accipiter gentilis) but will not likely contribute to a long term improvement in forested stands and trend toward Federal listing or foraging habitat. cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Spotted Bat / Townsend’s May impact individuals or habitat, No disturbance; net improvement of upland big-eared Bat but will not likely contribute to a foraging habitat. Beneficial Impact (Corynorhinus townsendii trend toward Federal listing or pallescens) cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Three-toed Woodpecker May impact individuals or habitat, Temporary loss of potential nesting habitat, (Picoides dorsalis) but will not likely contribute to a long term beneficial impacts to forested trend toward Federal listing or stands, nesting and foraging habitat. cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Pine Valley Goldenweed May impact individual plants or Potential disturbance to suitable habitat in (Haplopappus crispus) habitat, but will not likely rocky outcropping in wilderness area. contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Management Indicator Species Mule Deer / Rocky Mountain May impact individuals or habitat, Short term disturbance; loss of hiding cover Elk but will not cause a loss of along edges; long-term improvement of (Odocoileus hemionus) viability to the population or foraging habitat and migration corridors. (Cervus Canadensis) species. Viable populations maintained. Northern Flicker May impact individuals or habitat, Short term disturbance; minor loss of foraging (Colaptes auratus) but will not cause a loss of and or nesting habitat. Long-term viability to the population or improvement in foraging habitat with increase species. ground cover
75 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Viable populations maintained. Wild Turkey May impact individuals or habitat, Short term displacement; net loss of roosting (Meleagris gallopavo) but will not cause a loss of habitat. Long-term improvement in foraging viability to the population or habitat. species. Viable populations maintained.
Other Species of Concern Virginia’s Warbler May impact individuals or habitat, Limited short term displacement. Some (Vermivora virginiae) but will not cause a loss of impacts to secondary nesting habitat; some viability to the population or impacts to foraging habitat in mountain shrub species. cover types. Viable populations maintained. Gray Vireo May impact individuals or habitat, Limited short term displacement. Some (Vireo vicinior) but will not cause a loss of impacts to pinyon-juniper woodland breeding viability to the population or habitat. species. Viable populations maintained. Broad-tailed humming-bird May impact individuals or habitat, Limited short term displacement. No impacts (Selasphorus platycercus) but will not cause a loss of to primary nesting and foraging habitat in viability to the population or riparian areas (Design Criteria). species. Viable populations maintained. Brewer’s Sparrow May impact individuals or habitat, Limited short term displacement. Some (Spizella breweri) but will not cause a loss of impacts to shrub component breeding habitat. viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area (CEA) for wildlife species for this project is the entire Grass Valley Creek 6th order HUC watershed encompassing approximately 21,280 acres. In summary, the CEA in this analysis has seen marginal vegetation management activity over the past 20 – 30 years that has contributed to the characteristic of the landscape over time. Approximately 1,468 acres within the project were previously mechanically treated in the 1970s and again in the 1990’s. Pinyon pine and juniper are again encroaching into these areas. Fires from 2009 to 2018 burned approximately 12,785 acres in this CEA. The combined cumulative effects of past, present and foreseeable actions in combination with the current Modified Proposed Action have been analyzed in the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report and are not expected to surpass any thresholds related to species viability or to contribute to federal listing of species in the project area.
