2

WATER/SOILS

Proposed Action

ALTERNATIVE 1 – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, current management activities would continue. No action would be taken to restore ecosystems, reduce fuel buildup, improve wildlife habitat conditions, or promote aspen regeneration. Under this alternative the risk for large scale, high intensity, stand replacing, wildland fire continues to increase which poses a risk to public and firefighter safety as well as, property and natural resources.

ALTERNATIVE 2 - Proposed Action

Prescribed Fire (Units 1, 3, 4, and 5) (See Maps at the end of this document)

Proposed prescribed fire treatments would be implemented within approximately 4,010 acres utilizing aerial and/or hand ignition techniques to target mixed conifer/aspen, pinyon/juniper, Ponderosa pine understory, and gamble oak fuels. Prior to ignition, control lines may need to be constructed around the perimeter of prescribed fire treatment areas (most notably the north and west sides of Unit 5). Control lines would be constructed using chainsaws and hand tools to primarily remove smaller diameter trees averaging less than 8”dbh, limb larger diameter trees, remove 1000 hour fuels and dig handline. Trees larger than 8”dbh which may pose a threat to the effectiveness of the control line may also be removed. In order to reduce visual impacts, efforts will be made to cut trees flush with the ground, to feather control lines and perform rehab should it be necessary. Control line construction would be implemented to protect improvements, keep fire within proposed units, protect adjacent private and federally managed lands, and create a safe environment for fire personnel during burn implementation. To meet the desired conditions outlined above, within Units 1, 3, 4, and 5 the Richfield Ranger District proposes to reintroduce fire across multiple ecosystems using aerial and/or ground based prescribed fire techniques. Mosaic burn patterns are desired. Within Unit 1, prescribed fire operations will target approximately 60-80% of the fuel, within Unit 3 approximately 40-70% of the fuel, within Unit 4 approximately 50-70% of the fuel, and within Unit 5 approximately 55-75% of the fuel. Mosaic burn patterns break up continuous fuel beds that support high intensity stand replacing fire. Reintroducing fire will aid in getting these ecosystems back into PFC. The reintroduction of fire will help address encroaching pinyon/juniper in the area, it will improve age class and species diversity, it will improve habitat for wildlife species dependent upon the various ecosystems in this area, it will improve sagebrush, grass, forbs, aspen, Ponderosa pine, and other ecosystems in the area, and the reintroduction of fire will result in having a fuel loading more aligned to historical values for the various vegetation types. This will improve firefighter safety, reduce the threat to adjacent private property and structures, and will reduce the threat of high intensity stand replacing wildfires.

3

The District will monitor vegetation responses in Units 1, 3, 4, and 5 after the prescribed fire is implemented. If vegetation responses are slow, aerial, ATV and or tractor reseeding may occur. The District anticipates that the pinyon/juniper areas that currently have very little understory will most likely need to be reseeded. If reseeding needs to occur, the District proposes to reseed with a mix of native brush, sagebrush, grass and forbs.

Areas that are already in PFC and areas of pure aspen would be avoided. For example, the sagebrush areas that have a good understory of grasses and forbs that don’t have encroaching pinyon/juniper and are in PFC would be avoided.

To address the potential impact from domestic livestock grazing, the District is proposing to rest grazing for at least 2-3 growing seasons post implementation to allow for new vegetation to become established. The District does not feel that current livestock grazing is an underlying cause for why much of this area is not in PFC: due to slope and distance from water, much of the proposed project area gets little to no livestock grazing use, and permittees in the area have consistently been meeting Fishlake Forest Plan grazing standards and guidelines.  Of the 4,014 acres for this project, riparian/wetland areas cover a small percentage; approximately 109 acres (0.03%).

Following prescribed fire treatments, it is important that a sufficient number of new aspen sprouts establish and grow to a height of 6 feet to eventually give rise to a restored aspen forest. Based on existing conditions, aspen will respond differently throughout the project area. In areas that have 30 living aspen trees/acre with diameter breast height (DBH) of at least 5 inches prior to prescribed fire treatments, following guidelines in Fergusson (2004), the objective is to have 2000-5000 aspen stems per acre at 6 feet height over 70% of the area treated.

During summer 2010 and 2013 the District looked at previous aspen treatments and pure aspen stands (areas not fenced) in the near vicinity. These other aspen stands appear to be doing well; multi height stems with successful recruitment and regeneration are occurring and biodiverse understories beneath the canopy was seen. Based on the success and condition of these other aspen stands in the vicinity, the District is not proposing to fence the entire aspen treatment areas as a part of this project.

