###### Environmental Assessment

# Great Basin National Park

###### Fire Management Plan

####### **Baker, Nevada**

![](media/image1.png)

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

National Park Service

Cover Sheet

**Responsible Agency:** U.S. Department of Interior, National Park
Service, Great Basin National Park

**Type of Statement:** Environmental Assessment

**Contact Person:** Chief of Resource Management, 775/234-7331 ext. 223
or Superintendent, 775/234-7331 ext. 202.

**Abstract:**

As a natural ecosystem process, wildland fire is an integral component
of a dynamic ecosystem, or any National Park Service (NPS) unit
essential­ly managed as if it were one. This document addresses the
management of fire as an ecosystem process in Great Basin National Park
(GRBA). The fire management program at Great Basin National Park is
directed toward allowing wildland fire to operate as fully as possible
in ecosystem dynamics, while simultaneously protecting public safety and
minimizing the injurious influence of undesirable fire.

In this document, the goals and policies of the fire management program
are set forth; the environmental setting of the Park and the resources
which may be affected by fire are described; the known fire history and
fire regimes in the South Snake Range are characterized, with special
attention to fire\'s effects on the park\'s vegetation communities;
Alternatives were developed; the different fire management units of the
Park are defined and respective goals and policies indicated for each;
and operational requirements for implementation of the program are
described.

Summary

**Proposed Actions:** GRBA is proposing to define and implement a
programmatic Fire Management Plan (FMP) with an emphasis on fuels
reduction, that utilizes a systematic decision making process to guide
management actions.

**Scoping:** A scoping notice was sent to all individuals on the GRBA
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mailing list on June 25, 2002.
On June 25, 2002 a scoping notice was sent to all consulting Native
American Tribes. On June 28, 2002 a press release was published in the
[Ely Daily Times]{.underline}. The notices informed the public that the
NPS intends to prepare a Fire Management Plan for GRBA that will involve
using fire and other treatments, to reduce fuel loading and restore park
plant communities to some semblance of a natural fire regime. Three
letters of comment were received from the external scoping process.

An interdisciplinary GRBA team met on April 23, June 24, November 11,
2002 and January 29, 2003 and developed the list of potential issues,
based upon external and internal scoping to drive the NEPA analysis.

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review
(USDI/USDA 1995) strongly encourage an interagency effort in the
development of Fire Management Plans. Park staff met with both Humboldt
National Forest (HNF) and Ely Resource Area of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) staff during the initial scoping phase for this action
to encourage a interagency fire management planning process. The BLM was
initiating the development of a new Resource Area Management Plan and
declined to participate due to this workload. HNF declined to
participate due to lack of staffing at the present time. GRBA will
participate with the Ely District of the HNF when staffing levels allow
the development of their Fire Management Plan.

**Issues:** The following are the issues developed from the information
gathered through the scoping process:

-   Effects on Fire Regime Condition Classes.

-   Effects on Park Infrastructure.

-   Effects on Wildland/Urban Interface.

-   Effects on Cultural Resources.

-   Effects on National Park Service (NPS) Sensitive Wildlife and Fish
    Species.

-   Effects on Nonnative Plants.

-   Effects on Water Quality.

-   Effects on Air Quality

The following issues were dropped from further analysis:

-   Will the action result in the possibility of a river or stream being
    eliminated from consideration as a Wild & Scenic River?

-   Will the action result in the possibility of an area being
    eliminated from consideration as a Wilderness Area?

-   Will the action result in impacts to any species listed under the
    Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) or result in any modification
    of Critical Habitat as designated?

**Alternatives**: Three alternatives were proposed. Two alternatives
were developed and one was dropped from further analysis. The No Action
alternative implements the existing FMP developed in 1996. This
alternative zones the park into three fire management units (FMU). These
units are based upon protecting infrastructure and private property.
Fire management tools include full suppression, prescribed fire and
wildland fire use. The second alternative zones the park into five FMU's
based upon Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC), infrastructure and the
wildland urban interface (WUI). FRCC are classes developed to display
the departure of a vegetative community from a natural fire cycle. In
this document it is the number if natural fire return intervals missed
over the past century. Fire management tools include full suppression,
prescribed fire, mechanical thinning and wildland fire use. A full
suppression alternative was proposed but was dropped from further
analysis since it did not address the intent of the Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy and Program Review (USDI/USDA 1995), GRBA General
Management Plan (GMP) or the mission of the NPS.