3.10 Other Disclosures 3.10.1 Environmental Justice Act Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations, and Departmental Regulation 5600-2 direct federal agencies to integrate environmental
76 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. Implementation of any of these alternatives will be consistent with this Order and will not have a discernible effect on minorities, American Indians, or women, or the civil rights of any United States citizen. Nor will it have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities or low-income individuals. No civil liberties will be affected. Public involvement and comment was sought and incorporated into this document. The Forest Service has considered all public input from individuals or groups regardless of age, race, income status, gender, or other social/economic characteristics (see project record). Executive Order 12898 also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. The decision resulting from this analysis would not alter opportunities for subsistence hunting by Native American tribes. Native American tribes holding treaty rights for hunting and fishing on the Dixie National Forest were provided an opportunity to comment on the proposal (see project record). Based on experience with similar projects on the Pine Valley Ranger District, none of the alternatives would substantially affect minority or low-income individuals, women, or civil rights. 3.10.2 Climate Climate Change Climate change is affecting the Southwest. Temperatures have increased by almost 2°F in the last century, with the 2001-2010 decade being the warmest since records began 110 years ago (Garfin et al., 2014). The length of the frost-free season has increased by 19 days in recent decades (Walsh et al., 2014). Average annual temperatures are projected to rise an additional 3.5°F to 9.5°F by the end of this century, with the greatest temperature increases expected in the summer and fall (Garfin et al., 2014). Drought conditions are already common in the Southwest and drought periods are expected to become more frequent, intense, and longer. Drought will affect important water sources, including the Colorado River Basin (Garfin et al., 2014). Combined with expected population growth, climate change will exacerbate existing stresses. Managing forests to help them retain and increase their carbon storage potential can maximize their ability to mitigate climate change. It is essential that we recognize the value of this benefit by restoring damaged forests, and maintaining healthy ecosystems (American Forests, 2016). Impacts of climate change on Water Resources A reliable water supply is crucial for sustaining the people, agriculture, energy production and ecosystems in this dry region. Increased water demand and reduced water supplies will add new stresses to already strained water resources. The Southwest relies on the slow melt of mountain snowpack throughout the spring and summer, when water demands are highest. Snowpack helps keep the ground and soil moist by covering it longer into the spring and summer, which delays the onset of the fire season and influences the prevalence and severity of wildfires. Over the last 50 years, there has been less precipitation falling as snow late in the winter and snow melt has occurred earlier (Garfin et al., 2014). Maximum streamflow has also occurred earlier in the year and total yearly streamflow has decreased in the last decade. In April 2015, California snowpack held only 5% of the water it typically holds at this time of year, with some areas having no
77 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration snowpack (CADWR, 2015). 2015 was the smallest April snowpack in the last 65 years, and projections indicate continued declines in snowpack in the Southwest in the future (Garfin et al., 2014). In addition to less snow accumulation, warmer temperatures are expected to speed snow melting, and rain falling on snow could result in more rapid runoff and flooding conditions in spring (US Global Change Research Program, 2009). Impacts of climate change on Forests and Other Ecosystems Projected increases in drought, wildfire, invasive species and pests, as well as changes in the geographic ranges of species, will likely threaten native forests and other ecosystems in the Southwest (US Global Change Research Program, 2009; Garfin et al., 2014). More severe drought and warming temperatures are threatening forests in the region and making them more vulnerable to other stresses, including pests. The effects of a warming climate and droughts have ripened conditions for insect and disease epidemics to take root. By focusing on stemming insect and disease outbreaks we can better protect the large carbon stores already present in our national forests as well as create forests that are more resilient to future changes in climate. Warmer, drier conditions, combined with the accumulation of dead trees and other fuel have contributed to an increase in the size of wildfires in recent decades, resulting in extensive and costly damage. Fire is a natural occurrence in the Southwest, but excessive wildfire destroys homes, transforms ecosystems, threatens public health, and damages the economy. The 2003 Grand Prix fire in southern California alone caused $1.2 billion in damages (Garfin et al., 2014). In western North America, climate has been implicated as a factor in recent vegetation die-offs. The drought of 2002-2003 has been associated with the widespread mortality of pinyon (Pinus edulis) and juniper (Juniperus spp.) in the southwestern United States. Breshears and others (2005) showed that this drought coincided with warmer temperatures not seen in previous droughts during the Twentieth Century. Similarly, Rehfeldt and others (2009) used weather station data to show that the changes in climate variables important in predicting aspen (Populus tremuloides) distribution were also associated with stands of aspen die-off caused by sudden aspen decline. As with the pinyon die-off, drought and higher-than-average temperatures in 2002-2003 have been implicated as contributing factors in sudden aspen decline. Based on predictions from general circulation models (GCMs), the aspen die-off may represent the trigger for a range shift, wherein many of these dead or dying stands will not recover (Rehfeldt et al., 2009). It is possible that warming temperatures in Southern Utah may render the climate on the Dixie National Forest inhospitable to Engelmann spruce later this century (Rehfeldt, 2004).While die-offs of landscape dominant plant species, such as aspen and pinyon, may represent a fundamental change in ecosystem processes, climate change could also threaten other regionally distributed or endemic plant taxa with extinction (Finch, 2012). Preventive actions intended to avert serious disruptions due to changing climate may include thinning of forests to increase tolerance to drought and resistance to wildfire or insects, genetic conservation of species, assisted migration of species to suitable habitat, development of wildlife corridors to facilitate migration, or construction of new water storage facilities (Dillard et al., 2008). Opportunistic actions that take advantage of man-made or natural disturbance events to facilitate adaptation to future climate may include planting of different species or genotypes from those that occurred on a site before disturbance or active conversion of vegetation structure to make it more resilient to changing climate (Dillard et al., 2008).