To verify if these assumptions are correct, after the prescribed fire implementation has occurred, and during the first 2-3 growing seasons while these areas are being rested from livestock grazing, the District proposes to monitor the aspen communities following treatments. If monitoring indicates unsustainable browsing of aspen by wild ungulates, the District would work with Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and interested stakeholders to reduce this pressure on aspen. Changing wildlife management to reduce browse impacts on aspen is outside the scope of this project and outside the decision authority of the deciding official. Joint Forest Service/UDWR efforts will be based on achieving aspen ecosystem restoration and achieving the desired conditions described above. After 2-3 growing seasons when livestock grazing is

4

allowed to return, the District would continue monitoring the aspen. If monitoring indicates unsustainable browsing of aspen by livestock, the District would take the necessary administrative actions to reduce this livestock related browsing pressure on aspen. To assist with this monitoring, the District proposes to construct a small aspen exclosure (approximately 1 acre in size). The aspen exclosure would occur in units 3, 4, or 5 in a location that’s representative of aspen in the project area. Being able to compare aspen inside the exclosure to aspen outside the exclosure will help the District determine if unsustainable browsing of aspen is occurring outside the exclosure.

Mechanical and Prescribed Fire (Unit 2) (See Maps at the end of this document)

Proposed prescribed fire treatments would also be implemented within approximately 714 acres of Unit 2 utilizing aerial and hand ignition techniques targeting mixed conifer/aspen, pinyon/juniper, and gamble oak fuels. Prior to ignition, control lines may need to be constructed around the perimeter of the prescribed fire treatment areas. Control lines would be constructed using chainsaws and hand tools to primarily remove smaller diameter trees averaging less than 8”dbh, limb larger diameter trees, remove 1000 hour fuels and dig handline. Trees larger than 8”dbh which may pose a threat to the effectiveness of the control line may also be removed. In order to reduce visual impacts, efforts will be made to cut trees flush with the ground, to feather control lines and perform rehab should it be necessary. Control line construction would be implemented to protect improvements, keep fire within proposed units, protect adjacent private and federally managed lands, and create a safe environment for fire personnel during burn implementation. In Unit 2, within a portion of the sagebrush fuel type, the Richfield Ranger District proposes to mechanically reduce fuels within approximately 400 acres of encroaching pinyon/juniper. The mechanical fuels reduction treatments will target the encroaching pinyon/juniper within this unit. The District considered the alternative of only using a skid-steer loader with a mulching fecon head to accomplish the pinyon/juniper removal. This technique may be possible in most areas, although not in all the areas where pinyon/juniper encroachment occurs; therefore, a combination of hand cutting and skid-steer mulching fecon is proposed. Mulching fecon heads would be used to tip over the trees by grinding away the stump, while trees that are inaccessible to skid-steers would be cut by hand using chainsaws. Special attention would be paid to minimize soil disturbance with mechanical equipment. To reduce visual impacts, efforts will be made to cut trees flush with the ground. After the pinyon/juniper trees are cut and have cured the Fishlake National Forest fire personnel will target and burn each of the cut/cured pinyon/juniper trees within these acres using prescribed fire. This proposal and treatment method will help maintain the existing sagebrush and grass/forb communities in the area and it will allow for additional acres of sagebrush/grass/forbs to be restored. This will also help improve age class and species diversity, it will improve habitat for wildlife species dependent upon sagebrush/grass/forbs, and this will result in having a fuel loading more aligned to historical values. This will improve

5

firefighter safety, reduce the threat to adjacent private property and structures, and will reduce the threat of high intensity stand replacing wildfires. For clarification, pinyon/juniper will only be targeted in the areas where encroachment is occurring (younger and smaller diameter trees averaging less than 8” dbh). Areas that historically contained pinyon/juniper (older and larger diameter trees averaging greater than 8” dbh) will not be targeted with the above mentioned mechanical fuels reduction treatments. To meet the desired conditions outlined above for the remainder of Unit 2, the Richfield Ranger District proposes to reintroduce fire across the other ecosystems using aerial and/or hand based prescribed fire techniques. Mosaic burn patterns are desired. Prescribed fire operations will target approximately 30-50% of the fuel in this Unit. Mosaic burn patterns break up continuous fuel beds that support high intensity stand replacing fire. Reintroducing fire will aid in returning these ecosystems back into PFC. The reintroduction of fire in these other areas will help improve age class and species diversity, it will improve habitat for wildlife species dependent upon the other ecosystems in this area, it will improve aspen, and other ecosystems in the area, and the reintroduction of fire will result in having a fuel loading more aligned to historical values for the various vegetation types. This will improve firefighter safety, reduce the threat to adjacent private property and structures, and will reduce the threat of high intensity stand replacing wildfires.

