united states department of agriculture forest service...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Intermountain Region

Dixie National Forest

Cedar City Ranger District

July 2015

2015

Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment

HENRIE KNOLLS NORTH VEGETATION TREATMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

For More Information Contact:

Mark Carrara – ID Team Leader Dixie National Forest Supervisor’s Office

1789 N Wedgewood Ln Cedar City, UT 84721 Phone: 435.865.3224 http://fs.usda.gov/dixie

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or activities.)

If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD).

If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office.

To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call toll free, (866) 632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

You may use USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Forms AD-3027 or AD-3027s (Spanish) which can be found at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and http://www.ascr.usda.gov/es_us/sp_complaint_filing_cust.html or upon request from a local USDA office.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/es_us/sp_complaint_filing_cust.html

This page intentionally left blank.


Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................... 1

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ......................................................................................... 1

LOCATION AND PROJECT AREA ............................................................................. 2

CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN DIRECTION .................................................. 3

EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS ................................................................... 5

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ....................................................................... 13

RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOREST PLAN ................................................................ 15

PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................ 15

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS ..................................... 18

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, COMMENTS AND ISSUES .............................................. 19

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... 21

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ......................................................................... 21

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................................ 34

A. Vegetation Resources ...................................................................................... 34

B. Fuels and Fire Behavior ................................................................................... 36

C. Air Resources .................................................................................................. 37

D. Hydrological and Soils Resources ................................................................... 37

E. Wildlife and Plant Resources ........................................................................... 41

F. Aquatic Biota Resources .................................................................................. 45

G. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 46

H. Range, Livestock Grazing, and Noxious Weeds .............................................. 46

I. Socio-Economic Resources ............................................................................. 55

J. Climate Change ............................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ......................................... 59

CHAPTER 5 – REFERENCES .................................................................................. 61

APPENDIX – List of Figures

Figure 1: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Cover Type ................................. 68 Figure 2: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Management Areas ..................... 69 Figure 3: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Proposed Action ......................... 70 Figure 4: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Transportation ............................. 71

i


List of Tables

Table 1 - 1: Vegetation structural stages for ponderosa pine stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area .......................................... 6

Table 1 - 2: Vegetation structural stages for mixed conifer stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area .......................................... 8

Table 1 - 3: Vegetation structural stages for aspen stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation project area ...................................................................... 9

Table 1 - 4: Vegetation structural stages for spruce stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area ................................................... 10

Table 1 - 5: Existing fuel loading by proposed treatment type ....................................... 15

Table 2 - 1: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project system roads ............... 24 Table 2 - 2: The following Project Design Features (PDF) are part of the

Proposed Action and any other action alternative ...................................... 28

Table 3 - 1: Hydrologic variables, factors, and thresholds likely for a fuels management project that were used for analysis. ...................................... 38

Table 3 - 2: Cumulative effects comparison by alternative using percent of watershed disturbed. .................................................................................. 39

Table 3 - 3: Summary of effects .................................................................................... 40 Table 3 - 4: Summary of determinations of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects

and rationale for Wildlife Resources - Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Management Indicator, and Other Species of Concern –All Alternatives– Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Project ............... 44

Table 3 - 5. Comparison of treated acres with total acres for the allotment as a whole as well as by pasture. ...................................................................... 47

ii


CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives for consideration in determining whether or not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

The document is organized into the following parts:

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need. This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Chapter 2. Alternatives. This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on key issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and the no action alternative. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action alternatives that provide for evaluation and comparison.

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination. This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

• Chapter 5. References. This chapter provides a list of laws, regulations, scientific publications, and studies cited in the specialist reports and summarized in the EA.

• Appendices. Figures. The appendix provides additional detailed information to support the analyses presented in the Environmental Assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Cedar City Ranger District office in Cedar City, Utah.

1


Approximations. All acreages, distances, durations, and other quantities in this document are approximations based on measurements, samples, estimates, computer models, and professional judgment commonly applied in environmental analyses.

Abbreviations. Less-frequent abbreviations are noted in the text. The following abbreviations appear frequently in this document:

• ac.: Acres.

• CEA: Cumulative effects area.

• dbh: Diameter at breast height. Diameter of a stem of a tree measured 4.5 feet up from the ground. The ground measure is taken from the uphill side of the tree.

• drc: Diameter at root collar (ground level).

• Forest Plan: Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (USDA 1986).

• MIS: Management Indicator Species (wildlife and plant), as described in species sections.

• NFS: National Forest System.

• P-J: Pinyon-juniper species.

• PDF: Project Design Feature, as described in Chapter 2.

• Rx: Prescription for vegetation treatment.

• UDWR: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

• USFS, FS: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Service

• VSS: Vegetation Structural Stage, a 6-stage classification of forest vegetation based on structure and age.

LOCATION AND PROJECT AREA The Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment analysis area is located within the Cedar City Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest in Garfield County and Iron County, Utah. The project is located adjacent to Duck Creek and Mammoth Creek subdivisions. Both Duck Creek and Mammoth Creek have current Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). The legal description for the project area is T38S, R7W, Section 4; T37S, R8W, Sections 1, 12; T37S, R7W, Sections 3-10, 14-17, 20-23, 27-33; T36S, R8W, Sections 25, 36; and T36S, R7W, Sections 20, 29-34, SLB&M. The project area extends approximately from the Garfield County line north to State Route 143, primarily

2


on the west of Forest Highway (FH) 50 and it is located approximately two miles north of the intersection of State Route 14 and FH 50.

The 10,102 ac. project area is characterized by the following cover types (Figure 1). Approximate acres are generated from stand exam data. Below are the dominant cover type found on these acres.

• Ponderosa pine (8,523 ac.)

• Ponderosa pine riparian (66 ac.)

• Mixed conifer (608 ac.)

• Grass/sage (294 ac.)

• Aspen (368 ac.)

• Spruce (116 ac.)

• Basalt (118 ac.)

• Gravel pit (8 ac.)

CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN DIRECTION This analysis incorporates by reference the direction provided in the Forest Plan. 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. Figure 2 displays Forest Plan Management Areas (MA) within the project boundary. The project area includes the following MAs.

• MA 1-General Forest Management (3,137 ac.). Direction for MA1 is to “Improve habitat capability through direct treatment of vegetation, soil and waters” and “Maintain fuel conditions which permit fire suppression forces to meet fire projected objectives for the area.” Due to fire exclusion and past mechanical treatments, the surface and ladder fuels in the black sagebrush, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer areas have accumulated to levels that contribute to high intensity wildfires that are difficult to control.

Management activities will comply with the general direction Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Dixie Forest Plan Amendment-Utah Northern Goshawk Project (USDA 2000a) as stated in the Project Design Features for Wildlife (WL), WL -3 through WL-6 in Table 2 - 2.

3


• MA 1A-Recreation Sites (211 ac.). Management emphasis is for developed recreation in existing and proposed campgrounds, picnic grounds, trailheads, visitor information centers, summer home groups, and water-based support facilities. Proposed sites (sites scheduled for development in the plan) are managed to maintain the site attractiveness until they are developed.

• MA 2A-Semi-Primitive Recreation Opportunities (675 ac.). Management emphasis is for semi-primitive recreation opportunities. Motorized travel may be restricted or seasonally prohibited to designated routes to protect physical and biological resources to meet management objectives.

Visual resources are managed so that management activities are not evident or remain visually subordinate. Past management activities such as historical changes caused by early mining, logging, and ranching may be present which are not visually subordinate, but appear to have evolved to their present state through natural processes. Landscape rehabilitation is used to restore landscapes to desirable visual quality. Enhancement aimed at increasing positive elements to the landscape to improve visual variety is also used.

Silvicultural prescriptions should be designed to maintain a visual quality objective of partial retention, enhance long-term visual quality, diversity, and provide for insect and disease control.

• MA 2B-Rural and Roaded Recreation Opportunities (1,489 ac.). Management emphasis is for rural and roaded natural recreation opportunities. Motorized and non-motorized recreation activities such as driving for pleasure, viewing, scenery, picnicking, fishing, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing are possible. Conventional use of highway-type vehicles is provided for in the design and construction of facilities. Motorized travel may be prohibited or restricted to designated routes, to protect physical and biological resources.

Visual resources are managed so that management activities maintain or improve the quality of recreation opportunities. Management activities are not evident, remain visually subordinate, or may be dominant, but harmonize and blend with the natural setting. Landscape rehabilitation is used to restore landscapes to a desirable visual quality. Enhancement aimed at increasing positive elements to the landscape to improve visual variety is also used.

• MA 7A-Timber Management (4,533 ac.). Management emphasis is on wood-fiber production and utilization of large round-wood of a size and quality suitable for saw-timber. The harvest method by forest cover type is clear-cutting in aspen and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, and shelter-wood in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer.

The area generally will have a mosaic of fully stocked stands that follow natural patterns and avoid straight lines and geometric shapes. Management activities are not evident or remain virtually subordinate along forest arterial and collector roads

4


and primary trails. In other portions of the area, management activities may dominate in foreground and middle-ground, but harmonize and blend with the natural setting.

• MA 9A-Riparian Management (26 ac.). The goals of management are to provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant communities, meet water quality standards, provide habitats for viable populations of wildlife and fish, and provide stable streams channels and still water body shorelines. The aquatic ecosystem may contain fisheries habitat improvement and channel stabilizing facilities that harmonize with the visual setting and maintain or improve wildlife and fish habitat.

Forest riparian ecosystems wil be treated to improve wildlife and fish habitat diversity through specified silvicultural objectives. Vegetation treatments are used to achieve multi-resource benefits emphasizing riparian values.

• MA 9B-Intensive Riparian Management (31 ac.). Management goals in this area are to enhance riparian vegetation, improve water quality, improve wildlife and fish habitat, increase wildlife populations, and stream channel stability. Direction is generally the same as in Riparian Area Prescription 9A.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) for the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project tiers directly to the Forest Plan. The Proposed Action responds to the need for change and it is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. The Proposed Action will help move the project area toward desired conditions described in that plan.

EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS The overall goals of this project are not intended to directly change the vegetation structural stage (VSS) for northern goshawk habitat but rather to “Maintain fuel conditions which permit fire suppression forces to meet fire projected objectives for the area” (USDA 1986, p. IV-54).

The project area is within close proximity to high use travel corridors (State Routes 14 and 143 and FH 50 [also known as Mammoth Highway]) and communities at risk (Duck Creek and Mammoth Creek sub-divisions). These areas are called the wildland urban interface (WUI) where the unoccupied wildlands meet human development (Five County Assn of Governments 2007). Current forest stands are not considered to be “fire resilient” (Agee and Skinner 2005, Graham et al. 2004, Peterson et al. 2005) due to heavy surface fuel loading and the presence of brush or lower tree branches (ladder fuels) that create ladders for fire to travel from the surface up into the crowns of trees. When forested stands are fire resilient, wildfires are easier to manage because the resistance to control is reduced. Resistance to control is “the relative difficulty of constructing and holding a control line as determined by fire suppression operations, fire behavior characteristics, and firefighter safety considerations” (Page et al. 2013). In addition, fire resilient forests are at much less risk of having stand replacement wildfires.

5


Fire weather conditions associated with the National Fire Danger Rating system can be described as a percentile from 1 to 100 with higher percentile days having burning conditions that are more extreme and lower percentile days having conditions that are less intense. If a wildfire were to occur in these timbered areas under dry and windy conditions (90th percentile or greater weather conditions), the fire would burn intensely with flame lengths over four feet. Flame lengths over four feet generate enough heat that firefighters must use indirect attack methods, leaving unburned fuel between the fire and firefighters. This is less successful and more dangerous than direct attack methods, where a fireline is constructed right next to the fire so no unburned fuels are left into which the fire could spread. Fires under these conditions are expensive to control and difficult to manage and may result in the loss of the stand. Desired conditions are to have wildfire resilient forest stands that have low surface fuels and little to no ladder fuels which create safer conditions for fire management and less wildfire damage to forest stands at the 90th percentile weather.

It is desired to be aligned with the principles of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, which is “To safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowed; manage our national resources; and as a nation, to live with wildland fire” (Wildland Leadership Council 2014). Three national goals of the Cohesive Strategy that apply to this project are to (1) restore and maintain fire resilient landscapes, (2) create fire-adapted communities and (3), provide for a safe and efficient wildfire emergency response. “Reducing long-term risk requires prioritization of investment and use of resources, acceptance of increased short-term risk, and greater collective investment” (Wildland Leadership Council 2014).

In the winter of 2010-2011 a large snow storm hit parts of the project area causing extensive tree damage and heavy surface fuel accumulation. Throughout the project area, fuel loading varies from 60 to 600 tons per 10 acres.

Ponderosa Pine

Existing Condition

The majority of the ponderosa pine stands in the project area have been harvested in the past and are now classified as vegetation structural stage (VSS) 3 and 4 stands (young to mid-aged forest stands; dbh 5-18 inches). VSS for the ponderosa pine type is shown in Table 1 - 1.

Table 1 - 1: Vegetation structural stages for ponderosa pine stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area

VSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Acres 0 11 4730 3606 163 13

Percent in VSS 0 <1 55 42 2 <1

6


Due to lack of fire and other disturbances, tree growth has slowed and tree densities are now higher than found historically. Surface and ladder fuels which would have been removed by fire during pre-settlement times have increased. Low to heavy dwarf mistletoe infections are present within this forest type.

Approximately 89 acres of ponderosa pine within the project area are classified as old growth (Hamilton et al. 1993). This represents less than one percent of the project area. The Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) specifies a standard of between 7 and 10 percent old growth by drainage Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Within the project area only the Tommy Creek 6th HUC watershed contains old growth ponderosa pine stands. There are no proposed treatments in old growth vegetation types for this project.