78 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Approximately 40% of the region is estimated to be vulnerable to changes in the distribution of abundant plant species as a result of recent and projected climate change (Garfin et al., 2014). Fires will likely change the location of forests and other ecosystems, (Garfin et al., 2014) and changes in climate will likely drive the migration of species northward or to higher elevations as species colonize areas with more tolerable climatic conditions (US Global Change Research Program, 2009). In California, over 3,000 native plant species are expected to face reductions in hospitable geographic range (CADWR, 2015). Iconic species and landscapes, such as that of the Saguaro cactus in the Sonoran Desert, are also being threatened. Climate Change and Carbon Stock: Carbon Cycling Influences on Climate Change Carbon cycling for this analysis refers to the cycle of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the forest ecosystem. Through photosynthesis, CO2 is taken up by trees and plants and converted to carbon in the form of cellulose or biomass within the forest vegetation. Carbon dioxide emissions occur from respiration in live trees, combustion from fire, and decay of dead biomass. In addition, carbon is stored for long time periods when forest biomass is harvested for use in durable wood products. Carbon dioxide flux is the net balance of CO2 removals from and emissions to the atmosphere from the processes described above (Roe and Baker, 2007). Activities generating greenhouse gases (GHG) from all sources (industrial, commercial, residential etc.) within the state of Utah is forecasted through the year 2020 to produce about 69 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMtCO2e) or about 1 percent of the U.S. total yearly GHG emissions (Roe and Baker, 2007). From data available from the USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, there are about 54.3 million acres of forest, woodland and non-forest land across all ownerships in Utah (Deblander et al., 2010). Forests in Utah are considered carbon sinks and after CO2 flux, are estimated to store between 8.7 to 23 MMtCO2e in forest biomass and soil organic carbon annually (Richter, 2008). The Dixie NF covers over 1.94 million acres within the state of Utah (USDA, 2010a) with about 1.4 million acres being forested. Using the figures above, the Dixie NF roughly is estimated to store 0.62 to 1.65 MMtCO2e annually. Accumulations of snags and down dead wood release carbon to the atmosphere through decomposition. The project would result in short term releases of carbon to the atmosphere during prescribed fire activities. Although prescribed burning returns some carbon, other greenhouse gases and particulate matter to the atmosphere, combustion is more complete than wildfire, which releases higher concentrations of the other greenhouse gases and particulate matter (Mader, 2007). There will be short term emissions associated with machinery while harvest activities are underway.
79
Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and other organization and individuals during the development of this environmental assessment:
4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies US CONGRESSMAN CHRIS STEWART US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE US SENATOR MIKE LEE US SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH
SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY-DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE COORDINATOR UTAH DIVISION OF FORESTRY, FIRE & STATE LANDS UTAH PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE UTAH RDDC PUBLIC LANDS POLICY UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVE (IRON/WA) BRADLEY LAST UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVE (WA CO) JON E. STANARD UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVE (WA CO) V. LOWRY SNOW UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NOEL UTAH STATE SENATOR STEPHEN H. URQUHART UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVE (IRON CO) JOHN R. WESTWOOD UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVE (WA CO) DON IPSON UTAH STATE SENATOR EVAN VICKERS UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVE (WA CO) WALT BROOKS
CENTRAL SPECIAL SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF ENTERPRISE MAYOR CITY OF ST. GEORGE MAYOR FIVE CO ASSOCIATION OF GOVT HARMONY VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT IRON COUNTY COMMISSION IRON COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST PINE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT PINE VALLEY SPECIAL SERVICES DISTRICT TOWN OF NEW HARMONY MAYOR UTAH ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS VEYO SPECIAL SERVICES DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSION WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