The District considered the alternative of not mechanically cutting the pinyon/juniper in this unit and just using prescribed fire techniques to accomplish desired conditions. The option of using only prescribed fire techniques in this unit was dismissed for several reasons. Some of the fuels in Unit 2 within the pinyon/juniper fuel type lack the continuity of understory fuels to carry the prescribed fire. To get the pinyon/juniper trees to burn as they currently stand, the District would need to burn this unit on a hot and windy day to get the fire to carry from one tree to the next. This would be dangerous and difficult for firefighters to successfully implement. The chance of having an escaped wildfire also increases. Undesirable impacts to other ecosystems in the area could also occur. By cutting the pinyon juniper trees first and waiting for them to cure, firefighters can be more selective in when they burn this unit and they can better target the pinyon/juniper trees and avoid the remaining sagebrush/grass and forbs in the area. This will help maintain the existing sagebrush and grass/forb communities in the area.

The District will monitor vegetation responses in Unit 2 after the mechanical and prescribed fire is implemented. If vegetation responses are slow, aerial, ATV and or tractor reseeding may occur. The District anticipates that the pinyon/juniper areas that currently have very little understory will most likely need to be reseeded. If reseeding needs to occur, the District proposes to reseed with a mix of native brush, sagebrush, grass and forbs.

Areas that are already in PFC would be avoided. For example, the sagebrush areas that already have a good understory of grasses and forbs that don’t have encroaching pinyon/juniper and are in PFC would be avoided.

6

Design Features (Mitigation Measures).

Design features and resource protection measures incorporated into the proposed action would include:

Treated areas will be rested from grazing for at least 2 growing seasons post implementation, and possibly 3 to allow for new vegetation to become established.

No ignition will take place within 100 feet of riparian areas.

Presence of invasive and noxious weeds will be monitored pre and post implementation. If noxious and/or invasive weeds are detected, the District will take the appropriate actions to control spread and eliminate the noxious and/or invasive weeds from the treatment areas. 

Equipment will be washed and inspected prior to entering National Forest System lands to remove any soil and debris that may contribute to the spread of noxious weeds.

Within Unit 4, to minimize impacts to the older ponderosa pine, a low intensity understory burn will be implemented

In Unit 2, equipment will be outfitted with tracks and operate on slopes less than 30% to minimize soil disturbance. Chainsaws will be utilized to treat pinyon/juniper (younger and smaller diameter trees averaging less than 8” dbh) found on slopes greater than 30% and/or otherwise inaccessible to skid steers.

Unit 1 will be divided into sub-units; 1a and 1b. To minimize potential impacts to water quality and fisheries, Units 1a and 1b will not be treated in the same year.

To also minimize potential impacts to water quality and fisheries, Unit 1a (north and east of Trail 4157), prescribed fire operations will initially target approximately 30-50% of the fuel. A second treatment of approximately an additional 30-50% of the fuel would then be implemented 4-6 years later after the vegetation within the initial burned areas has had time to reestablish. As described above, the overall target is to burn approximately 60-80% of the fuel in this unit. This same mitigation will also be implemented in Unit 1b; south and west of Trail 4157.

Adjacent to Unit 1a and 1b, fisheries and water quality will be monitored in Beaver Creek before and after initial treatments. Prior to implementing treatments 4-6 years following the initial treatments, the District will consult with the Forest Fish Biologist to verify that potential long-term negative impacts to fisheries and water quality, as a result of the initial treatments, are not occurring.

SUFCO Mine management will be notified prior to implementing any prescribed burning. This will allow for management of ventilation in the mine.

7

Relevant Direction

Forest Plan Requirements (standards and guidance):

Special protection and management will be given to floodplains, wetlands, and all land and vegetation for a minimum off 100 feet from the edges of all perennial streams, lakes, and other bodies of water (or to the outer margin of the riparian ecosystem if wider than the 100 feet minimum distance) to maintain riparian dependent resource values including wildlife, fish, vegetation, watersheds, and recreation in a stable or upward trend (FLRMP 1986, pp.IV-33, and IV-43).

Implementation activities and project design including silvicultural / mechanical systems in management areas should protect riparian ecosystems, prohibit the operation of motorized equipment within riparian areas except at constructed stream crossings, and locate…facilities outside the riparian area (FLRMP 1986, p. IV-34).

Provide trail (fire-line) drainage to reduce sediment transport energy (FLRMP 1986. p. IV-42).