**Environmental Consequences and Resource Impairment:** In addition to
determining the environmental consequences of the alternatives, NPS
Management Policies (NPS, 2000b) and Director's Order 12 (Conservation
Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-Making), require
analysis of potential effects to determine if actions would impair park
resources. Based upon the issues identified, the following environmental
consequences and potential for impairment were identified through the
analysis process**:**

For Alternative 1:

#### Issue 1 Effects on FRCC - Long-term moderate beneficial impacts to areas of FRCC 1 and 2. Negligible beneficial impacts to FRCC 3. 

Issue 2 Effects on Park Infrastructure - Major long-term adverse impacts
to park infrastructure. Loss of infrastructure would be an irretrievable
commitment of resources.

Issue 3 Effects on Wildland/Urban Interface - Major long-term adverse
impacts to areas classified as WUI.

Issue 4 Effects on Cultural Resources -- Potential for moderate
long-term adverse impacts to the cultural resource within the park.

Issue 5 Effects on NPS Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species - Continual
decline of sensitive species due to habitat loss and degradation.

Issue 6 Effects on Nonnative Plants - Major long-term adverse impacts.

#### Issue 7 Effects on Water Quality - Continued buildup of vegetative resources as a result of fire suppression could set the stage for large-scale fires near water sources that would not be resource beneficial. 

#### Issue 8 Effects on Air Quality -- All projects will be kept within established thresholds for air quality developed by the State of Nevada. Short-term impacts can be expected. 

#### For Alternative 2: 

#### Issue 1 Effects on FRCC - Long-term major beneficial impacts to areas within all FRCC's and restoring a natural fire regime across the landscape. 

Issue 2 Effects on Park Infrastructure - Moderate long-term beneficial
impacts to protecting park infrastructure. Loss of infrastructure would
be minimized.

Issue 3 Effects on WUI - WUI FMU utilizes thinning; fire intensity would
be reduced as a wild fire enters the FMU. Major long-term beneficial
impacts to adjacent private developments.

Issue 4 Effects on Cultural Resources - Major long-term benefits to
cultural resources. Reducing heavy fuels around historic structures
would lower fire intensity minimizing potential effects.

#### Issue 5 Effects on NPS Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species - Continual decline of sensitive species due to habitat loss and degradation will still occur since habitat loss is of such scale that it will take decades to actually restore the landscape to a natural fire regime. Overtime, long-term beneficial effects can be expected. 

Issue 6 Effects on Nonnative Plants - Major long-term beneficial
impacts. Fire intensity would be lowered allowing vegetation to recover
and out compete nonnatives.

Issue 7 Effects on Water Quality - Treatments if designed right will
have long-term major beneficial impacts to water quality.

Issue 8 Effects on Air Quality - All projects will be kept within
established thresholds for air quality developed by the State of Nevada.
Short-term impacts can be expected. Under this alternative impairment to
park resources would not likely occur.