Ponderosa pine is a fire-adapted species. Historic fire return intervals for ponderosa pine in this area are from 3 to 19 years (USDA 1986). Portions of this area have missed at least five fire return intervals. In some ponderosa pine areas, pinyon-juniper (P-J) and mixed-conifers (white-fir, Douglas-fir) are encroaching, contributing significantly to ladder fuels which carry fire from the surface up into the ponderosa pine canopy. P-J and mixed conifer encroachment, along with natural accumulation of fuels, have created conditions that would allow for intense wildfires with flame lengths over 4 feet under 90th percentile or greater weather parameters. Historically, fire intensity would have been low to moderate severity surface fires under all but the most extreme conditions (97th percentile weather or greater).

Desired Condition

The desired representation of size classes within conifer forested areas at the landscape scale is to have a relatively equal representation of all sizes. Reynolds and others (1992) recommend a distribution of 10 percent grass-forb/shrub (dbh 0-1 inch), 10 percent seedling-sapling (dbh 1-5 inches), 20 percent young forest (dbh 5-12 inches), 20 percent mid-aged forest (dbh 12-18 inches), 20 percent mature forest (dbh 18-24 inches), and 20 percent old forest (dbh 24+ inches). This is displayed as a 10-10-20-20-20-20 where each percentage equates to a vegetation structural stage (VSS) of 1 through 6, respectively.

One of the Forest Plan guidelines is to “reduce hazardous fuels” and a Forest Plan standard is that human life and safety is the highest priority during a fire (Utah Fire Amendment EA, pp. 2-8 and 2-9, USDA 2001a). Additional Forest Plan goals include “maintain fire suppression capabilities which allows an appropriate management response to all wildfires” (p. 3-35, USDA 2001a) and “ecosystems are restored and maintained, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes, through wildland fire use and prescribed fire” (p. 3-36, USDA 2001a). A Forest Plan standard is to reduce or treat fuels so that flame lengths will not exceed 4 feet on 90th percentile weather days so suppression forces can meet protection objectives.

Desired conditions for ponderosa pine are to have surface and ladder fuel conditions such that wildfires burning under 90th percentile weather would exhibit flame lengths of

7


less than four feet and could be directly attacked by firefighters. Preferred post-treatment fuel loading needed to help meet the desired condition is a minimum of 50 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres. Wildfires burning under these fuel and weather conditions would be safer and more effective for fire management in comparison to existing conditions.

It is desirable to treat stands in order to provide the benefits of increased timber growth and reduced susceptibility to insects and disease (USDA 1986 IV-21).

Mixed Conifer

Existing Condition

The majority of the mixed conifer stands in the project area have been harvested in the past and are now primarily classified as VSS 3 stands (young forest stands; dbh 5-12 inches). VSS for the mixed conifer type is described in Table 1 - 2.

Table 1 - 2: Vegetation structural stages for mixed conifer stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area

VSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Acres 0 0 478 74 56 0

Percent in VSS 0 0 79 12 9 0

Due to lack of fire and other disturbances, tree growth has slowed and tree densities are now higher than found historically. Surface and ladder fuels which would have been removed by fire during pre-settlement times have increased. Low to heavy dwarf mistletoe infections are present within this forest type. None of the mixed conifer stands are classified as old growth.

Historically fire has played a role in mixed conifer forests. Historic fire return intervals ranged from 30 to 50 years (Williams 2009). This area has missed two or more fire return intervals. Natural accumulation of fuels (both ladder and ground) has created conditions that would allow for intense wildfires under 90th percentile weather parameters. Most pre-settlement wildfires in mixed conifer forests were low to moderate intensity surface fires (Battaglia and Shepherd 2007).

Desired Condition

The desired representation of size classes within conifer forested areas at the landscape scale is to have a relatively equal representation of all sizes. Reynolds and others (1992) recommend a distribution of 10 percent grass-forb/shrub (dbh 0-1 inch), 10 percent seedling-sapling (dbh 1-5 inches), 20 percent young forest (dbh 5-12 inches), 20 percent mid-aged forest (dbh 12-18 inches), 20 percent mature forest (dbh 18-24 inches), and 20 percent old forest (dbh 24+ inches). This is displayed as a 10-10-

8


20-20-20-20 where each percentage equates to a VSS of 1 through 6, respectively. It is desirable to treat stands in order to provide the benefits of increased timber growth and reduced susceptibility to insects and disease (USDA 1986, p. IV-21).

Desired conditions for mixed conifer are to have surface and ladder fuel conditions such that wildfires burning under 90th percentile weather would exhibit flame lengths of less than four feet and could be directly attacked by firefighters. Preferred post-treatment fuel loading needed to help meet the desired condition is a minimum of 100 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres. Wildfires burning under these fuel and weather conditions would be safer and more effective for fire management in comparison to existing conditions.

Aspen

Existing Condition

The majority of the aspen stands in the project area have not been harvested in the past due to inaccessibility and low volume per acre. None of the aspen stands are classified as old growth. These stands are now classified as VSS 3 stands (Table 1 - 3).

Table 1 - 3: Vegetation structural stages for aspen stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation project area

VSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Acres 27 0 341 0 0 0


In the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment area, aspen is seral to conifers. Lack of fire or mechanical disturbance over the past 100 years has allowed conifer encroachment into aspen stands. These stands historically had few conifer species present.

Historically, fire has played a role in maintaining aspen. Historic fire return intervals range from 7 to 10 years (Hood et al. 2007). Most pre-settlement wildfires in aspen forests were low to moderate intensity surface fires. Portions of this area have missed at least five fire return intervals. In some aspen areas, conifers are encroaching contributing significantly to ladder fuels. Encroachment along with natural accumulation of fuels has created conditions that would allow for intense wildfires under 90th percentile or greater weather parameters. Historically, fire intensity would have been low to moderate under all but the most extreme conditions (97th percentile weather or greater).

9


Desired Condition

Within aspen forested areas, the desired representation of size classes is 10-15 percent grass/forb and seedling (dbh 0-1 inch, VSS 1), 25-30 percent sapling (dbh 1-5 inches, VSS 2), 30 percent young and mid-aged forest (dbh 5-12 inches, VSS 3) and 30 percent mature and old forest (dbh 12+ inches, VSS 4-6) (Utah National Forests et al. 1998). It is desirable to treat stands in order to provide the benefits of increased timber growth and reduced susceptibility to insects and disease (USDA 1986, p. IV-21).

Desired conditions for aspen are to have surface and ladder fuel conditions such that wildfires burning under 90th percentile weather would exhibit flame lengths of less than four feet and could be directly attacked by firefighters. Preferred post-treatment fuel loading needed to help meet the desired condition is a minimum of 30 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres. Wildfires burning under these fuel and weather conditions would be safer and more effective for fire control in comparison to existing conditions.

Spruce

Existing Condition

The majorities of the spruce stands in the project area have not been harvested in the past due to inaccessibility and is now predominantly classified as VSS 3 stands. VSS for the spruce type is described in Table 1 - 4. None of the spruce stands are classified as old growth.

Table 1 - 4: Vegetation structural stages for spruce stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area

VSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Acres 0 0 100 15 0 0


Due to lack of fire and other disturbances, tree growth has slowed and tree densities are now higher than found historically. Surface and ladder fuels which would have been removed by fire during pre-settlement times have increased. Low to heavy dwarf mistletoe infections are present in ponderosa pine within this forest type.

These areas are low elevation spruce classified as warm and dry (Reynolds et al. 1992). Previous management activities within this vegetation type have been limited. Fuel loading is high (200 to 400 plus tons per 10 acres, but within the natural range of variability). High elevation spruce forests are subject to long-interval stand replacement fire regimes. Low elevation spruce such as the spruce located in the project area has a mean fire return interval of 70-250 year burning with mixed severity (White and Vankat 1993). Fire intensities vary depending on fuel loading and stand densities. In general,

10


under current fuel conditions, fire intensities will vary from low to very intense, causing stand replacement.

With current surface and ladder fuels, a fire burning under 90th percentile or greater weather parameters is expected to be of high intensity.

Desired Condition

The desired representation of size classes within conifer forested areas at the landscape scale is to have a relatively equal representation of all sizes. Reynolds and others (1992) recommend a distribution of 10 percent grass-forb/shrub (dbh 0-1 inch), 10 percent seedling-sapling (dbh 1-5 inches), 20 percent young forest (dbh 5-12 inches), 20 percent mid-aged forest (dbh 12-18 inches), 20 percent mature forest (dbh 18-24 inches), and 20 percent old forest (dbh 24+ inches). This is displayed as a 10-10-20-20-20-20 where each percentage equates to a vegetation structural stage (VSS) of 1 through 6, respectively. It is desirable to treat stands in order to provide the benefits of increased timber growth and reduced susceptibility to insects and disease (USDA 1986, p. IV-21).

Desired conditions for spruce are to have surface and ladder fuel conditions such that wildfires burning under 90th percentile weather would exhibit flame lengths of less than four feet and could be directly attacked by firefighters. Preferred post-treatment fuel loading needed to help meet the desired condition is a minimum of 100 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres. Wildfires burning under these fuel and weather conditions would be safer and more effective for fire control in comparison to existing conditions.

Ponderosa Pine/Riparian

Existing Condition

Within the project area riparian vegetation is found along a narrow corridor adjacent to Mammoth Creek and Tommy Creek. Stands are comprised of remnant overstory cottonwood along with larger ponderosa pine (VSS 4) with understories of encroaching conifers (pinyon pine, juniper, and fir). Cottonwood is a species that is slowly disappearing in the western United States (Braatne et al. 1996). Conifer understories have been implicated in increased fire behavior in cottonwood galleries on other portions of the Forest (e.g., loss of riparian cottonwoods during 2002 Sanford Fire and 2008 Corn Creek Fire).

With a lack of fire disturbance and other factors, conifers are invading these cottonwood galleries, and competing with riparian vegetation for water, nutrients, and space. As conifer stands become denser (e.g., > 40 percent cover), they shade out willow, young cottonwood, forbs, and grasses. Conifers also provide ladder fuels into cottonwood crowns, putting the cottonwood galleries at risk to stand replacement fire. Currently there is little to no recruitment of young cottonwood. Some areas have heavy

11


accumulations of dead and downed woody material that have potential to produce intense long duration fires which could have detrimental effects to soil, stream bank stabilization, and water quality.

Desired Condition

Within the Forest Plan, the desired future condition for water and soil states that “Condition of riparian areas will be maintained, or if necessary improved” (USDA 1986, p. IV-22,) and the general direction instructs “Design and implement activities in management areas to protect and manage the riparian ecosystem” (USDA 1986, p. IV-41).

The riparian area along lower Tommy Creek is within management Area 9A. Desired future condition for MA 9A is that “Riparian area acreage remains essentially the same as currently exists. Riparian ecosystem remains healthy and viable. Sufficient habitat remains to support at least minimum viable populations of riparian dependent wildlife species. Water quality is not impaired below existing levels and is improved in some areas. Stream channel stability is maintained or, in areas where it is severely degraded, is improved to least minimally acceptable standards. Area provides multiple resource outputs while providing protection to riparian dependent values” (p. IV-135, Forest Service 1986).

Approximately 1.25 miles of Mammoth Creek are within Management Area 9B (Intensive Riparian Management). Desired conditions for MA 9B is that “Riparian area acreage remains essentially the same as currently exists. Riparian ecosystems remain healthy with vigor and condition improved in both short and long term. Habitat is improved to near optimal for fisheries and wildlife dependent on riparian values. Water quality and stream channel stability are improved across the Forest. Riparian vegetation remains in an essentially “natural” or unaltered condition. Area is more attractive to recreationists. Area provides lower level of non-riparian dependent outputs” (USDA 1986, p. IV-144).

Desired condition for the riparian vegetation along Mammoth Creek and Tommy Creek are to have a healthy, reproducing and recruiting population of riparian understory vegetation consisting of riparian species with little to no encroachment of conifers. Field observations have indicated that historically the overstory vegetation consisted of larger ponderosa pine and cottonwood. Desired condition within the riparian areas along Mammoth Creek and Tommy Creek would provide for acceptable ground cover, stream shade, and stream bank stability.

Desired conditions for ponderosa pine riparian are to have surface and ladder fuel conditions such that wildfires burning under 90th percentile weather would exhibit flame lengths of less than four feet.

12


PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The overall purpose of this project is to improve stand conditions through maintenance of sustainable landscapes, to strengthen the fire-adapted communities of Duck Creek and Mammoth Creek, to minimize human health and safety risks to emergency responders, landowners, and Forest users, and to align the project area with Forest Plan direction. By reducing the wildfire resistance to control, decision makers and cooperators will have a higher degree of confidence in making efficient risk-based decisions determining effective and safe management actions in response to fire management activities.

The gap noted between the existing and desired conditions described above reflects the need for change in those vegetation types in order to comply with Forest Plan direction and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. This section clarifies the purpose and need for actions to bring the existing vegetation and fuels conditions toward desired conditions that are consistent with the Forest Plan.

1. Timber stand improvement (TSI). Purpose: The purpose is to reduce stand densities, reduce fuel loading, and improve forest health. This will be accomplished by thinning from below ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, pinyon pine and Rocky Mountain juniper, with a species preference for leaving the more desirable ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, while also removing mistletoe-infested trees. The long-term vegetation goal is to move forest stands toward a properly-functioning and resilient condition through mechanical treatments.

Need: There is a need to decrease stand densities, to remove ladder fuels, surface fuels, and brush/ladder fuels, to increase canopy base heights, to modify the species mix to a more early seral condition, and to improve forest health by removing mistletoe-infested trees. These needs have been identified by the following vegetation types:

• 2,146 acres of ponderosa pine.

• 189 acres of aspen.

• 77 acres of spruce.

• 360 acres of mixed conifer.