Project design also excluded the steeper slopes (>30%) for mechanical treatments to avoid causing negative soil and water effects. The mechanical areas proposed for treatment are less than 30 percent slope as required by the Forest Plan (FLRMP 1986, IV-27).

For this project no ignition of fire will occur within 100 feet from perennial streams, and wetlands to provide for protection of aquatic habitat and water quality protection. Reduce to natural rate any erosion from disturbed areas that are contributing sediment due to management activity through necessary mitigation measures such as water-barring and revegetation on perennial streams to maintain water quality (FLRMP 1986, p. IV-35).

Executive Orders 11988 Floodplain Management and 11990 Wetland Protection: Floodplain and wetland management is important in order to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy or modification of floodplains or the destruction or modifications of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development and new construction in wetlands. New construction of wetlands includes draining, dredging, channelizing, filling, diking, impounding, and related activities and building any structures or facilities. We need to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains by first determining whether actions occur in floodplains and second to avoid adverse effects in floodplains. Based on the analysis below, implementation of the proposed action would be compliant with Executive Orders 11988 Floodplain Management and 11990 Wetland Protection.

8

Municipal Watersheds: There are no municipal watersheds or areas classified as drinking water source areas within the project area. Therefore there will not be any effects on municipal watersheds and analysis on municipal watersheds will not be carried further.

Watershed Affected Environment There are a few streams both located within and used as the project boundaries. Lizonbee and Duncan Draw springs are located near the project boundary of two units. Soils in Unit 1are calcareous and contain salts (carbonate and gypsum) and are generally suitable for fire. The salts in these soils make these soils behave somewhat droughty by increasing the soils osmotic potential and the plants that grow on them are consequently salt tolerant species. Management considerations for these soils include when these soils burn severely that they may have flooding come from these landscapes for a period of 1 to 5 years according to displays generated by Mike Smith. One of the main reasons for implementing prescribed burns is to avoid burning soils severely, and to burn the soils at low to moderate severity instead.

Most soils in Unit 2 have no limitations for management considerations relating to fire, but only one small portion of the unit has limitation relating to equipment. The exception to this is a band of soil that is clayey in the middle of the polygon that is narrow that a run north to south (western portion of section 31 that is mapped as gambel oak) which has a recommendation to avoid working on when wet to avoid puddling and compaction, especially these soils that have clay content greater than 35 percent (claypan).

Soils in Unit 3 are claypan type soils that have no limitation for prescribed fire as being proposed. The soils on the eastern portion of the polygon are close to soils that would have moderate limitation to burning at high severity during spring burns (east of 4102). Care should be taken to avoid burning these soils severely. One of the main reasons for implementing prescribed burns is to avoid burning soils severely, and to burn the soils at low to moderate severity instead.

Soils in Unit 4 are sandy soils and consequently are more subject to becoming hydrophobic, and being eroded in wind and from flooding. These soils do have lenses of claypan though. Management considerations include burning both during spring and summer at low and moderate severity (as is the case with all units within the project boundary). One of the main reasons for implementing prescribed burns is to avoid burning soils severely, and to burn the soils at low to moderate severity instead.

Soils in Unit 5 are predominantly claypan but there are some small areas of sandy soils within the unit. Unit 5 is bordered on the North, South and West by Northhorn soils. There are no spring prescribed fire limitations but soils should not be burned at high severities (could lead to some hydrophobicity of the sandier soils). One of the main reasons for implementing prescribed burns is to avoid burning soils severely, and to burn the soils at low to moderate severity instead.

9

The soils in the project area have a good potential for aspen regeneration rating following disturbance. This rating indicates both the soil properties and site characteristics are generally well suited for sustaining a stable type of aspen plant community. These areas should be managed with small disturbances or mortality events (i.e. low to moderate severity / prescribed fire treatments or instances of wildland fire use, timber harvesting, mechanical thinning etc.) every 70 to 100 years to provide the aspen clones with an opportunity to re-sprout which perpetuates the health of the stands. Some areas currently rated as good are presently in over-mature or decadent condition; these sites should be treated as soon as possible. In order to achieve successful aspen regeneration, some stands will need to be protected from grazing by upland big game animals and domestic livestock for a period of 2 to 5 years. This can be accomplished by using fencing or slashing to provide a temporary barrier around the treatment area allowing the aspen suckers continued growth to the desired 6 foot height. A stable aspen community is capable of producing > 2,000 lbs/acre/year of forage during normal climatic conditions; this potential rate of production qualifies for Rangeland Productivity Class I which is the highest category in the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service.