4.2 Tribes KAIBAB BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS HUALAPAI TRIBE HAVASUPAI TRIBE LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE MOAPA BAND OF PAIUTES THE HOPI TRIBE THE NAVAJO NATION THE UTE TRIBE PAIUTE INDIAN TRIBE OF UTAH
4.3 Others: GRAND CANYON TRUST SPORTSMEN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE KEVIN MUELLER THE NATURE CONSERVANCY MULE DEER FOUNDATION UTAH CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION RICHARD ARTLEY UTAH WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, INC. SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
81 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
4.4 Pine Valley Allotment Permittees CHARLES HULET SLADE R. HUGHES ROBERT AND MARY HOUSTON DWIGHT AND SHAUNA DANNELLY FENTON BOWLER
4.5 Public Meeting Participants GERALD SCHIEFER GRANT CARTER STEVE SHAKESPEARE RON RENCHER BOB HANSEN MARY WESTFALL BRUCE AND LAURA BORGESON TED REINERT FRANK AND MAXINE DAVIE JANE ZIMMERMAN KEN NEWBY BRAD SCHMUTZ RON AND SHARON COLE BERDEAN SCHLOSSER BEVAN KILLPACK CID MARTIN SLADE HUGHES REBECCA WHITE ROLAND FINGER LEZLI OHARA MIKE AVARTY CASEY OHARA T PATERSON TROY PARK RICK PEETZ KENDALL KELSEY GEORGE CROPPER CURTIS HADLEY RICHARD MCARTHUR RENAE MACAULAY CELIA RENCHER SNOW CARLA KELSEY JOHN NICKEL DONEVA HUNT BOB DALLEY 4.6 Commenters The following provided comments during the scoping period held from June 1, 2017 to July 13, 2017:
THE HOPI TRIBE UTAH FARM BUREAU RICHARD ARTLEY STATE OF UTAH PUBLIC LANDS POLICY COORDINATING OFFICE
The following provided comments during the scoping period held from April 30, 2018 to May 30, 2018:
KEVIN PROESCHOLDT, WILDERNESS WATCH RICHARD ARTLEY JAMES WOODS FORM LETTER AND DUPLICATE LETTERS – 2,857 COPIES
82 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Appendix A - MAPS
Figure 7. Vicinity Map
83 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Figure 8. Inventoried Roadless Area Map
84 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Figure 9. Management Areas Map
85 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Figure 10. Vegetation Map
86 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Figure 11. Modified Proposed Action
87 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Figure 12. Transportation Map
88 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Appendix B Landscape Conservation Forecasting TM Pine Valley Ranger District, Dixie National Forest See Attachment
89 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Bibliography
2013. Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species. USDA Forest Service, Ogden. Agee, J.K., Skinner, C.N., 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83-96. American Forests, 2016. American Forests. Battaglia, M., Shepperd, W.D., 2007. Chapter 2: Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer and Spruce-Fir Forests. In: Hood, S.M., Miller, M. (Eds.), Fire Ecology and Management of the Major Ecosystems of Southern Utah, RMRS-GTR-202. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, pp. 7-37. Bayer, J.T., 1997. Effects of fire on the soil resource. In: Service, U.F. (Ed.). USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, UT. Bayer, J.T., Jaros, R.S., 1996. Effects of timber harvest on the soil resource (updated 2006). In: Service, U.F. (Ed.). USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, UT. Breshears, D.D., Cobb, N.S., Rich, P.M., Price, K.P., Allen, C.D., Balice, R.G., Romme, W.H., Kastens, J.H., Floyd, M.L., Belnap, J., 2005. Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 15144-15148. Brockway, D.G., Gatewood, R.G., Paris, R.B., 2002. Restoring grassland savannas from degraded pinyon-juniper woodlands: effects of mechanical overstory reduction and slash treatment alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management 64, 179-197. Burns, R.M., 1989. The scientific basis for silvicultural and management decisions in the national forest system. Washington, DC: Forest Service, US Dept. of Agriculture: GPO. Burton, T.A., 2005. Fish and stream habitat risks from uncharacteristic wildfire: observations from 17 years of fire-related disturbances on the Boise National Forest, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 140-149. Burton, T.A., Smith, S.J., Cowley, E.R., 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO, p. 155. CADWR, 2015. California Department of Water Sources news. California Department of Water Resources. Certini, G., 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143, 1-10. Clinton, B.D., 2011. Stream water responses to timber harvest: Riparian buffer width effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management 261, 979-988. Connelly, J.W., Schroeder, M.A., Sands, A.R., Braun, C.E., 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 967-985. Cottam, W.P., Stewart, G., 1940. Plant succession as a result of grazing and of meadow desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1862. Journal of Forestry 38, 613-626. Deblander, L.T., Shaw, J.D., Witt, C., Menlove, J., Thompson, M.T., Morgon, T.A., DeRose, J.R., Amacher, M.C., 2010. Utah's forest resources 2000-2005. Resource Bulleting RMRS-RB-10. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. DeWalle, D.R., 2010. Modeling Stream Shade: Riparian Buffer Height and Density as Important as Buffer. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46, 323-333. Dillard, D., Rose, C., Conrad, S., 2008. Forest Service strategic framework for responding to climate change. In: Service, U.F. (Ed.), USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, p. 21. Eisenhauer, P., McGinn, D., Peterson, C., 2004. The Effects of Timber Harvest on Vegetation on the Dixie National Forest (Draft). Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, UT. EPA, 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Finch, D.M., 2012. Climate change in grasslands, shrublands, and deserts of the interior American West: a review and needs assessment. In: Agriculture, U.D.o. (Ed.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, p. 139. Garfin, G., Franco, G., Blanco, H., Comrie, A., Gonzalez, P., Piechota, T., Smyth, R., Waskom, R., 2014. Ch. 20: Southwest. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third National climate assessment. In: J. M. Melillo, T.T.C.R., and G. W. Yohe (Ed.). U.S. Global Change Research Program, pp. 462-486. Graham, R.T., Harvey, A.E., Jain, T.B., Tonn, J.R., 1999a. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Graham, R.T., McCaffrey, S., Jain, T.B., 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Graham, R.T., Rodriguez, R.L., Paulin, K.M., Player, R.L., Heap, A.P., Williams, R., 1999b. The Northern Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Management Recommendations. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-22. Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT. Griffiths, R., Madritch, M., Swanson, A., 2005. Conifer invasion of forest meadows transforms soil characteristics in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 208, 347-358. Haak, A., Williams, J., Colyer, W., 2011. Developing a Diverse Conservation Portfolio for Bonneville cutthroat trout. Trout Unlimited, Missoula, MT. Haak, A.L., Williams, J.E., 2012. Spreading the risk: native trout management in a warmer and less-certain future. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:2, 387-401. Hadley, M., Ottenbacher, M., Golden, M., 2011a. Survey of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the Upper Virgin River Drainage, Utah, 2009-2010. In: Resources, U.D.o.W. (Ed.). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. Hadley, M.J., Ottenbacher, M.J., Golden, M.E., 2011b. Survey of Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the Upper Virgin River Drainage, Utah, 2009- 2010. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT, p. 35. Haugo, R.D., Halpern, C.B., 2007. Vegetation responses to conifer encroachment in a western Cascade meadow: a chronosequence approach. Canadian Journal of Botany, 85: 285-298. Hawes, E., Smith, M., 2005. Riparian Buffer Zones: Functions and Recommended Widths. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT. Hepworth, D.K., Beckstrom, S., 2004. A simple 4 step method to manage for quality fishing: Implmenting Utah's Blue Ribbon Fishing Program. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT, p. 13. Lentsch, L., Toline, C., ., Kershner, J., Hudson, J., Mizzi, J., 2000. Range-wide conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah). In: Resources, U.D.o.W. (Ed.). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. Mader, S., 2007. Climate Project: Carbon Sequestration by California Forests and Forest Products. CH2M Hill, Inc. on behalf of California Forests for the Next Century, Los Angeles, CA. McCormick, F.H., Riemen, B.E., Kershner, J.L., 2010. Biological responses to stressors in aquatic ecosystems in western North America: cumulative watershed effects of fuel treatments, wildfire, and post-fire remediation. In: Elliot, William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa, eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 206-233. 231, 206-233. McGinn, D., Eisenhauer, P., Ferguson, B., Bott, J., 1999. (draft) Effects of Fire on Vegetation. Unpublished manuscript on file at Dixie National forest, Cedar City, UT. Miller, R.F., 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Miller, R.F., Rose, J.A., 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist, 37-45. Miller, R.F., Tausch, R.J., 2000. The role of fire in pinyon and juniper woodlands: a descriptive analysis. Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire conference, pp. 15-30. Miller, R.F., Wigand, P.E., 1994. Holocene changes in semiarid pinyon-juniper woodlands. BioScience 44, 465-474. Monsen, S.B., Stevens, R., Shaw, N.L., 2004. Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands, vol. 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-2. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pages 295-698 plus index 136.