2. Reduction of wildfire resistance to control, restoring sustainable landscapes, creating fire adapted communities, and providing for a safe and efficient fire management response. Purpose: The purpose is to restore sustainable healthy landscapes, create conditions which allow all responders to safely and efficiently make wildfire management decisions, improve firefighter safety, and create fire-adapted communities. The goal is to create landscapes where fires burning under the 90th

13


percentile weather conditions in the project area will exhibit flame lengths of four feet or less. Firefighters have higher success rate of suppression activities and are more efficiently managing wildfires burning with flame lengths less than four feet tall. Resilient landscapes experience less damage from fire and fires can be more easily managed. Fire adapted communities and high use travel corridors provide both improved public and firefighter safety.

Need: There is a need to be aligned with the principles of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Three national goals of the Cohesive Strategy that apply to this project are to (1) restore and maintain fire resilient landscapes, (2) create fire-adapted communities and (3) provide for a safe and efficient wildfire emergency response (Wildfire Leadership Council 2014). There is a need for the following treatments:

• Reduce fuel loading on 1,554 acres of ponderosa pine from 180 tons per 10 acres to 50 tons per 10 acres.

• Reduce surface and ladder fuels on 192 acres of mixed conifer.

• Reduce surface and ladder fuels on 152 acres of aspen.

• Reduce surface and ladder fuels on 13 acres of spruce.

• Reduce stand densities, ladder fuels, and ground fuels on 9 acres of ponderosa pine within the Mammoth Springs designated dispersed camping area.

• Pile and burn 915 acres of slash within ponderosa pine.

• Reduce heavy surface fuels from 300 tons per 10 acres by piling and burning to a minimum of 50 tons per 10 acre on 915 acres of ponderosa pine.

• Reduce stand densities, ladder fuels and ground fuels on 9 acres of ponderosa pine within the defensible fire space area.

• Reduce stand densities, ladder fuels, and ground fuels on approximately 2 acres of mixed conifer within the defensible fire space area.

3. Maintain and enhance riparian vegetation communities. Purpose: The purpose is to protect and manage the riparian vegetation to provide for healthy, self-perpetuating plant communities and stable stream channels, particularly in the 9A and 9B Management Areas.

Need: There is a need to reduce stand densities and surface and ladder fuels on 66 acres of ponderosa pine riparian area along Mammoth Creek and Tommy Creek in order to reduce the risk of a stand replacing wildfire.

14


RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOREST PLAN This analysis incorporates by reference the direction provided in the Forest Plan. The EA is a project-level analysis that is not intended to reexamine the basic land use allocations made in the Forest Plan, nor propose broad changes in land use allocations. Instead, planning at the project level involves the development, analysis, and disclosure of likely environmental impacts associated with the implementation of specific actions designed to achieve the overall goals and objectives of the Forest Plan.

PROPOSED ACTION Figure 3 (Proposed Action) displays the proposed treatment areas. Of the forested stands in the project area proposed for treatment, none are classified as old growth (Hamilton et al., 1993). The average existing fuel loading by proposed treatment type is identified in Table 1 - 5. Within the Thinning #2 treatment, fuel loading is not applicable as stand densities are the driving factor in the need for treatment. The following proposed actions by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are consistent with management area direction.

Table 1 - 5: Existing fuel loading by proposed treatment type

Treatment Fuel Loading (tons per 10 acres )

Underburning 180

Slash Piling and Burning 300

Thinning #1 for Fuels Reduction 300

Thinning #2 Pre-Commercial N/A

Mammoth Creek Dispersed Camping Area N/A

Defensible Fire Suppression Zone N/A

Ponderosa Pine Riparian 200

1. Underburn Rx – 1,911 ac. First entry underburning will take place on 1,554 acres of ponderosa pine, 152 acres of aspen, 192 acres of mixed conifer, and 13 acres of spruce stands. Following burning, at least 50 tons per 10 acres in ponderosa pine and aspen and 100 tons per 10 acres in mixed conifer and spruce stands will remain; material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs. Ten miles of hand fireline (approximately 1.5 feet wide) will be temporarily constructed for the purpose of this project.

15


This action responds to Purpose and Need 2.

2. Mammoth Creek Dispersed Camping Area – 9 ac. All trees less than 4 inches dbh will be felled. Trees over 4 inches dbh with damage to boles (i.e., open wounds) or deemed to be a hazard tree (i.e., dead, leaning, or having excessive rot) will also be felled. Ladder fuels will be removed from all remaining trees by limbing all branches up to 5 feet above the ground. Within 50 feet of camping areas boles and larger limbs from felled trees will be cut into 12 to 18 inch lengths and stacked as fuelwood for campers. All other slash will be hand piled and burned. Stump heights will be less than 6 inches.


3. Downed Woody Debris (DWD) Piling and Burning, Ponderosa Pine – 915 ac. Downed woody debris less than 9 inches diameter will be hand or machine piled and burned. Biomass may be removed on slopes less than 35 percent. After pile burning, stands with over 120 tons of woody debris (1/4 inch and greater size) per 10 acres will be underburned. Following burning, at least 50 tons per 10 acres will remain; material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs. Machines would operate on slopes less than 35 percent.


4. Thinning RX #1 (Pre-commercial thinning for fuels reduction) – 1,935 ac. The following will be thinned to reduce fuels: 189 acres of aspen, 341 acres of mixed conifer, 1,359 acres of ponderosa pine, and 46 acres of spruce. Within all forest types, all white fir and subalpine fir trees less than 8 inches dbh and all juniper trees less than 8 inches drc will be felled. In areas where overstory trees greater than 8 inches dbh are absent, trees smaller than 8 inches dbh will be thinned to 134 trees per acre. Average leave tree spacing will be approximately 18 by 18 feet. Leave tree preference in order of priority is aspen, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, limber pine, spruce, white fir, and subalpine fir. Aspen trees will not be considered within the 18 by 18 tree spacing.

Mistletoe-infected trees with a Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating (Hawksworth 1977) of 2 or greater and up to 18 inches dbh would be cut. Mistletoe-infected trees with a Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating of 2 or greater and larger than 18 inches dbh will be girdled1 and left standing for snag habitat, with the exception of trees within 100 feet of any road or trail. Mistletoe-infected trees greater than 18 inches dbh within 100 feet of roads and trails would be felled. Remaining trees over 8 inches dbh will be limbed up to 6 feet high. All slash less than 8 inches diameter will be hand or machine piled and burned, or removed as biomass. Machines would operate on slopes less than 35 percent.

1 Girdling refers to the process of disrupting the living connection between the roots and the leaves of the tree usually by cutting or chopping away the outer bark and the inner bark or cambium. This severs the vascular tissue, which carries the products of photosynthesis from the leaves to the roots.

16


After pile burning, ponderosa pine and aspen stands with over 120 tons of woody debris (1/4 inch and greater in size) and mixed conifer and spruce stands with 150 tons of woody debris (1/4 inch and greater in size) per 10 acres will be underburned. Following burning, at least 50 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres in ponderosa pine and aspen, and 100 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres in mixed conifer and spruce stands will remain.

This action responds to Purpose and Need 1 by reducing stand densities and ladder fuels, while retaining fire tolerant species and improving forest health. This action also responds to Purpose and Need 2 by reducing wildfire resistance to control and restoring sustainable landscapes.

5. Thinning Rx #2 (Pre-commercial thinning for density/fuels reduction) – 858 ac. These areas consist of smaller (less than 9 inches dbh) overstocked stands. Thinning will take place on 803 acres of ponderosa pine, 24 acres of mixed conifer, and 31 acres of spruce to reduce stand densities and promote growth and vigor while also reducing fuels. Thinning will generally be from below. Spacing between trees will be variable, based on the diameter of each tree. Average leave tree spacing will be approximately 18 by 18 feet. Leave tree preference in order of priority is ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, limber pine, spruce, white fir, and subalpine fir. On average, this will leave approximately 134 trees per acre after treatments are complete. Post and pole gathering will be encouraged where access allows. Trees taller than 18 inches will be subject to thinning.

Mistletoe-infected trees with a Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating of 2 or greater and up to 18 inches dbh would be cut. Mistletoe-infected trees with a Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating of 2 or greater and larger than 18 inches dbh will be girdled and left standing for snag habitat recruitment, with the exception of trees within 100 feet of any road or trail. Mistletoe-infected trees greater than 18 inches dbh within 100 feet of roads and trails would be felled. Remaining trees over 9 inches dbh will be limbed up to 6 feet high. All slash less than 8 inches diameter will be hand or machine piled and burned, or removed as biomass or fuelwood. Machines would operate on slopes less than 35 percent.

This action responds to Purpose and Need 1 and 2.

6. Defensible Fire Suppression Zone – 11 ac. All conifer trees 8 inches dbh and smaller, will be felled with the exception of ponderosa pine. No ponderosa pine will be cut. Remaining trees will be limbed up to 6 feet high. All thinning slash along with existing ground fuels will be hand piled to five tons per acre and burned or may be removed as biomass.


17


7. Ponderosa Pine Riparian – 66 ac. All conifers, with the exception of ponderosa pine, up to 18 inches dbh will be removed by chainsaw, hand piled, and burned. Piles will be burned under wet/snowy conditions so use of fireline is not anticipated. Residual conifer trees will be limbed up to six feet in order to reduce ladder fuels. Live ponderosa pine and cottonwood will not be cut. Ponderosa pine is fire-tolerant and cottonwood is a species that is slowly disappearing from the western United States (Braatne et al. 1996).


COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to implement its own water quality standards. The State of Utah's Water Quality Antidegradation Policy requires maintenance of water quality to protect existing instream Beneficial Uses on streams designated as Category 1 High Quality Waters. All surface waters geographically located within the outer boundaries of the Dixie National Forest, whether on private or public lands, are designated as High Quality Waters (Category 1). This means they will be maintained at existing high quality. New point sources will not be allowed, and non-point sources will be controlled to the extent feasible through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) or regulatory programs (Utah Division of Water Quality 2012. The State of Utah and the Forest Service have agreed through a 1993 Memorandum of Understanding to use Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) as the BMPs. The use of SWCPs as the BMPs meets the water quality protection elements of the Utah Nonpoint Source Management Plan. The proposed action is designed to not change or add fill to waters anywhere within the project area.

Executive Order 11990. This order requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. In compliance with this order, Forest Service direction requires that an analysis be completed to determine whether adverse impacts will result.

Executive Order 11988. This order requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of flood loss, (2) minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and (3) restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. In compliance with this order, the Forest Service requires an analysis be completed to determine the significance of proposed actions in terms of impacts to floodplains.

Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their

18


authorities to not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. The Forest Service complies with the ESA through a Section 7 consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

Executive Order (EO) 13186. Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies to protect migratory birds by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practical, adverse impacts on migratory birds resources when conducting agency actions. The National Forests in Utah entered into an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2007 and developed a strategy on how to address impacts from agency actions on migratory birds in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Project proposals that follow the strategy identified in that agreement will be considered compliant with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and EO 13186 (USDA 2007).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA directs the Forest Service (and other Federal agencies) to conduct environmental analyses to assess the nature and importance of the physical, biological, social, and economic effects of a proposed action and its reasonable alternatives. Public notification and involvement are a key part of environmental analysis. Conclusions are reached about the significance of the effects on the human environment. These conclusions about the significance of effects determine the levels of analysis and documentation.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

The responsible official for this analysis and decision is the District Ranger, Cedar City Ranger District, Dixie National Forest, 1789 North Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, UT 84721. The Responsible Official will decide whether to implement the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as described, a modification thereof, or No Action (Alternative 1). This analysis is subject to 36 CFR 218 regulations for non-HFRA analyses. The final decision is expected to be made in September 2015. The decision will be subject to review under Forest Service Objection Regulations at 36 CFR 218.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, COMMENTS AND ISSUES Scoping. The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions and was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping on November 21, 2014. The Proposed Action was described during public scoping and was posted on the Dixie National Forest website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=42922. As part of the public involvement process, the agency mailed a copy of the scoping document to individuals, groups, agencies, and tribes. One letter was received in response to scoping.

30-Day Notice and Comment Period. A legal notice of the proposed action providing an opportunity to comment during a formal 30-day comment period was published in The Spectrum on February 6, 2015, with a mailing to government entities, elected

19

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=42922


officials, and persons known to be interested in this project. One letter was received in response to the comment period.

Comment Analysis. Two comment letters were received in response to scoping and the 30-day notice and comment period. The comments were documented and reviewed to determine substance and to identify issues to carry forward in the analysis. The Comment Analysis is included in the Project Record.

One comment letter supported the proposed action. The second comment letter expressed concern of potential impacts to migratory birds and their habitats during management. The concerns were addressed in the analysis of the project.

20


CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes the alternatives considered for the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), representing various resources and uses of the Forest, considered alternatives to the Proposed Action. Alternatives considered were driven mainly by resource specialists due to a lack of public response during scoping.

The Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) goals and objectives for the project area were considered in determining which alternatives to advance. The Proposed Action meets the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (2012) and the Forest Plan.

Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences, describes the likely environmental effects associated with implementation of the two alternatives. A comparison of the effects provides the deciding official with the information needed to make an informed decision.

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative The existing condition represents the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Under this alternative, the Purpose and Need for timber stand improvement, the reduction of wildfire resistance to control, restoring sustainable landscapes, creating fire adapted communities, and providing for a safe and efficient fire management response would not be met. Stand densities would continue to increase with undesirable species, fuel loads would continue to increase, and defensible fire suppression zones would remain untreated. Within the aspen cover type, 341 acres of thinning, reduction of ladder fuels, piling, and prescribed fire would not occur. Within the mixed conifer cover type, 554 acres of thinning, reduction of ladder fuels, piling, and prescribed fire would not occur. Within the ponderosa pine cover type, 4,613 acres of thinning, reduction of ladder fuels, piling, and prescribed fire would not occur. Within the spruce/fir cover type, 93 acres of thinning, reduction of ladder fuels, piling, and prescribed fire would not occur. Forest health would continue to decline and riparian vegetative communities would be at risk to the negative effects of high intensity wildfires.