These soils are resilient when burned because they are formed from mixed igneous rocks, and there are no limitations for low to moderate intensities with short residence times. The potential for soil puddling and compaction is low to moderate in the project area. What this means is these soils will usually resist puddling and compaction but that there is some tendency toward deformation of soil when the ground is wet or saturated. The bright side is that these soils have a tendency for no to some tendency towards deformation, but that there is not high potential for puddling and compaction meaning that soils will be deformed when wet or saturated.

Environmental Consequences-Effects Analysis and Conclusions

Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model Assumptions and Results (Elliot, William J. et al. 2010)

Disturbed WEPP gives the probabilities of annual erosion to disturbed forest conditions, where a forest quickly re-vegetates following a disturbance. To estimate an average annual erosion, Disturbed WEPP generates a stochastic climate for the climate selected, for the number of years specified. The WEPP model then runs a daily simulation for the specified period of time, and calculates the average annual runoff, erosion, and sediment yield values. To determine the probability values of runoff, erosion, and sedimentation, Disturbed WEPP is run for the number of years requested, and the annual values of runoff, erosion, and sediment yield are generated by WEPP. Disturbed WEPP then sorts the annual values by magnitude. For a 50-year run, the largest values estimate a 50-year return period (or 0.02 probability of occurring) value; the second largest, a 25-year return period; the fifth largest a ten-year return; and the 20th largest a 2.5-year return period. The average value is the same as a 2-year return period regardless of the number of years of simulation selected.

10

For forest conditions, there are two levels of forest age: 5-year-old and 20-year-old. By the time a forest reaches 20 years of age, the impact of the canopy and residue accumulation is sufficient to provide as much erosion protection as can be achieved from vegetation. The 5-year-old forest is considered a reasonable condition to describe a forest that has been heavily logged, leaving some side trees and considerable groundcover, or to describe a forest one to two years after a prescribed fire, or two to three years after a wild fire. The skid trail condition describes a compacted, bladed skid trail with very little cover. The WEPP Model is therefore a tool that can be used to analyze the risk involved (probabilities) of various events.

Analysis was done using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. The WEPP model uses soils information, slope, and ground cover similar to the special protection areas but with the addition of climate statistical information. The probability of erosion and sediment yield was predicted for short period following treatment when the harvest and prescribed burn areas will be most vulnerable to the effects from high intensity storm events (Disturbed WEPP Table). The mechanical and burn area have been designed with adequate riparian special protection areas to maintain a probability below or equal to four percent probability that there will be sediment yield in the year following harvest (large storm events only). The WEPP model predicts that treated hillslopes will have an increased probability of sediment delivery to streams from 12 up to 16 percent (increase up to 12 percent). A treatment unit with a probability of 4 percent or less will begin to deliver sediment to streams if a 12.5-year storm or greater (large storm events) occurs the year following the mechanical or fire activities. It is expected that the probabilities will decrease each subsequent year following treatment until revegetation occurs.

Table of Disturbed WEPP Probabilities of Erosion, and Sedimentation.

The individual WEPP results can be found in the project file.

Activity and location Probability there is

erosion (%)

Probability there is sediment

delivery (%)

No action for Salina Creek Project Area (sedimentation and erosion likely from 25-yr storm event or greater with a 0-8% chance of occurring in first year following treatment).

0% with average of 0

ton/acre

0-8% with 0 – 0.0003 ton/acre

from storms greater than a 25-

year event; average is 0 ton/acre

Low Intensity Fire 100’ from streams in Salina Creek Units (sedimentation likely from 12.5-yr storm event or

0-4% with average of 0

ton/acre

4-16% with 0 – 0.0013 ton/acre

from storms greater than a 12.5

11

greater with a 4-16% chance of occurring first year following treatment).

or greater year event; average is

still 0 ton/acre

High Intensity Fire 100’ from stream in Box Salina Creek Units (sedimentation likely from 12.5-yr storm event or greater with a 12-16% chance of occurring first year following treatment).

4-16% with 0 to 0.02 ton/acre

from 12.5 or greater year

event; average is still 0 ton/acre

12-16% with 0 to 0.0031 ton/acre

from storms 12.5 or greater year

event; average is 0 to 0.0044 ton/acre

The desired condition for watershed resources as stated in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Fishlake is to maintain water quality to meet State standards, manage municipal watersheds to protect quality of water supplies, and maintain productive streams, lakes, and riparian areas and mitigate hazards on floodplains (FLRMP 1986, p. IV-4).