90 Grass Valley Creek Watershed Restoration
Neary, D.G., Ryan, K.C., DeBano, L.F., 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 42-vol 4, 250. Overton, C., McIntyre, J., Armstrong, R., Whitwel, S., Duncan, K., 1995. User’s Guide to Fish Habitat: Descriptions that Represent Natural Conditions in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station., Ogden, UT. Payton, A.C., Hayes, S.J., Borthwick, S.M., Japuntich, R.D., 2011. Short-term response of shrubs, graminoids, and forbs to mechanical treatment in a sagebrush ecosystem in Colorado. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 16, 1. Pyke, D.A., 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38, 531-548. Rehfeldt, G.E., 2004. Interspecific and intraspecific variation in Picea engelmannii and its congeneric cohorts: biosystematics, genecology, and climate change. In: Service, U.F. (Ed.). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, p. 18. Rehfeldt, G.E., Ferguson, D.E., Crookston, N.L., 2009. Aspen, climate, and sudden decline in western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 2353-2364. Richter, D., 2008. The Carbon Budget of Utah's Forests. Duke University, Durham, NC. Roe, G.H., Baker, M.B., 2007. Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable? Science 318, 629-632. Scott, J., 2005. Standard fire behaviour fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's surface fire model RMRS-GTR-153. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Service, U.F., 1986. Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest. Service, U.F.a.W., 2016. Threatened and Endangered Species List. Tausch, R.J., 2009. Pinon and juniper field guide: Asking the right quesitons to select appropriate managment actions. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1335. Tausch, R.J., Hood, S., 2007. Chapter 4, Pinyon/Juniper Woodlands. In: Hood, S., Miller, M. (Eds.), Fire ecology and management of the major ecosystems of southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 57-71. Tuhy, J., Provencher, L., Green, G., York, E., Anderson, T., 2014. Landscape conservation forecasting, Pine Valley Ranger District, Dixie National Forest. In: The Nature Conservancy, M.a.S.L.C., Utah, The Nature Conservancy, R.a.L.V., Nevada (Eds.). The Nature Conservancy, Salt Lake City, UT, p. 360. UDAQ, 2015. Utah Administrative Code: Standards of quality for waters of the state R317-2. In: Quality, U.D.o.E. (Ed.). US Global Change Research Program, 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. USDA, 1982. ROS Users Guide. In: Service, U.F. (Ed.). USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. USDA, 1986, as amended. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dixie National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, UT. USDA, 1988. FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook Chapter 10. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. USDA, 2000a. Environmental assessment for noxious weed management Dixie National forest. USDA Forest Service, Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, UT. USDA, 2000b. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final EIS Vol 2. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. USDA, 2000c. Utah Fire Amendment Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Price, UT. USDA, 2000d. Utah Northern Goshawk Project Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact and Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. USDA, 2004. Intermountain Region Planning Desk Guide, A Protocol for Identifying and Evaluating Areas for Potential Wilderness. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. USDA, 2010a. Land Areas of the National Forest System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. USDA, 2010b. Watershed Condition and Assessment Tracking Tool, Dixie National Forest. USDA Forest Service. USDA, 2011. Dixie vegetation trend studies (various dates and location in project file). USDA, 2014. Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Fiscal Year 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. In: Forest, D.N. (Ed.). Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, UT. USDA, 2015. Fiscal Year 2014 Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report. In: Forest, D.N. (Ed.). Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, UT. USDA, USDOI, 2014. The National Strategy, the Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. USDOI., 1995. Federal wildland fire management policy and program review. In: Aviation, O.o.F.a. (Ed.). USDOI Bureau of Land Management. Utah Wildlife Action Plan Joint Team, 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to help prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. In: Resources, U.D.o.W. (Ed.). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. Walsh, J., Wuebbles, D., Hayhoe, K., Kossin, J., Kunkel, K., Stephens, G., Thorne, P., Vose, R., Wehner, M., Willis, J., 2014. Ch. 2: Our changing climate. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment, 19-67. Winward, A.H., 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Ogden, UT, USA.
91