It is desired to be aligned with the principles of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, which is “To safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowed; manage our national resources; and as a nation, to live with wildland fire” (Wildfire Leadership Council 2014). Three national goals of the Cohesive Strategy that apply to this project are to (1) restore and maintain fire resilient landscapes, (2) create fire-adapted communities, and (3) provide for a safe and efficient wildfire emergency response. Under this alternative (Alternative 1) the analysis area would not align with either the principles or goals of the Cohesive Strategy.

21


Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Treatment Areas

Figure 3, Proposed Action map, displays the proposed treatment areas. The actions proposed by the Forest Service to meet the Purpose and Need are as follows.

1. Underburn Rx – 1,911 ac. First entry underburning will take place on 1,554 acres of ponderosa pine, 152 acres of aspen, 192 acres of mixed conifer, and 13 acres of spruce/fir stands. Following burning, at least 50 tons per 10 acres in ponderosa pine and aspen and 100 tons per 10 acres in mixed conifer and spruce/fir stands will remain; material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs. Up to ten miles of hand fireline (approximately 1.5 feet wide) will be temporarily constructed for the purpose of this project.

2. Mammoth Creek Dispersed Camping Area – 9 ac. All trees less than 4 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) will be felled. Trees over 4 inches dbh with damage to boles (i.e., open wounds) or deemed to be a hazard tree (i.e., dead, leaning or having excessive rot) will also be felled. Ladder fuels will be removed from all remaining trees by limbing all branches up to 5 feet above the ground. Within 50 feet of camping areas boles and larger limbs from felled trees will be cut into 12 to 18 inch lengths and stacked as fuelwood for campers. All other slash will be hand piled and burned. Stump heights will be less than 6 inches.

3. Downed Woody Debris (DWD) Piling and Burning, Ponderosa Pine – 915 ac. Downed woody debris less than 9 inches diameter will be hand or machine piled and burned. Biomass may be removed mechanically on slopes less than 35 percent. After pile burning, stands with over 120 tons of woody debris (1/4 inch and greater size) per 10 acres will be underburned. Following burning, at least 50 tons per 10 acres will remain; material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs.

4. Thinning RX #1 (Pre-commercial thinning for fuels reduction) – 1,935 ac. The following will be thinned to reduce fuels: 189 acres of aspen, 341 acres of mixed conifer, 1,359 acres of ponderosa pine, and 46 acres of spruce/fir. Within all forest types, all white fir and subalpine fir trees less than 8 inches dbh and all juniper trees less than 8 inches drc will be felled. In areas where overstory trees greater than 8 inches dbh are absent, trees smaller than 8 inches dbh will be thinned to 134 trees per acre. Average leave tree spacing will be approximately 18 by 18 feet. Leave tree preference in order of priority is aspen, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, limber pine, spruce/fir, white fir and subalpine fir. Aspen trees will not be cut or considered within the 18 by 18 tree spacing.

Mistletoe-infected trees with a Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating (Hawksworth 1977) of 2 or greater and up to 18 inches dbh will be cut. Mistletoe-infected trees with a

22


Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating larger than 18 inches dbh will be girdled and left standing for snag habitat recruitment, with the exception of trees within 100 feet of any road or trail. Mistletoe-infected trees greater than 18 inches dbh within 100 feet of roads and trails would be felled. Remaining trees over 8 inches dbh will be limbed up to 6 feet high. All slash less than 8 inches diameter will be hand or machine piled and burned, or removed as biomass. Machines would operate on slopes less than 35 percent.

After pile burning, ponderosa pine and aspen stands with over 120 tons of woody debris (1/4 inch and greater in size) and mixed conifer and spruce/fir stands with 150 tons of woody debris (1/4 inch and greater in size) per 10 acres will be underburned. Following burning, at least 50 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres in ponderosa pine and aspen, and 100 tons (material would be 3 inches and greater in size, with a preference toward downed logs) per 10 acres in mixed conifer and spruce/fir stands will remain.

5. Thinning Rx #2 (Pre-commercial thinning for density/fuels reduction) – 858 ac. These areas consist of smaller (less than 9 inches dbh) overstocked ponderosa pine (803 acres), mixed conifer (24 acres), and spruce/fir (31 acres) stands in need of thinning to reduce stand densities and promote growth and vigor while also reducing fuels. Thinning will generally be from below. Spacing between trees will be variable, based on the diameter of each tree. Average leave tree spacing will be approximately 18 by 18 feet. Leave tree preference in order of priority is ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, limber pine, spruce/fir, white fir, and subalpine fir. On average, this will leave approximately 120 trees per acre after treatments are complete. Post and pole gathering will be encouraged where access allows. Trees taller than 18 inches will be subject to thinning.

Mistletoe-infected trees with a Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating of 2 or greater and up to 18 inches dbh will be cut. Mistletoe-infected trees with a Hawksworth Mistletoe Rating larger than 18 inches dbh will be girdled and left standing for snag habitat recruitment, with the exception of trees within 100 feet of any road or trail. Mistletoe-infected trees greater than 18 inches dbh within 100 feet of roads and trails would be felled. Remaining trees over 9 inches dbh will be limbed up to 6 feet high. All slash less than 8 inches diameter will be hand or machine piled and burned, or removed as biomass or fuelwood. Machines would operate on slopes less than 35 percent.

6. Defensible Fire Suppression Zone – 11 ac. All conifer trees 8 inches dbh and smaller, will be felled with the exception of any ponderosa pine growing outside a 19 foot diameter of a tree greater than 8 inches dbh. Remaining trees over 8 inches dbh will be limbed up to 6 feet high. In areas where overstory trees over 8 dbh are not present, trees will be thinned to approximately 120 trees per acre with a preference for leaving ponderosa pine. All thinning slash along with existing ground fuels will be hand piled to five tons per acre and burned or may be removed as biomass.

23


7. Ponderosa Pine Riparian – 66 ac. All conifers, with the exception of ponderosa pine, up to 18 inches dbh will be removed by chainsaw, hand piled, and burned. Piles will be burned under wet/snowy conditions so use of fireline is not anticipated. Residual conifer trees will be limbed up to six feet in order to reduce ladder fuels. Live ponderosa pine and cottonwood will not be cut. Ponderosa pine is fire-tolerant and cottonwood is a species that is slowly disappearing from the western United States (Braatne et al. 1996).

Transportation Plan

Access and fire control lines for the proposed activities will be provided through the use of existing National Forest System roads (Table 2 - 1) totaling 67.67 miles (Figure 4. Transportation). There will be no change in the post-project disposition of the roads identified below.

Table 2 - 1: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project system roads

Route Number

ML 2 - High Clearance Vehicles

ML 3 - Suitable

for Passenger

Cars

ML 5 - High

Degree of User Comfort Admin Highway

Trail Motorized

Grand Total

143 Arterial Road 2.49 2.49

Mammoth Campground

Spurs 0.19 0.19

30068 2.08 0.39 2.47

30068C 0.57 0.57

30196 3.09 3.09

30232 2.09 2.09

30393 0.03 0.03

30406 0.19 0.19

30450 1.03 1.03

30464 1.77 1.77

30476 2.18 2.18

30478 0.72 0.72

30489 0.61 0.61

24


Route Number


ML 3 - Suitable

for Passenger

Cars

ML 5 - High


Trail Motorized

Grand Total

30493 0.70 0.70

30612 3.50 3.50

30615 0.60 0.60

30624 0.19 0.19

30625 0.39 0.39

30626 0.65 0.65

30628 1.47 1.47

30630 1.89 1.89

30633 0.26 0.97 1.22

30970 0.33 0.91 1.23

30994A 0.74 0.74

30995 0.89 0.89

30996 1.25 1.25

31322 0.17 0.17

31550 0.21 0.75 0.96

31566 0.43 0.43

31686 0.68 0.68

31688 2.65 2.65

32024 0.63 0.63

32025 1.37 1.37

32026 0.87 0.87

32054 Collector Road 4.55 0.26 4.81

33080 0.84 0.84

33083 0.37 0.37

25


Route Number


ML 3 - Suitable

for Passenger

Cars

ML 5 - High


Trail Motorized

Grand Total

33084 0.15 0.15

33089 0.98 0.98

33091 0.14 0.14

33092 1.67 1.67

33093 0.42 0.42

33130 1.11 1.11

33492 0.16 0.20 0.35

33493 0.12 0.12

33494 0.31 0.31

33495 0.19 0.19

33496 0.41 0.41

33499 0.28 0.28

33501 0.31 0.31

33502 0.29 0.29

33503 0.44 0.44

33504 0.15 0.15

33505 0.61 0.61

33506 0.78 0.78

34156 0.26 0.26

34172 0.70 0.70

34174 0.06 0.06

34220 0.20 0.20

34775 0.36 0.36

FH50 Arterial Road 11.09 11.09

26


Route Number


ML 3 - Suitable

for Passenger

Cars

ML 5 - High


Trail Motorized

Grand Total

T34074 0.14 0.14

U22003 0.22 0.22

Grand Total 31.28 1.01 11.09 19.84 2.49 1.77 67.67

27


Project Design Features

Table 2 - 2: The following Project Design Features (PDF) are part of the Proposed Action and any other action alternative

Wildlife

WL-1. Maintain hiding cover along 75 percent of the arterial (FH50) and collector roads (32054) in the project area in order to provide hiding cover for deer, elk, and other wildlife as prescribed under the Forest Plan. Maintain 50 percent cover along natural or created openings, and maintain hiding cover along at least 50 percent of streams and rivers (USDA 1986, pg. IV-34).

WL-2. For northern goshawk, a minimum 500-foot diameter no-treatment buffer will be applied to active nest trees (Utah Northern Goshawk Project, USDA 2000a). This feature will apply if an active nest is located prior to or during project implementation.

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. A guideline for residual clumps of snags in conifer stands is to leave a one acre no-cut area for every 20 acres of harvest. In aspen stands, leave ¼ acre clumps for every 20 acres of treatment. Clump location selection priority would include squirrel middens, low risk wind throw areas, areas that can be defended from broadcast burning, and areas where live alpine fir exists in clumps (Utah Northern Goshawk Project, USDA 2000a).

28


WL-4. Vegetative management treatments in forested cover types should retain the following minimum amount and size of down logs and coarse woody debris, distributed over each treated 10 acres to meet the needs of prey species that utilize this habitat (Utah Northern Goshawk Project, USDA 2000a). Prior to prescribed fire implementation the minimum number of logs per acre will have fireline constructed around them to protect/retain them, or water may be applied to logs for protection prior to burning. In areas where coarse woody debris fails to meet the guideline, snags in excess of minimum snag requirements created by prescribed fire activities will be felled to assure coarse woody debris requirements. If snags are not present, live trees will be felled. Preference would be of trees with poor form followed by fir and aspen.

Cover Type Minimum Down Logs Minimum Log Size

Minimum Coarse Woody Debris

≥ 3 inch diameter

(per 10 acres) Down logs take precedence over tons of coarse woody debris.

(Diameter <__>Length)

If minimum size is not available, retain largest available on the site.

(Tons per 10 acres, inclusive of down logs).

Ponderosa Pine 30 12 inch<__>8 feet 50

Mixed Conifer and Spruce/fir 50 12 inch<__>8 feet 100

Aspen 50 6 inch<__>8 feet 30

WL-5. Surveys will be conducted for the northern goshawk a minimum of two years prior to treatment (Utah Northern Goshawk Project, USDA 2000a).

WL-6. Forest vegetation manipulation within goshawk post-fledging family areas should be designed to maintain or improve the same habitat features as discussed for the goshawk home range (i.e., stand structure, snags, down logs, nest trees important in the life histories of the goshawk and its prey species common to the geographic location), except:

a) Openings created as a result of vegetative treatments should not exceed the following by cover type:

Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer 2 acres

Spruce/fir 1 acre

b) Management activities should be restricted during the active nesting period. The active nesting period will normally occur between March 1 and September 30 (Utah Northern Goshawk Project, USDA 2000a).

29


WL-7. Large woody debris anchored into the stream bank and/or lying within the active stream channel will not be removed.

WL-8. Work occurring within the Ponderosa Pine Riparian treatment along Mammoth Creek should begin up stream and proceed in a downstream direction to reduce the chance for moving whirling disease upstream.

WL-9. Equipment that comes in contact with water (including boots/waders) should be cleaned and dried before moving from one water source to another to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). If equipment cannot be completely dried, equipment would be decontaminated following the 2014 Region 4 Fire AIS guidelines (USDA 2014a).

Cultural Resources

CR-1. It will be necessary to contact the Forest Archaeologist prior to locating any proposed slash piles as part of treatments in the area of the Mammoth Dispersed Camping area and the area around Dry Valley so that the project activities will not impact any historic properties in the area. As these specific spots for the proposed slash piles have not yet been identified it will be necessary to do so before locating the piles.

Hydrology and Soils

HS-1. All applicable Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) will be used during project implementation. The following SWCPs will apply 11.04, 11.05, 11.07, 13.01, 13.02, 13.03, 13.04, 13.05, 13.06, 14.06, 14.07, 14.17, 14.20, 15.25, 18.01, 18.02, 18.03, 18.04 and 18.05. A copy of these will be contained in the Project Record.

HS-2. Equipment Operation (Biomass Utilization).

• Limit equipment operations to periods when the soil is dry or frozen. Operations will be suspended when they will cause excessive impacts, such as during or after heavy storms.