The use of riparian special protection zones (buffers) is an important indicator of potential effects to floodplains, wetlands, and water quality being mitigated from this type of BMP. If activities do not occur or are not located near riparian resources then the likelihood of negative effects on aquatic resources decreases or is eliminated. Special protection for riparian zones (at least 100 feet) will occur in the project area when near water. The use of riparian special protection zones in this project area will aid dramatically in limiting or eliminating effects to floodplains, wetlands (all known springs have been excluded from the treatment boundary) and water quality being mitigated from this type of BMP (Mayer, P.M., et al. 2005., pp. iv, 3-4, 17). The 100 foot riparian buffers should be an appropriate enough distance away to limit sedimentation of stream from the project area because of the slope gradients that are proposed to be treated (FLRMP. 1986. p. IV-43) and the WEPP Modeling results located in Table above.

WEPP modeled probability of erosion and sediment delivery (percent probability). The probabilities can be used as a risk assessment comparison for erosion and sedimentation from varying alternatives or treatment methods. Low probability percentages imply that large storm events need to occur for the erosion and sedimentation events to occur whereas high percentages imply that small storms could likely lead to the erosion or sedimentation event. Modeling results for prescribed burns resulted in probability of erosion (0-16%), but low probability of sedimentation that is similar to the harvest (0-16%). This suggests that erosion is more likely to occur on burn units but that the eroded sediment typically still stays on site, rather than moving off site into streams. Therefore there is a low probability and risk that water quality will be affected or additionally impaired from the proposed actions and the risk will continue to decrease each year as the disturbed areas become revegetated which could take around 5-years.

12

The mechanical area has been designed with adequate riparian special protection buffering to maintain a low probability that there will be sediment yield in the first year following treatment. The expected risk of implementation of the proposed project is consequently low the first year following treatment and will decrease even further each additional year following treatment as vegetation again becomes more reestablished each year.

The WEPP results leads to the prediction that beneficial water uses would not be impaired from the proposed project since there is low probabilities for sedimentation from the project area unless a large storm events (25-year storm event or greater with a 0 to 4% chance of occurring) were to occur following treatments.

The small WEPP probability percentages as mentioned above would not likely (low risk) lead to impairment of the State beneficial uses and that effects would be unlikely, negligible and would likely maintain the existing levels and not lead to additional impairment of water quality. The watersheds are in good condition except for in a few small areas where some bank and wetland trampling occurs in the area of the springs and channels and in some hillslope areas. The historical uses in the area have led to the existing condition, and the existing water quality levels. The watersheds have mining, recreation, grazing from wildlife and cattle, roads, and cabin uses. These uses will likely continue to occur in the watersheds at rates similar to what they have in the recent past and thus are considered part of the existing and future uses within the analysis area too. The historic and existing uses have led to just one stream having beneficial uses impaired (Quitchumpah Creek for macroinvertebrates) and will not likely to add any impairments with the addition of this project within the analysis areas or watersheds based on using BMPs, modeling results, and existing water quality of the water and soil resources.

Mike Smith, former Forest Soil Scientist who worked on the Forest for at least two decades, now retired, commented to Wess Freeborn in an e-mail regarding this project he said: “FYI, I'm OK with the treatment polygons that are shown on the attached map ... we already had lots of discussion about this project.” He in the same e-mail was interested in studying how soils in the area would respond to prescribed fire (Smith 2011-Information e-mail to Wess Freeborn). Compliance with State water quality standards will likely still be maintained in the streams. Quitchumpah water quality will not likely be impaired additionally from the proposed action because first the likelihood of sediment entering the streams is low (buffers and soil characteristics), and second the sediment would likely be trapped within buffer areas, or channel pools, before it could become a problem with Quitchumpah Creek. The burn areas (Old Woman occurred in 2002, Ponderosa Pine in 2008, Razorback in 2004, Salina Creek Shaded Fuel Break and South Water Hollow in 2006) will continue to improve and will have additional vegetation recovery by the time the project will begin to be implemented which will aid in improving the uplands even more within the watershed.

13

Direct effects are caused by the action occurring at the same time and place. Mechanically treating a tree with a fecon head would constitute a direct effect if sediment was displaced or soils became compacted at the time of the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur at a later time or farther removed in distance. An example would be possible increased erosion or sedimentation rates from a mechanical unit in the first year following treatment. Cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of the proposed action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Direct effects include to aquatic related resources include the physical disturbance of soil within the mechanical units. Some compaction is likely along the routes used within the mechanical treatment units less than 30 percent in gradient. The mechanical fecon tractors will be ample distance away from riparian resources to prevent sedimentation into streams. There will not be direct effects to floodplains or wetlands. There are no municipal watersheds within the analysis area, thus there will not be effects to municipal watersheds. WEPP model results show that there’s a 0-16% chance of erosion and 0-16% chance of sedimentation (both at very low rates or values and averages) occurring from the project boundary. These results lead to the conclusion there is a low probability of water quality being directly additionally impaired as a result of this project. Especially when factoring in special protection areas along riparian resources general soil and watershed characteristics.