• Heavy equipment use is not allowed in riparian areas. Ephemeral drainage crossings will be limited to the minimal amount required to complete the objective.

• Mechanized equipment will be restricted to slopes less than 35 percent.

• Servicing and refueling of equipment will be done outside stream buffers or more than 100 feet from any water resource, whichever is greater.

HS-3. Pile Burning. Slash and burn piles will be located outside of riparian vegetation and when possible at least 50 feet from the stream.

30


HS-4. Prescribed Fire in Riparian Area. Limit the use of prescribed fire areas in or adjacent to riparian areas to protect riparian and aquatic values.

HS-5. Conifer Removal Within Riparian Area. Prior to conifer removal within the riparian areas (100 feet either side of Mammoth Creek and Tommy Creek) the project manager, a forester, a hydrologist, and fisheries biologist will identify and mark leave trees necessary to maintain stream bank stability, or as needed for stream shading. These trees will be maintained through the treatments.

HS-6. Fire Line Rehabilitation. Fireline will be rehabilitated by pulling the berms back in, placing woody debris on them, constructing a water bar for every 10 feet of vertical rise, and seeding mechanically constructed line.

HS-7. Effective ground cover. Hand thinning and pile burning activities in riparian areas will be designed to maintain > 80% effective ground cover. Ground cover is classified as needle cast, rocks, grass, and other downed woody debris. Ground cover requirement must be met within one year post treatment.

HS-8. Effective ground cover on soils Buffmeyer-Rogert-Wawpit families complex (236) and Syrett-Paunsaugunt-Ustorthents families complex (234). Hand or machine piling, underburning, and prescribed burning done on this soil region must maintain a 90 percent ground cover post treatment. This will be field checked post treatment since Existing Conditions indicate the Syrett-Paunsaugunt-Ustorthents families complex is deficit with respect to ground cover (Butler and Howes 2015).

Noxious Weeds

NW-1. Noxious weeds will be controlled on all disturbed areas should they become established, through the implementation of actions that are consistent and compliant with the Dixie National Forest Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management and Decision Notice (USDA 2000b).

NW-2. Any wheeled or tracked vehicles used for removal of biomass will be thoroughly washed to remove dirt, mud, and plant materials at an off-forest location prior to being transported to the project area.

31


NW-3. Burn piles will be seeded as necessary immediately following the activity to take advantage of the seedbed and prevent the establishment of noxious weeds. Seed mixes will include species that germinate rapidly to provide a quick cover of vegetation (the “nurse crop” technique). Seed mixes used for rehabilitation purposes will be noxious weed free certified. NW-4. If used for rehabilitation purposes, only certified noxious weed free hay, straw, and mulch will be used within the project area. NW-5. Prior to treatment of established rubber rabbitbrush (Ericamerica nauseosa), first coordinate with the Forest Range Management Specialist or a Forest licensed herbicide applicator. Prescribed fire will avoid burning in areas with cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). This design feature will ensure that the treatments will not propagate either species.

Public Safety

PS-1. The public will be kept informed through timely media announcements and on-the-ground signage of impending or occurring activities and changes in access.

PS-2. Mammoth Creek Designated Dispersed Camping Area will be closed for visitor protection and safety during project implementation (falling of trees, piling debris, burning, etc.).

Range

R-1. Areas with treatment activities that remove all vegetation or where plants require reestablishment will not be grazed until at least the end of the second year following treatment. Livestock will be monitored and herded away from treatment areas for two years to allow for vegetation to reestablish.

R-2. Range improvements (fences, water developments, pipelines, corrals, cattleguards) will be identified and protected from any damage associated with prescribed burning activities. If damage occurs, structures will be replaced.

R-3. In locations where burning will be occurring, it is preferable to only burn one pasture within a two year window. This will relieve impacts to the grazing permit by not removing both pastures in a single year. All other treatments can be implemented concurrent with grazing.

32


Recreation

REC-1. Mammoth Creek Dispersed Camping. No slash piles shall be constructed within the immediate footprint of the designated dispersed sites; locate piles when possible 100 feet from sites. All other slash will be hand piled and burned. Stump heights will be less than 6 inches.

Air Quality

AQ-1. Prescribed burning will not occur on holiday weekends and during special events.

AQ-2. Prescribed fire activities will comply with the Utah State Smoke Management Plan.

33


CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) representing various resources and uses of the Forest considered alternatives to the Proposed Action. The IDT considered comments received during public scoping as well as those generated by the public and resource specialists. The comments generated in the early analysis stage and during scoping are reflected in the Purpose and Need as stated in Chapter 1. Project Design Features (as described in Chapter 2) were developed to address specific resource conditions.

The Forest Plan goals and objectives for the project area were also considered. The Proposed Action and the No Action alternatives meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, Forest Plan, and Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected project area. The environmental consequences of implementation for the various resources are described for each alternative. Also presented are the scientific and analytical bases for comparison of alternatives. This chapter is organized by affected resources in the following sequence:

A. Vegetation Resources

B. Fuels and Fire Behavior

C. Air Resources

D. Hydrological and Soils Resources

E. Wildlife and Plant Resources

F. Aquatic Biota Resources

G. Cultural Resources

H. Range, Livestock Grazing, and Noxious Weeds

I. Socio-Economic Resources

J. Climate Change

A. Vegetation Resources

Key Issues

34


• There would be some effect to stand structure, currently dominated by trees 5-18 inches in diameter, as a result of thinning and prescribed burning.

• There would be no change to stands classified as old growth as there are no treatments proposed for the 89 acres currently classified as old growth.

• Forested stands in the project area would remain two-storied ponderosa pine and mixed conifer of more than one age class.

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

For more detailed analysis on vegetation, climate, and socio-economic resources within the project area, see the Vegetation (Peterson 2015a), Socio-economic, (Peterson 2015b), and Climate (Peterson 2015c) Resources Specialist Reports in the project record.

Forested stands within the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation project area are classified as ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, spruce-fir, and aspen. Most stands are less than 200 years old with most being previously harvested. The majority of stands in the project area are the Abies concolor/Berberis repens (ABCO/BERE) habitat type and the Pinus ponderosa/Purshia tridentata (PIPO/PUTR) habitat type as described by Youngblood and Mauk (1985).

The majority of conifer stands in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation project area are dominated by average stand diameters between 5 and 12 inches. The aspen stands in the project area are dominated by average stand diameters of between 5 and 18 inches. There would be some change to stand structure as a result of mortality from thinning and prescribed fire. Forested stands in the project area would remain two storied aspen, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer of more than one age class. Current canopy cover averages 42 percent within the project area. The proposed action would not reduce canopy cover as the larger trees would not be removed and are not expected to die as a result of prescribed fire.

Snags are underrepresented in the project area; however, future snags, created by insects and disease would occur over time. Down logs are underrepresented in the project area; however, future down logs, created by fire, insects, and disease would occur over time. Implementation of the Proposed Action would maintain the existing down log and coarse woody debris components at desired conditions where it exists. Areas lacking desired amounts following prescribed burning will have down logs and coarse woody debris increased to desired amounts by cutting and leaving snags on the ground.

Within the treated areas of Henrie Knolls North, implementation of the Proposed Action would decrease the representation of white fir, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, blue spruce, P-J, and shrub species in the understory. Understory grasses and forbs would increase in the forested areas. Overstory vegetation would remain the same in the forested areas with the exception of the riparian area.

35


There would be no change to stands classified as old growth as there are no treatments proposed for the 89 acres currently classified as old growth.

Bark beetles have been active at various levels in the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation project area. Currently beetle populations in the area are at endemic levels for all species. Proposed treatments would have little effect on reducing the hazard of bark beetle infestation as only small diameter trees would be removed or burned. Low to heavy dwarf mistletoe infections are present in limber pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and white fir with much of the regeneration being infected from the infected overstory trees. Proposed treatments would reduce dwarf mistletoe infections in both the understory and overstory trees within thinning areas.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Approximately 32,102 acres or 32 percent of the total National Forest system lands within the cumulative effects area (CEA) have been harvested in the past, mostly intermediate harvests with some shelterwood, salvage, and precommercial thinning. Implementation of the proposed action would maintain the existing old growth component within the CEA. The proposed action will have little effect on the numbers of snags and downed logs as well as insect and disease processes. Desired amounts of coarse woody debris would be maintained with the CEA. The cumulative effects of the proposed action would be to lower the short-term fire hazard within the project area.

B. Fuels and Fire Behavior

Concerns

• This is a fire dependent ecosystem where fires have been suppressed for over 100 years.

• Surface and ladder fuels are accumulating in the project area due to natural and activity-generated fuels as well as fire exclusion.

• The area is classified as wildland urban interface (WUI).


For more detailed analysis on fuels and fire behavior resources within the project area, see the Fuels and Fire Behavior (Eastep 2015) Resources Specialist Report in the project record.

The proposed actions will help make these stands fire-resilient by reducing the intensity and severity of future wildfires. The actions will make it easier and safer for firefighters to manage fires in this area. Modeled flame lengths and overstory tree mortality are significantly decreased by reducing surface and ladder fuels as described in the proposed actions

36


CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The proposed actions and other prescribed burn actions that have been implemented in the area over the last eight years will make a significant difference in the intensity and severity of future wildfires. These fire resilient benefits may last 20 years or more.

C. Air Resources

Concerns

• The Utah Department of Environmental Quality provides air quality approval for prescribed burning to take place. The Department approves the air shed deterioration for this prescribed burning.

• Nighttime smoke from this project is expected to travel downhill toward the Mammoth Creek Subdivision, Highway 89, and the town of Hatch.

• No long term effects to air quality are expected from this project.


There are five parameters important to the determination of air quality and project’s effects. They include amount of airborne particulates, gaseous pollutants, visibility, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) designation, and proximity to residential private subdivisions and class 1 airsheds. The proposed actions will have an impact on several of these elements; however modeling shows that the project is not expected to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in any down wind or down slope area. For more detailed analysis on the air resource within the project area, see the Air Resource Specialist Report (Eastep 2015) in the project record.

D. Hydrological and Soils Resources This section presents a summary of the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report. For a 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 two alternative actions described in Chapter 2.

Affected Environment

The Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area is located within the Upper Mammoth Creek, Middle Mammoth Creek, Lower Mammoth Creek, West Fork Assay Creek, Tommy Creek, and Deer Valley-Midway Creek 6th HUC field subwatersheds. The hydrologic variables that are potentially affected by this type of a project and have

37


been analyzed for effects are water quality, effective ground cover, and watershed area disturbed. The potential effects to these variables and thresholds for determining effects are found in Table 3 - 1. For more detailed analysis on the air resource within the project area, see the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report (Butler and Howes 2015) in the project record.

Table 3 - 1: Hydrologic variables, factors, and thresholds likely for a fuels management project that were used for analysis.

Hydrologic Variable Factor Threshold

Water Quality TMDL For Phosphorus No Increase in Phosphorus Loads

Effective Ground Cover

Percent of Ground That Isn’t Bare

Percent Desired Determined by Soil Type

Watershed Area Disturbed

Percent of Area Disturbed

<15% of 6th Field Subwatershed

Environmental Consequences

A summary of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences are disclosed together for each alternative. Cumulative effects included prior vegetation management projects, wildfire, current grazing, road and trail system impacts, mineral disturbance, and recreation.

Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action)

As there is no proposal to change the existing condition, there are no direct effects to the soil and water resources from this alternative. Cumulative effects to the six watersheds within the project area are displayed in Table 3 - 2. Since past direct and indirect effects do not exceed the estimated 15 percent 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.

38


Table 3 - 2: Cumulative effects comparison by alternative using percent of watershed disturbed.

Cumulative Effects 6th HUC Watershed Name

Disturbance in Watershed as Percent of Watershed Area

Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Upper Mammoth Creek 3.6 3.9 Middle Mammoth Creek 2.8 3.1 Lower Mammoth Creek 2.6 3.0 West Fork Assay Creek 1.6 2.0 Tommy Creek 1.4 1.7 Deer Valley-Midway Creek 3.6 3.7

Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct effects associated with Alternative 2

• Erosion and detrimental disturbance from 1,484 acres of prescribed fire. Approximately 5 percent of the area burned exhibits detrimental disturbance.

• Sheet erosion and detrimental disturbance from 10 miles of fireline. • Erosion and detrimental disturbance from 3,553 acres of mechanized equipment

use. Approximately 7 percent of the area where mechanized equipment is used exhibits soil disturbance.

• Constructed fire lines will be rehabilitated immediately following the prescribed fire so effects from this disturbance will be short term.

Indirect effects associated with Alternative 2

• Risk of a stand replacing fire in the Stream Management Zone and the ponderosa pine stands will be reduced and a litter/duff layer/ground cover in these areas will be in line with FSH 2209.21 requirements.

Table 3 - 3 displays a summary of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the two alternatives.

39


Table 3 - 3: Summary of effects

Effect (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative)

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Water Quality No measurable direct and cumulative effects. Indirectly could increase phosphorus levels by increasing the risk of high severity fire and the hydrologic impacts associated with fire.

HUC Watersheds: Middle Mammoth Creek, Lower Mammoth Creek, and Tommy Creek, have an approved TMDL for phosphorus. Through following the guidance explained in the Design Criteria and Soil and Water Conservation Practices (refer to Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report in the project record) there will be no further contributions to the phosphorus TMDL.

Effective Ground Cover

No measurable direct and cumulative effects. Indirectly could decrease effective ground cover by increasing the risk of high severity fire and the hydrologic impacts associated with fire.

Field surveys indicate that the existing effective ground cover for P234-Syrett, is below FSH 2209.21 standards for the Dixie NF (refer to the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report in the project record). Use of fire in this complex will be minimized.

Watershed Area Disturbed

No measurable direct and cumulative effects. Indirectly could increase watershed area disturbed by increasing the risk of high severity fire and the hydrologic impacts associated with fire.

Since past, direct, and indirect effects do not exceed the estimated 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.

Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to implement its own water quality standards. The use of SWCPs as the BMPs meets the water quality protection elements of the Utah Nonpoint Source Management Plan.

Executive Order 11990

The proposed action is designed not to change or add fill to the waters of the United States anywhere within the project area, nor will any of the practices be directly

40


connected to any wetlands within the project area. Therefore the proposed alternative will be in compliance with Executive Order 11990.

Executive Order 11988

There is no proposal to occupy or modifiy any of the floodplains within the project area including the removal of cottonwood or willow galleries. Therefore the proposed alternative will be in compliance with Executive Order 11988.

E. Wildlife and Plant Resources


Effects of the Proposed Action

For more detailed analysis on terrestrial wildlife and plant species found within the project area, see the Wildlife and Plant Specialist Report, located in the project record.

Endangered and Threatened Species

Threatened species that could occur or have habitat within the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area include the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) and the California condor. The California condor in this area is classified as an experimental, non-essential population, a classification which provides protections as a Threatened Species while elsewhere in its range it is fully protected as an Endangered Species under the Endangered Species Act. Since the project activities of the proposed action are anticipated to have no effect to California condors or their habitat, this species was not carried forward into the document for further analysis. No other Endangered or Threatened Species found on the Dixie National Forest occur or have habitat in the project area and therefore were not analyzed.

In general, prescribed burning and mechanical treatments may affect MSO if project activities were to occur during the fall and winter months since this area is considered to be winter foraging and juvenile dispersal habitat. This could lead to temporary displacement of foraging owls as well as alteration of prey species habitat. No MSO breeding or roosting habitat exists within the project area. Therefore, the proposed action may affect MSO or its habitat but is not likely to adversely affect populations or habitat.

41


Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species

Sensitive wildlife species that occur or have habitat within the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area include peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and American three-toed woodpecker.

In general, prescribed burning activities have the potential to impact peregrine falcons, flammulated owls, northern goshawk, spotted bats, Townsend’s big-eared bats, and three-toed woodpecker populations and/or habitat. Peregrine falcons, flammulated owls, three-toed woodpeckers, and spotted bats have not been documented using the project area but habitat exists. Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to use the Lost Snag cave system in the project area as a winter hibernacula. Impacts from project activities on hibernating bats are expected to be minimal since no prescribed burning is planned for the area where the cave is located and all other project activities occur during periods of the year when Townsend’s big-eared bats are not hibernating. Project design features WL1 through WL4 are designed to protect northern goshawk populations and habitat components. Snag representation and down woody debris fuel loadings are lacking in the project area. Project design features for snags and down woody debris will help protect other species’ habitat components as well as three-toed woodpeckers, flammulated owls, northern flickers (MIS), and the two bat species. Burn units, TSI, and piling/burning were proposed within northern goshawk Nest Areas and post-fledgling areas (PFAs). PDFs exist to reduce impacts to nesting northern goshawks if a territory were determined to be active or occupied. Timing limitations in WL-4 will protect active and/or occupied nesting activity by restricting project activities from occurring during the nesting season. If timing limitations are imposed, other sensitive wildlife species’ impacts will also be lessened.

No other sensitive animal species found on the Dixie National Forest have habitat or populations in the project area and determinations for these species are ‘No Impact’. Determinations for peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, flammulated owl, greater sage grouse, American three-toed woodpecker, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat is ‘May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

No Region 4 sensitive plant species occur or have habitat that will be impacted by project activities so the determination for plant species is ‘No Impact’.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

MIS that occur or have habitat within the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area include mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, northern flicker, and wild turkey.

42


In general, prescribed burning and TSI work as well as other mechanical activities may impact mule deer, elk, wild turkeys, and northern flicker populations and habitat. The project area contains crucial and substantial summer habitat for deer and elk. Deer and elk would be displaced during project activities no matter what time of year burning occurred. This impact is minor given the amount of adjacent habitat available for big game to disperse to when project activities are taking place. This is a short-term disturbance that will last as long as burning and other project activities are happening. Big game can be expected to start using the project area immediately following completion of project activities. Northern flickers and turkeys may be found in the mixed conifer, spruce/fir, aspen, and ponderosa pine cover types. Early seral forage resulting from prescribed burning will improve big game foraging habitat as well as turkey foraging habitat. Prescribed burning may lead to increased snag densities which would benefit northern flickers as well as turkeys, and would provide nesting and foraging areas for northern flickers and roost habitat for turkeys.

Hiding cover along arterial and collector roads as well as along natural and created openings will be retained at Forest Plan guidance levels with project design features outlining project implementation guidance, thus reducing the impact from reducing hiding cover to acceptable levels.

Other Species of Concern

Executive Order (EO) 13186: In general, prescribed broadcast and pile burning, TSI, ponderosa pine riparian improvement, and other mechanical activities may impact Lewis’s woodpecker and broad-tailed hummingbird habitat and may also cause a short-term displacement if activities took place when these bird species were in the area. This is expected to have a minimal effect since no Lewis’s woodpeckers have been documented using the project area during site visits or surveys and only 66 acres of primary broad-tailed hummingbird breeding habitat is proposed for treatment. In addition, project design features for snag retention will help maintain woodpecker habitat suitability into the future.

Cumulative Effects

Since the project only has small impacts for the duration of the project lifetime only minor impacts are expected to add cumulatively to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within any of the 2 cumulative effects areas designated for different wildlife species. These minor cumulative impacts do not change the effects determinations for any species analyzed in this project. For a more in depth discussion concerning cumulative effects, see the Wildlife Specialist Report in the project record.

43


Table 3 - 4 describes the effects determination for the wildlife species analyzed for the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project.

Table 3 - 4: Summary of determinations of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and rationale for Wildlife Resources - Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Management Indicator, and Other Species of Concern –All Alternatives– Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Project

Species (Common Name)

Determinations

Proposed Action No Action

TE

S

Mexican Spotted Owl May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect No

Effect California Condor

Will Not Jeopardize this Experimental, Non-Essential Population

No Effect

Inte

rmou

ntai

n R

egio

nal (

R4)

Fo

rest

er’s

Sen

sitiv

e Sp

ecie

s

Flammulated Owl

May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

No impact

American Peregrine Falcon


No Impact

Northern Goshawk


No impact

Spotted Bat / Townsend’s Big-eared Bat


No impact

American Three-Toed Woodpecker


No impact

MIS

Mule Deer / Rocky Mountain Elk

May impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained.

No impact

Northern Flicker May impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained.

No impact

Wild Turkey May impact individuals or habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Viable populations maintained.

No impact

Oth

er S

peci

es

of C

once

rn Broad-tailed

hummingbird


No impact

Lewis’s Woodpecker


No impact

44


F. Aquatic Biota Resources

AQUATIC BIOTA (FISHERIES)


For more detailed analysis on aquatic species within the project area, see the Aquatic Biota Specialist Report (Johnson 2015) located in the project record.

The fish bearing perennial streams within the proposed project area are Mammoth Creek, Tommy Creek, Reed Valley Creek, and Dead Lake Tributary. Fish bearing perennial streams within the CEA include Duck Creek, Asay Creek, West Fork-Asay Creek, and Wilson Creek. The Mammoth Creek tributary contains populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki Utah) and Asay Creek and Duck Creek contain historic habitat for the southern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda aliciae). Both these species are considered Intermountain Region Sensitive species. However, the Aquatic Amendment to the Forest Plan states, “Where present, the native Bonneville cutthroat trout, native Colorado River cutthroat trout, Virgin spinedace, and southern leatherside will be a management indicator species (MIS), because they are species with special conservation needs” (USDA 2010, p.16). The MIS considered in this analysis for Mammoth Creek would be Bonneville cutthroat trout. The brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, and nonnative cutthroat trout will be the MIS considered for Tommy Creek, Reed Valley Creek, Dead Lake Tributary, Duck Creek, Asay Creek, West Fork Asay Creek, and Wilson Creek. There are no threatened or endangered aquatic species present within the project area.

The proposed action has management activities within portions of Upper Mammoth Creek, Tommy Creek, Middle Mammoth Creek, Lower Mammoth Creek, West Fork-Asay Creek, and Deer Valley-Midway Creek 6th HUC watersheds. Activities include (1) prescribed fire, (2) thinning/hazard tree removal, fuel wood stacking, and pile burning, (3) piling and burning dead and downed wood, (4) mechanized thinning, piling, and burning piles, and (5) hand thinning and pile burning.

In general, portions of the project may have small, short-term (1-2 years) sedimentation impacts to fish and fish habitat in fish bearing and perennial streams throughout the proposed Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area. The long term (>5 years) benefits of having forested stands more fire resilient to catastrophic fires should help reduce the chances of detrimental impacts to aquatic biota if a fire were to burn in the area. Potential direct impacts to fish from mechanical thinning activities would be caused by machinery crushing fish and/or eggs, or spilling gas, oil, or some other toxic compound directly into fish-bearing streams. Potential direct impacts to fish from hand thinning activities would include spreading whirling disease upstream along Mammoth Creek and its tributaries. Potential indirect impacts from mechanical thinning and hand thinning activities include water quality and/or discharge changes, sedimentation, and exposure of more bare ground for erosion and sediment transport.

45


The ponderosa pine riparian areas surrounding Mammoth Creek and Tommy Creek will not receive the RX underburn treatment; however, burning of slash piles will take place within these treatment areas. It is anticipated that the underburn Rx and pile burning treatments will not have large detrimental impacts to the aquatic biota found in the perennial streams within the project area or CEA. However, short-term impacts may occur by potential reduction of ground cover and soil stability. Adherence to the project design features HS-1 through HS-7 and WL-8 and WL-9 along with following guidance in the SWCPs outlined in the Hydrology and Soils Report (Butler and Howes 2015) should help ameliorate any risks for direct and indirect impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action.

Based on field observations, data collection, data analysis, and implementation of all PDFs, implementation of the proposed action would not result in detrimental impacts to fish, or fish habitat beyond the current trend and condition of the area. Increased sediment production associated with the proposed action would be limited in duration and scope, and would not pose a substantial long-term threat to fish or aquatic habitat.

Therefore, the Proposed Action ‘May impact but is not likely to adversely impact Bonneville cutthroat trout, southern leatherside chub, and non-native trout and their habitats within Mammoth Creek, Tommy Creek, Reed Valley Creek, Dead Lake Tributary, Duck Creek, Asay Creek, West Fork Asay Creek and Wilson Creek. These impacts will not contribute to a trend toward federal listing’.

G. Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources Findings

A total of 12 cultural resource inventories have been completed in the area within the boundary of this proposed project. These areas have been surveyed for cultural resources as part of other development projects in the past 10 years. There has been no change in the area to warrant further survey of the area. State Historic Preservation Office concurrence has been obtained for these previous projects and those areas within the project that have historic properties will not be impacted by this proposed project.

H. Range, Livestock Grazing, and Noxious Weeds


Approximately 2,771 acres of grazing allotment are located within the project area (Table 3-5). Issues that would be unacceptable for the rangeland resources would be any action that would lead to permanent reduction of permitted livestock numbers, permanent loss of forage species, or excessive loss of range structures.

46


Grazing Allotments

The project area is located on four grazing allotments recorded on the Cedar City Ranger District as the Asay Bench, Black Mountain, Red Desert, and Warren Bunker-Castle Valley Allotments.

Black Mountain Allotment is divided into three pastures: Ikes Valley, Strawberry Creek, and Bowers Flat. There is one permittee authorized to graze 1,000 ewe/lamb pairs from June 15th to October 8th. The allotment is currently being managed in a deferred rotation grazing system.

Asay Bench Allotment is divided into five pastures: Asay Knoll, Buck Knoll, Reed Valley, Tippets Valley, and Anderson Spring. There are three permittees authorized to graze 266 cow/calf pairs from June 16st to September 30th. The allotment is currently being managed in a modified deferred rotation grazing system.

Red Desert Allotment is run together with the Sidney Valley allotment to form a three pasture rotation system: John L., Red Desert, and Sidney Valley. There is one permittee authorized to graze 174 cow/calf pairs from June 6th to September 20th. The allotment is currently being managed in a modified deferred rotation grazing system.

Warren Bunker-Castle Valley Allotment is run together with the Haycock Mountain-Brian Head Allotment to form a six pasture rotation system. The pastures consist of: South Canyon, Haycock Mountain, Coal Pit, Castle Valley, Warren Bunker, and Brian Head. There is one permittee authorized to graze 1,350 ewe/lamb pairs from June 11th to September 30th. The allotment is currently being managed in a deferred rotation grazing system.

Table 3 - 5. Comparison of treated acres with total acres for the allotment as a whole as well as by pasture.

Allotment Pasture Acres Within the Project

Total Acres Asay Bench Reed Valley 249 2,848

Asay Bench Allotment 249 15,614 Black Mountain Bowers Flat 6,324 16,692

Black Mountain Allotment 6,324 40,577 Red Desert John L.

751 2,198

Red Desert Allotment 751 5,592 Warren Bunker-Castle Valley

Castle Valley

2,771 6,777

Warren Bunker-Castle Valley 2,771 14,001

47


Desired Condition Management Area desired conditions according to the Forest Plan are as follows.

MA 1-General Forest Management (3,137 ac.). Direction for MA-1 is to “Improve habitat capability through direct treatment of vegetation, soil and waters”.


Methodology Long-term monitoring, research, subject matter expert assessments, and historic revegetation projects results will be used to disclose the effects of the project on grazing resources.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects

The Analysis area is the four grazing allotments (Asay Bench, Black Mountain, Red Desert, and Warren Bunker-Castle Valley). This area was chosen because the effects on grazing can best be evaluated on an entire allotment bases.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Future Actions Relevant to Cumulative Effects Area

The cumulative effects area is defined as the combined affected allotment boundaries: Asay Bench, Black Mountain, Red Desert, and Warren Bunker-Castle Valley.