Indirect effects include increasing erosion rates above their undisturbed rates because of mechanical types of disturbances. Although, WEPP and monitoring of mechanical treatment units on gradients less than 30 percent show that sedimentation in the area is not likely when BMPs are used. If large storm events were to occur 12.5-year storm event or greater then sedimentation rates would increase above undisturbed rates based on the WEPP model and water quality could be temporarily affected (0-16% chance following first year of treatment and decreasing each year following treatment). There would still not likely be any effects to floodplains from the large storm event. Overall the channels are in good condition and would likely handle any reasonable increase in discharge without affecting the stream channels too negatively. There will not be any indirect effects to municipal watershed because there are not any within the analysis area or below it.

Grazing occurs within the project and analysis area. Recreation use occurs on the private and Forestlands within the analysis area. Travel routes are located throughout the watersheds. Grazing and travel routes have added sediment in to water bodies in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future. Even with previous mining, harvest, grazing, travel routes and recreation use and would likely continue even with the proposed harvest activities occurring in the watersheds because of BMPs (and mitigation measures described above), and excluding steep slopes from mechanical treatment with tractors. Hydrologic resources will not likely be affected because springs, ponds, channels, floodplains, and wetlands will be avoided as much as possible. Grazing is typically stopped for a period following prescribed burn to allow the area to

14

recover following being disturbed. This means that cattle grazing effects would actually be halted for a period following treatment within the project area. This will likely lead to improved riparian and channel conditions following treatment. Dixie Harrowing and Brush saw treatments occurred in the Cedar and Duncan Mountains, Jolly Mill, and Old Woman Plateau areas that are located within the analysis area. These units were treated in from 1998-2009, but did not occur within riparian or channel areas. No effects are expected from the harrowing and brush saw projects based on the areas to be treated in relation to wetlands and stream channels and the time vegetation has been allowed to recover. The harrow projects were far enough from wetlands and stream channels like the proposed mechanical treatment unit that even factoring all the acres to be treated from all projects that negative effects will not likely occur from one or both together. No effects are expected from the units on channels or water quality. The areas being treated with Prescribed Fire may exhibit water-repellent ground conditions for a few months to a year; this would result in a temporary increase in soil erosion on strongly sloping to moderately steep (8 to 25 % slopes) terrain. The (sandy) site most susceptible to hydrophobic conditions is Unit 4 under the Ponderosa Pine. The location considered most susceptible to (potential erosion losses is Unit 5 under the Mixed Conifers. Keep enough surface litter and protective ground cover in place within the treatment polygons to minimize the detachment and transport of soil material. Any adverse impacts to NFS Lands would be relatively short in duration. If the actual burns resemble past vegetation treatments previously implemented on the Old Woman Plateau the Richfield Ranger District will not exceed the thresholds listed in the R4 / Soil Quality Standards. Watershed conditions (compaction, erosion, soil cover, etc.) that change because of the treatment activities will likely begin to revert back to those that currently exist in the watersheds in the next few months to a year following treatment. It is not likely that water quality would be impaired because of not implementing the proposed action unless you considered wildland fire taking place within the analysis area. In this case erosion and sedimentation rates would likely increase above those currently or those of the proposed action (individual WEPP runs for low and high severity wildland fire are included in the project record with the other WEPP runs) and then some impairment could occur (Disturbed WEPP Table). Debris flow events would be more likely to occur. Wetlands and channels might be burnt in the event of wildfire, which could change the vegetation composition in these areas as well. Riparian plant species that would not be disturbed from this project could be burnt and thus eliminating their hydrological functions including buffering sediment from entering streams and keeping water cool enough for aquatic wildlife. Steep slopes and wetlands that were eliminated from mechanical project design could be burnt and could add to the negative effects on water quality, wetlands, and hydrological function.