Timber harvest, forest thinning, fire, fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreation use and development, and road building have all affected rangelands within the Cumulative Effects Area to one degree or another. The following projects are being planned or are in some stage of implementation: Sawyer Point Vegetation project, Ikes Valley, Spruce Ecosystem Recovery Plan (SERP), and Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct/Indirect Effects

Since the No Action alternative would result in no shrub treatment or burning, livestock distribution would be unaffected directly. Indirectly and over time, however, the shrub cover would become increasingly dense resulting in decreased forage production. There would be a loss of available forage for grazing as pinyon-juniper woodlands continue to expand. The loss of forage may impact rangeland carrying capacity (Miller and Wigand 1994). Livestock herding would also become more difficult. As a result, grazing distribution would become increasingly limited causing livestock to use smaller

48


areas more intensively. Forage quality and availability will gradually decrease leading to lower stocking rates.

The no-action alternative would result in high fuel loadings and a high risk for large, intense wildfires. If such a fire occurs, livestock use would be restricted substantially over a large area (depending on the extent of the fire) for 2 to 5 years to allow the plant communities to recover.

Cumulative Effects There are no additional cumulative effects that would not also be represented in the action alternatives.

Summary of Effects

Indirect effects are detrimental to the management of grazing resources.

The alternative fails to meet the goals and objectives of the Allotment Management Plan to “Improve plant diversity and revert areas that have conifer encroachment issues (pinyon, juniper, spruce and fir).”

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct/Indirect Effects The proposed action would result in increased plant diversity and forage production for livestock and big-game across the landscape. In addition, thinning and opening these dense shrub and forested stands would allow livestock to move more freely across the landscape. Increased forage production and less stand density would result in improved livestock distribution; this would lead to less intensive grazing use over a larger area. When the intensity and duration of grazing is reduced, soil compaction and patch grazing are relieved. Overall the permitted grazing resources would benefit from the effects of this project.

Nonuse for resource protection would be authorized in areas that succession has been reset such as burn treatments. The Allotment Management Plans would need to be modified through issuance of the Annual Operating Instructions.

Cumulative Effects Timber harvest, forest thinning, fire, fire suppression, recreation use, recreation development, and road building have all affected rangelands within the Cumulative Effects Area to one degree or another. The most notable of these activities as they relate to rangelands are timber harvest, fire, fire suppression, and recreational activities. Although limited in scope, past timber harvests, thinning activities, and prescribed burning have served to open some stands and promote more understory vegetation as

49


well as to create patches of transitional range where brush species are dominant. Combined with active fire suppression, historically heavy livestock grazing (pre-1950s) reduced the frequency and size of natural fires on the landscape (by removing fine fuels that would allow lightning caused ignitions to burn). The cumulative effect of the No Action alternative has a greater detrimental consequence to permitted grazing than the Proposed Action alternative. It is therefore recommended that the Proposed Action alternative needs to be taken to properly manage the grazing resources.

The proposed alternative meets the goals and objectives of the Allotment Management Plan to “Improve plant diversity and revert areas that have conifer encroachment issues (pinyon, juniper, spruce and fir).”

Summary of Effects

It is concluded that in the long term this project would move resources used in grazing toward a more desired condition. It will help meet the standards and guides for management area direction outlined in the Forest Plan. In the short term, some management changes will have to be made in order to reach the optimal vegetative potential of the project. This will need to be done through coordination with the grazing permittee and documented in the Annual Operating Instructions. For a more detailed discussion and analysis, refer to the Grazing Specialist report in the Project Record.

Monitoring Recommendations This area will continue to be monitored for vegetative trend for the long-term trend monitoring study site, Duck Creek Sinks SA, study number 9176.

Noxious Weeds

Overview of Issues Addressed Forest Service policy defines “noxious weeds” as “…plants designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease and being native or new to or not common in the United States or parts thereof” (FSM 2080.5).

There are currently 15 noxious weed species on the Dixie National Forest infesting 8,346 acres. The Cedar City District has identified 8 species infesting 1,365 acres as of August 2014.

Noxious Weed species are assigned priority based on the criteria used by the State of Utah for grouping weeds into Class A, B or C. “Class A” weeds have a relatively low population size within the State and are of highest priority being an Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) weed. “Class B” weeds have a moderate population

50


throughout the State and generally are thought to be controllable in most areas. “Class C” weeds are found extensively in the State and are thought to be beyond control. Statewide efforts would generally be towards containment of smaller infestations (Utah Noxious Weed Amendment 2008).

Priority species for the Forest are listed below. Objective is early detection and eradication of Class A and B due to the following factors: (1) low in abundance, (2) control is mostly feasible forest-wide, (3) capability of species invading a variety of relatively healthy ecosystems, (4) species have the ability to establish dominance in plant or aquatic communities, and (5) objective of Class C species is control and containment of existing populations and eradication of new populations.

Class A Black Henbane Diffuse Knapweed Johnsongrass

Medusahead Spotted Knapweed Sulfur Cinquefoil

Yellow Starthistle Yellow Toadflax

Class B Dalmatian Toadflax Whitetop (Hoary Cress) Musk Thistle

Perennial Pepperweed Poison Hemlock Russian Knapweed

Bull Thistle* Squarrose Knapweed Scotch Thistle

Class C Canada Thistle Russian Olive

Salt Cedar Houndstongue

Rubber Rabbitbrush**

*Listed as noxious weed in Iron County **Listed as noxious weed n Garfield County

The authority for noxious weed management on the Cedar City Ranger District is provided through the Dixie National Forest Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management and Decision Notice (USDA 2000b).


Existing Condition

There are no known infestations of Class A listed noxious weeds that have been documented within the project area. There are infestations located within two miles of the project area boundary. Because burning and ground disturbing activities create

51


niches for noxious weeds to become established, care must be taken to prevent weed infestations in these areas. Currently, the Cedar City Ranger District does not have a substantial noxious weed problem; however, the threat of experiencing a significant increase in noxious weeds is high. As a result, implementing comprehensive noxious weed prevention measures are of vital importance.

There is one Class B noxious weed found within the project area. Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) is not listed in Garfield County; however Iron County has added it to the noxious weed list. There is one Class C noxious weed identified within the project area, rubber rabbitbrush (Ericamerica nauseosa).

Desired Condition

All Class A and B noxious weeds eradicated and class C noxious weeds contained.


Methodology

Long-term monitoring, research, subject matter expert assessments, and historic revegetation projects results will be used to disclose the effects of the project on noxious weeds.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Future Actions Relevant to Cumulative Effects Area

The cumulative effects area is defined as the project area boundary.

Timber harvest, forest thinning, fire, fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreation use and development, and road building have all affected noxious weeds within the Cumulative Effects Area to one degree or another.

52


Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct/Indirect Effects

In the short term the project area will be left with no planned disturbance keeping the risk of noxious weed infestation low. Rubber rabbitbrush will remain at existing levels.

Long term the project area will be susceptible to high intensity fires as seen in the Shingle Fire. This would expose vast areas to potential infestation. Rubber rabbitbrush, which is a plant that is a prolific resprouter after fire, will infest large areas at an exponential rate. This phenomenon can be evidenced in Pole Hollow state land prescribed burn and the Three Creeks burn scars.

Large wildfires will bring in resources from contaminated areas, making it hard to keep the site clean of noxious weeds.

Cumulative Effects

Timber harvest, forest thinning, fire, fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreation use and development, and Motorized Travel Plan implementation will continue to be a possible form of site contamination even when no vegetative disturbance has occurred.

Summary of Effects

Short term effects of the No Action alternative will keep the area at status quo.

It is difficult to foresee consequences to the hands off management approach; however it is safe to assume that the burn interval for this area is reaching its climax. With the No Action alternative there is a risk for large openings for noxious weeds to become established.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects

Ground disturbance caused by prescribed burning, underburning, and slash pile burning can provide favorable niches for noxious weed establishment. The greatest risk will be of machinery used for P-J mastication, chainsaw, and Marshal saw work. It is crucial that this machinery be free of noxious weed propagules. With all of the openings and exposed soil that has been created by the fire and possibly by these activities, this area will be vulnerable (Taylor et al. 2012). During this time exposure to noxious weeds would be devastating and expensive to treat. Roads that are used only for the treatment should be restricted to administration access to lessen exposure to possible propagules.

53


By breaking up the landscape and creating areas of diversity the ecosystem will be more resilient and able to respond to disturbance more quickly and with greater vigor. This would reduce exposure time when noxious weeds could become established.

Cumulative Effects

Timber harvest, forest thinning, wild fire, fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreation use and development, and Motorized Travel Plan implementation will continue to be a possible form of site contamination that will expose freshly disturbed landscapes.

Because motor vehicles are known to transport and disperse weed seed along travel corridors, restricting motor vehicle access serves to limit the potential spread of noxious weeds (Taylor et al. 2012). The ground-disturbing and burning activities associated with the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project would create a favorable environment for noxious weeds.

Summary of Effects

Short-term effects of this project have the potential to introduce noxious weeds into the project area.

Long-term the effects of this project will create a more diverse ecosystem that is more resilient and able to adapt and recover from future disturbances. With shorter possible exposure to noxious weed infestations the project would have a positive defensive effect.

Monitoring Recommendations

Monitoring will be conducted to determine if the design measures listed above are being implemented and if they are effective (e.g., inspect rehabilitated sites for the presence of noxious weeds).

Consideration of Best Available Science

The techniques and methodologies used in this analysis consider the best available science. The analysis includes a summary of the credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts. The analysis also identifies methods used and references scientific sources relied on. When appropriate, the conclusions are based on the scientific analysis that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk.

The relevant science considered for the rangeland resource analysis is listed below.

• On-site data and history. The project area was surveyed and following data was collected including allotment history and noxious weed inventory.

54


• Scientific literature. Relevant literature includes information reviewed for basic understanding, science cited in the specialist report, and a review of science submitted as a responsible opposing view. Literature reviewed and cited is in Chapter 5, References.

• The collective knowledge of the project area by interdisciplinary team members through integration of science with local conditions.

• Comparative analysis considering other local similar projects and past monitoring data. The effects to the rangeland resource in other similar projects in the area have been considered in the analysis.

I. Socio-Economic Resources The economic efficiency of each action alternative was analyzed using the present net value (PNV) of revenues and costs anticipated during the life of the project using Quick-Silver software (Vasievich et al. 2002). PNV is a convenient and consistent method to measure the relative economic efficiencies of a range of alternative forest management scenarios. The following assumptions were used in the PNV analysis:

• This analysis determines the net economic returns of various alternatives based on resource costs and benefits, which can easily be measured in dollar terms. Other resources that are more difficult to assign a dollar value (e.g., wildlife, water, air) were not considered.

• Values have been discounted to the year 2012. • Revenue and cost data were developed specifically for this project and reflect

current levels for this geographic area. The area included in this analysis includes Garfield and Iron Counties, Utah.

This analysis will display market costs, although there are many non-market benefits and costs that will not be assigned dollar values. Examples of non-market benefits that will not be included in this analysis are vegetation treatments that result in habitat improvements and road improvements, which increase public safety. Examples of non-market costs would include erosion, or loss of wildlife cover, and security as a result of the Proposed Action alternative. Specialist’s reports will discuss the qualitative non-market benefits of this activity, while this economic section shows the market costs.

Management of the forest is expected to yield positive benefits, but not necessarily financial benefits. Economic effects are assessed within the managerial context of the Forest Plan, as a part of an integrated approach to multiple-use management. The economic costs of the Proposed Action alternative are estimated at $1,985,882.

Recreation visitor use trends indicate that growth in visitation, measured by recreation visitor days (RVDs), is expected to continue regardless of future fuels management practices. Summer recreation contributes the highest proportion of RVDs in and around the project area. Reduction of RVDs is not likely to occur from the Proposed Action given the limited scale and scope of the project

55


Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

The benefits to Garfield and Iron Counties from the Proposed Action would be limited to the contribution the contractor makes to the diversified local economy. The recreation and tourism industry plays an increasingly important role in the economies of both counties. The small communities in the analysis area will be impacted primarily by the Proposed Action providing seasonal jobs and the spin-off benefits they provide such as increased spending at local businesses and tax revenues.

Other Effects Analysis Required by CEQ Regulations

• Adverse Effects That Cannot Be Avoided – None • Short Term vs. Long Term Productivity – None • Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments - None

Effects of No Action on Socio-Economic Resources

Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative

This alternative proposes no action and produces no economic outputs. There is no return on this investment. No benefits, (direct, indirect or non-quantifiable) can be attributed to this alternative. Implementation of the No Action alternative will not provide additional public benefits to local jobs.

Even though this alternative does not result in implementation of an action alternative, there are planning costs (NFMA and NEPA), which would still be incurred. These costs are estimated at $95,648.74.

Cumulative Effects of No Action

Under the No Action alternative, local income would not be generated. Impacts to other industry such as tourism would continue at present trends.

Other Effects Analysis Required by CEQ Regulations

Adverse Effects That Cannot Be Avoided – There would be a loss in the opportunity for the economic benefits to private service contracting industries. Short Term vs. Long Term Productivity – None

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments – None

56


J. Climate Change


The affected environment is the Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment project area. The vegetation resources of the high-elevation plateaus in southern Utah are being affected by a changing climate. Aspen dieback may, for example, be associated with a warming and drying climate (Hogg et al. 2002, Worrall et al. 2010). Rehfeldt and colleagues (2009) have found a “compelling” connection between aspen decline and a changing climate. In the spruce/fir type, the severity of recent beetle outbreaks may be exacerbated by a warming climate (Logan et al. 2003), perhaps due to a shortened life cycle for the spruce beetle (Hansen et al. 2001) or a reduction in beetle mortality due to cold weather (Bentz et al. 2010). Moreover, 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).

Direct and Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative on Climate

Under the No Action alternative, existing stands will continue to sequester carbon over time until the next disturbance event. Risk of a stand-replacing disturbance event would increase in the No Action alternative and would result in a release of large amounts of carbon.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on Climate

The proposed action will sequester carbon in wood products that are thinned as well as in the growth increment of remaining stands. Some emission of carbon will be associated with burning. There will also be short term emissions associated with machinery while treatment activities are underway. Because greenhouse gases (GHG) mix readily into the global pool of GHG, it is not currently possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from a single project.

Cumulative Effects on Climate

This project is extremely small in the context of global atmospheric CO2. It is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual cumulative effects on climate, based on individual or even multiple vegetation manipulation projects.

57


Conclusion

Site specific quantitative measurements of carbon sequestration for a project of this small size would be both time consuming and expensive. The results would be meaningless for a reasoned choice by the responsible official. More than half of the carbon sequestered within North America is in forest and urban trees and wood products. Projects designed to sequester carbon in wood products and replanted seedlings will accelerate achieving the balance in GHG emissions rather than leaving it to natural processes (USDA 2009).

58


CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted Federal, State, and local agencies, and tribes and other entities during development of this EA. Below is a partial list of consultants.

Dixie National Forest specialists who contributed to analysis

Interdisciplinary Team - These Forest Service natural resource specialists gathered data, analyzed the effects on the environment, and developed environmental recommendations.

Discipline Team Member Interdisciplinary Team Leader Mark Carrara Wildlife, Sensitive Plants Nate Yorgason, Mark Madsen Silviculture, Socio-economics, Climate Patrick Moore, Colby Peterson Aquatic Resources Devin Johnson, Mike Golden Hydrology and Soils Chris Butler, Adam Howes Heritage Resources Marian Jacklin, Maia London Fuels, Fire, Air Resources Eric Eastep Engineering Steven O’Neil Range, Noxious Weeds Brian Monroe GIS Data and Mapping Laurie Parry Environmental Coordinator Hope Woodward Mineral Resources Sue Baughman Public Affairs Marcia Gilles

Federal, State and Local Agencies Consulted

• Cedar Mountain Fire Protection District • Five County Association of Governments • Garfield County Commission • Iron County Commission • Iron County Natural Resources • Kane County Commission • Mayor of Cedar City • Mayor of Brian Head • Mayor of Parowan • Mayor of Panguitch • Paiute Indian Tribe • US Congressman Chris Stewart

59


• US Fish & Wildlife Service • Utah Division of Wildlife Resources • Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands Division • Utah Public Lands Policy Office • US Senator Mike Lee • US Senator Orrin Hatch • Utah State Representative Mike Noel • Utah State Representative Evan Vickers

Others Consulted

• Grand Canyon Trust • Grand Canyon Wildlands Council • Great Old Broads for Wilderness • Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance • Mammoth Creek Homeowner Assn • WildEarth Guardians

60


CHAPTER 5 – REFERENCES Agee, J.K. 2002. Fire Behavior and fire-resilient forests. In: Fitzgerald, S. (ed). Fire in

Oregon’s Forests: Risk, effects, and treatment options. Portland, OR: Oregon Forest Resources Institute: p. 119-126.

Alexander, R.R. 1986. Silvicultural systems and cutting methods for ponderosa pine forests in the Front Range of the Central Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, GTR-RM-128. 22 p.

Bartos, D.L. 2007. Aspen. In: Hood, S.M., Long, D., Miller, M. and Ryan, C. (eds). Fire Ecology and Management of the Major Ecosystems of Southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 110 p.

Bartos, D.L. and Campbell, R.B. 1998. Decline of Quaking Aspen in the Interior West - Examples from Utah. Rangelands 20(1):17-24.

Battaglia, M.A. and Shepperd, W.D. 2007. Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, and Spruce-Fir Forests. In: Hood, S.M., Long, D., Miller, M. and Ryan, C. (eds). Fire Ecology and Management of the Major Ecosystems of Southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 110 p.

Bentz, B.J., Régnière, J., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, E.M., Hayes, J.L., Hicke, J.A., Kelsey, R.G., Negrón, J.F., and Seybold, S.J. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60(8):602–613.

Bradley, A.F., Noste, N.V., and Fischer, W.C. 1992. Fire ecology of southern Utah forests. GTR INT-287.

Butler, C. and Howes, A. 2015. Hydrology and soils specialist report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment

Dixon, G.E. 2002. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 226 p. (Revised: December 24, 2014)

Eastep, E. 2015. Fire, Fuels, and Air Resources Specialist Report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment.

EPA. 2013. National Ambient Air Quality Standards [internet]; [cited 2013 June 6]. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Five County Association of Governments. 2007. Southwest Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan. Five County Association of Governments and Color Country Interagency Fire Center.

61

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html


Graham, D.P. 1967. A training aid on dwarf mistletoe and its control. [Revised and adapted for Region 2 by J.L. Stewart.] Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 49 p.

Graham, R. T., McCaffrey, S., and Jain, T. B. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p.

Hamilton, R.C. 1993. Characteristics of old-growth forests in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.

Hansen E.M., Bentz, B.J., and Turner, D.L. 2001. Temperature-based model for predicting univoltine brood proportions in spruce beetle (Coleoptera : Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist 133(6):827-841.

Harvey, A.E. Jurgensen, M.F., Larsen, M.J., and Graham, R.T. 1987. Decaying organic material, a management opportunity. GTR-INT-225. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 15 p.

Hawksworth, F.G. 1977. The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mt. Forest Range Experimental Station General Technical Report RM-48.Technical Report RM-48. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 7 p.

Hawksworth, F.G. and Shaw III, C.G. 1984. Damage and loss caused by dwarf mistletoe in coniferous forests of western North America. In: Wood, R.K.S. and Jellis, G.J., eds. Plant diseases: Infection, damage and loss. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications: 285-297.

Hawksworth, F.G. and Weins, D. 1996. Dwarf mistletoes: Biology, Pathology, and Systematics. USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook 709.

Hogg, E.H., J.P. Brandt and B. Kochtubajda, 2002. Growth and dieback of aspen forests in northwestern Alberta, Canada, in relation to climate and insects. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32: 823-832.

Hood, S.M., Long, D., Miller, M. and Ryan, C. (eds). 2007. Fire Ecology and Management of the Major Ecosystems of Southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 110 p.

Jacklin, M. 2015. Cultural Resources Specialist Report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment.

Johnson, D.W. and Hawksworth, F.G. 1985. Dwarf mistletoes: candidates for control through cultural management. In: Insect and disease conditions in the United States, 1979–1983. General Technical Report WO-46. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 48–55.

Johnson, D. 2015. Aquatic biota specialist report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment.

62


Kimmey, J.W. and Graham, D.P. 1960. Dwarf mistletoes of the Intermountain and Northern Rocky Mountain Regions and suggestions for control. Research Paper Number 60. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p.

Logan J.A., Regniere, J. and Powell, J.A. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(3):130-137.

McGinn, D., Eisenhauer, P., Ferguson, B., and Bott, J. 1999. Effects of fire on vegetation (draft). Unpublished manuscript on file at Dixie National Forest, Cedar City Ranger District, Cedar City, UT.

McGinn, D., Eisenhauer, P., Ferguson, B. and Peterson, C. 2004. Effects of Timber Harvest on Vegetation (draft). Unpublished manuscript on file at Dixie National Forest, Cedar City Ranger District, Cedar City, UT.

Miller, R.F. and Wigand, P.E. 1994. Holocene Changes in Semiarid Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. Bioscience 44(7):465-474.

Monroe, B. 2015. Range, livestock, grazing, and noxious weed specialist report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment.

Page, W., Alexander, M.E., and Jenkins, M.J. 2013. Wildfire’s resistance to control in mountain pine beetle-attacked lodgepole pine forests. The Forestry Chronicle 89(6).

Pagett, W.G., Youngblood, A.P., and Winward, A.H. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and Southeastern Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. R4-Ecol-89-01. 191 p.

Peterson, C. 2015a. Vegetation resources specialist report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment.

Peterson, C. 2015b. Socio-economic specialist report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment.

Peterson, C. 2015c. Climate change specialist report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment

Peterson, D.L., Johnson, M.C., Agee, J.K., Jain, T.B., McKenzie, D., and Reinhardt, E.D. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-DTR-628. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p.

Raffa, K.F., Phillips, T.W., and Salom, S.M. 1993. Strategies and mechanisms of host colonization by bark beetles. In: Beetle-pathogen interactions in conifer forests. T.D. Schowalter and G.M. Filip eds. San Diego Academic Press. p. 103-128.

63


Rehfeldt, G.E. 2004. Interspecific and intraspecific variation in Picea engelmannii and its congeneric cohorts: biosystematics, genecology, and climate-change. General Technical Report RMRS-134, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 18 p.

Rehfeldt G.E., Ferguson, D.E., and Crookston, N.L. 2009. Aspen, climate, and sudden decline in western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 258(11):2353-2364.

Reynolds, R.T., Graham, R.T., Reiser, M.H., Bassett, R.L., Kennedy, P.L., Boyce, D.A., Goodwin, G., Smith, R., and Fisher, E.L. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 90 p.

Scharpf, R.F. and Parmeter, Jr., J.R., tech. coords. 1978. Proceedings, Symposium on dwarf mistletoe control through forest management; 1978 April 11–13; Berkeley, CA. General Technical Report PSW-31. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 190 p.

Schowalter, T.D. and Filip, G.M. 1993. Bark beetle–pathogen–conifer interactions. In: Beetle-pathogen interactions in conifer forests. Schowalter, T.D. and Filip, G.M. eds. San Diego Academic Press. p. 3-19.

Scott, J.H. and Burgan, R.E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: A comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p.

Tausch, R.J., Miller, R.F., Roundy, B.A., and Chambers, J.C. 2009. Piñon and juniper field guide: Asking the right questions to select appropriate management questions.

Taylor, K., Brummer, T., Taper, M.L., Wing, A., and Rew L.J. 2012. Human-mediated long-distance dispersal: an empirical evaluation of seed dispersal by vehicles. Divers Distrib 18:942-951.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Cedar City, UT.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. FSM 2080.5 – Noxious Weed Management. November 29, 1995.

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. Utah northern goshawk project environmental assessment [forest plan amendment]. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Odgen, UT (65 p. plus appendices).

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Dixie National Forest Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management and Decision Notice.

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Utah Fire Amendment Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. Dixie National Forest.

64


USDA Forest Service. 2001b. The USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Issues, strategy, and process developed between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service to address agency responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. Letter to FWS from Robert G. MacWhorter, Forest Supervisor. August 1, 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis [internet]; [cited 2010 Dec 21]. Available from USDA Forest Service, EMC National Environmental Policy Act: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/index.htm

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Aquatic Monitoring Amendment Environmental Assessment. Dixie National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Asay Bench Allotment Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Red Desert Allotment Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Fire Operations Guidelines for Preventing the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species [internet]; [cited 2015 June 25]. Available from http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_016113

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Black Mountain Allotment Management Plan.

Utah Division of Water Quality. 2012. Water Quality Standards. Rule 317-2, Standards of Water Quality for Waters of State [internet]; [cited 30 June 2015]. Available from http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm

Utah Noxious Weed Act. 2008. Utah Department of Administrative Rules R68-9. [internet]; [cited 7 July 2015]. Available from http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r068/r068-009.htm#E9.

Utah National Forests, Bureau of Land Management, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. September, 1998. Conservation Strategy and Agreement for Management of Northern Goshawk Habitat in Utah. 20 p.

Vasievich, M., Retzlaff, M., and Smith, D. 2002. Quick-Silver User Guide.

White, M.A. and Vankat, J.L. 1993. Middle and high elevation coniferous forest communities of the North Rim region of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA. Vegetation 109:161–174.

Wicker, E.F. and Hawksworth, F.G. 1988. Relationships of dwarf mistletoes and intermediate stand cultural practices in the Northern Rockies. In: Schmidt, W.C., comp. Proceedings, Future forests of the Mountain West: a stand culture symposium; 1986 September 29–October 3; Missoula, MT. General Technical Report INT-243. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 402 p.

65

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/index.htm

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_016113




http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r068/r068-009.htm%23E9


Wildland Leadership Council. 2014. The National Strategy: The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy [cited 7 July 2015]. Available from http://www.doi.gov/news/upload/20140328_CSPhaseIIINationalStrategy_SurnameCopy_execSec_FINAL_v3.pdf

Worrall, J.J., Marchetti, S.B., Egeland, L., Mask, R.A., Eager, T., and Howell, B. 2010. Effects and etiology of sudden aspen decline in southwestern Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 260(5):10.

Yorgason, N. 2015. Wildlife and plant specialist report. Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Environmental Assessment.

Youngblood, A.P. and Mauk, R.L. 1985. Coniferous Forest Habitat Types of Central and Southern Utah. USDA Forest Service INT-187, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402. 89 p.

66

http://www.doi.gov/news/upload/20140328_CSPhaseIIINationalStrategy_SurnameCopy_execSec_FINAL_v3.pdf

http://www.doi.gov/news/upload/20140328_CSPhaseIIINationalStrategy_SurnameCopy_execSec_FINAL_v3.pdf


APPENDIX – FIGURES

67


Figure 1: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Cover Type

68


Figure 2: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Management Areas

69


Figure 3: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Proposed Action

70


Figure 4: Henrie Knolls North Vegetation Treatment Transportation

71



72

united states department of agriculture forest service...

Documents