15

If implemented, the mechanical and fire activities would leave the land with a thinner timber and vegetation appearance and potentially with only slightly higher erosion rates and sediment yields for a short period of time (approximately five years but likely less than five years). Fire is a natural process within the area, so having fire within the analysis area is not adding an unnatural mechanism that previously was not there historically. Thus it is acceptable to have fire within these drainages. It just is that wildfire suppression has occurred in the area that has led to increased fuel loadings that can lead to increased severities on soil and water quality. The prescribed burns are managed to keep severities lower rather than higher. All treatment areas (see the great mitigation measures above that will benefit watershed resources!) for this project require that special protection for riparian areas will occur within at least 100 feet of perennial stream channels, lakes, and ponds, and be treated when soils are dry (normal BMP that is standard with mechanical treatments) or wet (prescribed burn) enough to not impact soils, riparian areas, or lead to additional water quality concerns. Cumulative impacts to water quality would be minimal because most of the eroded sediment would be trapped before reaching streams and treatments will be spread out over time and throughout numerous drainages and watersheds. As is the case with Unit 1, there will be a couple of phases in treatment to lessen impacts on aquatics and water quality. There will not be any impacts to municipal drinking water sources as a result of the proposed harvest activities.

Works Cited

Elliot, William J.; Hall, David E. 2010 (1999-Documentation). Disturbed WEPP Model 2.0. Ver. 2013.07.01. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Online at <http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp>.

FLRMP, 2006. Fishlake Forest Plan.

Mayer, P.M., et al. 2005., pp. iv, 3-4, 17

Smith, Michael D. 2011. Personal Communication from Mike Smith to Wess Freeborn (e-mail).

16

010

010

00

9

1407

2019

269

2064

2629

007

2490

2665

1390

268

1395

2664

267

007

1401

2487

1404

2074

2663

2488

2505

011

1407

1409

2107

1418

011

2106

006

011

250

2102

2020

2661

2100

2103

2104

269

2504

42

63

4647

4102

42664681

4683

410242

66

4269

4157

4653

4265

4264

4687

4106

2486

Unit 4

Unit 5

Unit 3Unit 1

Unit 2

3 2 1

7

11 12 7 8 10 119 12

18

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

19

2324 19 20 21 22 23 24

3026 25 30 29 28 27 26

25

31

35

36

31 32 33 34 35 36

6

54612 3 2 1

7

1011 1211 12

798

18

15 14 131614 1713 18

19

2223

24

2

20192423

30

2726

25282926

2530

21

3334

35 363235 36 31

6

1 6 5 4

31

Legend

Salina Creek Proposed Treatment Analysis Areas

Prescribed Fire (only) - 3300 Acres

Mechanical Treatment and Prescribed Fire- 714 Acres

Fishlake National Forest Boundary

Land Ownership

BLM

Forest Service Systems Lands

Private

State

Roads and Trails

Highway

Paved Road

Gravel Road, Suitable for Passenger Car

Dirt Road, Suitable for Passenger Car

Road, Not Maintained for Passenger Car

Non-Motorized Trails

0 0.9 1.80.45 Miles

Salina Creek EcosystemRestoration Project

Richfield Ranger DistrictFishlake National Forest

B

A

17

Created by: Jeff Jager

010

00

9

1407

2491

2019

269

2064

2629

007

2490

2665

1390

268

1395

2664

267

007

1401

2487

1404

2074

2663

2488

2505

1407

1409

2106

006

0111

368

2661

2100

2103

2104

269

2504

4 102

4263

4647

4102

4266

4681

4683

4102

4266

42694157

4653

4265

42643

4687

2486

UNIT 5

UNIT 3UNIT 1

UNIT 2

UNIT 4

35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

6

7

11 12 7 8 10 119 12

18

1714 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

19 20

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

2930

26 25 30 29 28 27 2625

3132

35

36

31 32 33 34 35 36

65

54612 3 2 1

78

1011 1211 12

798

1817

15 14 131614 1713 18

1920

22 23242120192423

30 29

Proposed Action

Treatments

Prescribed Fire (only) - 3300 Acres

Mechanical Treatments and Prescribed Fire - 714 Acres

Fishlake National Forest Boundary

Existing Vegetative

Aspen/Perennial Grasses - 414 Acres

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany/Douglas Fir - 16 Acres

Gambel Oak- 517 Acres

Gambel Oak/Aspen - 150 Acres

Gambel Oak/Mountain Big Sagebrush - 345 Acres

Gambel Oak/Rocky Mountain Juniper - 278 Acres

Mixed Conifer/Aspen - 543 Acres

Mountain Big Sagebrush/Perennial Grasses - 505 Acres

Mountain Shrubs/Grasses - 80 Acres

Perennial Grasses - 110 Acres

PJ - 172 Acres

PJ/Gambel Oak - 450 Acres

Ponderosa Pine/Curlleaf Mtn. Mahog./Manzanita - 316 Acres

Riparian/Wetlands - 109 Acres

Salina Creek EcosystemRestoration Project

Richfield Ranger DistrictFishlake National Forest

0 0.9 1.80.45Miles