#### Mitigation Measures:

+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| # Issue   | ### Alt               | ### Alt                | *      |
|           | 1 Mitigation Measures |  2 Mitigation Measures | *Respo |
|           |                       |                        | nsible |
|           |                       |                        | P      |
|           |                       |                        | arty** |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| #         | None                  | None                   |        |
| ### Issue |                       |                        |        |
|  #1 Effec |                       |                        |        |
| ts on Fir |                       |                        |        |
| e Regime  |                       |                        |        |
| Condition |                       |                        |        |
|  Classes. |                       |                        |        |
|           |                       |                        |        |
| ####      |                       |                        |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| Issue #2  | None                  | None                   |        |
| Effects   |                       |                        |        |
| on Park   |                       |                        |        |
| Infras    |                       |                        |        |
| tructure. |                       |                        |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| Issue #3  | None                  | None                   |        |
| Effects   |                       |                        |        |
| on WUI.   |                       |                        |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| Issue #4  | Use mechanical        | Use mechanical         | Archeo |
| Effects   | treatments and        | treatments and conduct | logist |
| on        | conduct prescribed    | prescribed burns that  |        |
| Cultural  | burns that are        | are focused on         |        |
| Resources | focused on cultural   | cultural sites within  |        |
|           | sites within areas of | areas of FRCC 2 and 3  |        |
|           | FRCC 2 and 3 to       | to reduce fuel loads   |        |
|           | reduce fuel loads.    |                        |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| Issue #5  | Limit prescribed fire | Limit prescribed fire  | Bio    |
| Effects   | to 10 percent of the  | to 10 percent of the   | logist |
| on NPS    | area within shrub     | area within shrub      |        |
| Sensitive | steppe or open        | steppe or open         |        |
| Wildlife  | woodland habitat in   | woodland habitat in    |        |
| and Fish  | any given fire return | any given fire return  |        |
| Species.  | interval. Limit       | interval. Limit        |        |
|           | prescribed fires to   | prescribed fires to    |        |
|           | less then 10 percent  | less then 10 percent   |        |
|           | of any sensitive      | of any sensitive       |        |
|           | watershed and at      | watershed and at least |        |
|           | least ½ mile from     | ½ mile from stream     |        |
|           | stream channels.      | channels.              |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| Issue #6  | Suppressing all       | Utilize restoration    | Re     |
| Effects   | wildland fires and    | techniques on ground   | source |
| on        | not conducting        | disturbing actions for | Spec   |
| Nonnative | prescribed fires in   | treatment preparation. | ialist |
| Plants.   | communities that are  |                        |        |
|           | subject to nonnative  |                        |        |
|           | plant infestation.    |                        |        |
|           | Utilize restoration   |                        |        |
|           | techniques on ground  |                        |        |
|           | disturbing actions    |                        |        |
|           | for treatment         |                        |        |
|           | preparation.          |                        |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| Issue #7  | Utilize restoration   | Only 10% of the        | Eco    |
| Effects   | techniques on ground  | acreage within         | logist |
| on Water  | disturbing actions    | sensitive watersheds   |        |
| Quality.  | for treatment         | will be treated until  |        |
|           | preparation.          | herbaceous vegetation  |        |
|           |                       | has recovered to       |        |
|           |                       | reduce sediment        |        |
|           |                       | inputs. Utilize        |        |
|           |                       | restoration techniques |        |
|           |                       | on ground disturbing   |        |
|           |                       | actions for treatment  |        |
|           |                       | preparation.           |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+
| Issue #8  | Mitigate smoke        | Mitigate smoke impacts | Re     |
| Effects   | impacts by taking     | by taking appropriate  | source |
| on Air    | appropriate control   | control actions to     | Spec   |
| Quality.  | actions to suppress a | suppress a fire if     | ialist |
|           | fire if serious       | serious visibility     |        |
|           | visibility impairment | impairment occurs.     |        |
|           | occurs.               |                        |        |
+-----------+-----------------------+------------------------+--------+

**Environmentally Preferred Alternative:** Based upon Section 101b of
NEPA, Alternative 2 is considered the environmentally preferred
alternative. It attains the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health and safety, or other
undesirable and unintended consequences. Alternative 2 is the
environmentally preferred because it causes the least damage to
biological and physical environment. Alternative 2 achieves a better
balance between population and resource use that will permit high
standards of living and a sharing of life's amenities.

**Table of Contents**

Chapter 1 - Introduction

0.  Purpose 9

1.  Proposed Action 9

2.  Guidelines for Policy 9

3.  Location 10

4.  Need for Action 10

5.  Objectives 10

6.  Decision to be Made 11

7.  Scoping 11

8.  Issues 12

9.  Issues Dropped from Analysis 14

> 1.10 Programmatic/Adaptive Management 15

Chapter 2 - Affected Environment

> 2.0 Background Fire Information 16

2.1 Fire Regime Condition Classes 18

> 2.2 Park Infrastructure 20
>
> 2.3 Wildland/Urban Interface 21
>
> 2.4 Cultural Resources 22
>
> 2.5 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 24

2.6 Nonnative Plants 26

> 2.7 Water Quality 27
>
> 2.8 Effects on Air Quality 27

Chapter 3 - Alternatives

3.0 Actions Common to the Alternatives 29

> 3.1 Alternative 1 -- No Action 29
>
> 3.2 Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action 35
>
> 3.3 Alternatives Dropped from Analysis 44

Chapter 4 -- Environmental Consequences

4.0 Methodology 47

4.1 Impairment of Park Resource Values 47

4.2 Alternative 1 -- No Action 48

4.3 Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action 56

Chapter 5 -- Compliance/Participants/Review

5.0 Compliance 64

5.1 List of Preparers 65

5.2 List of Recipients 65

5.3 List of Abbreviations 66

5.4 Glossary of Terms 66

References 68

#### 

#### Appendix 1

#### Figure 1 -- Forest Planning Units 79

Figure 2 -- Fire Regime Condition Classes 80

Figure 3 - Sensitive Watersheds 81

Figure 4 -- Fire Management Units Alternative 1 82

Figure 5 -- Fire Management Units Alternative 2 83

Comparison of Alternatives Table 46

CHAPTER 1

**INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION**

**1.0 PURPOSE**

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review (USDI/USDA
1995) and Directors Order #18: Wildland Fire Management, 2002, (DO18)
requires that "Each park with vegetation capable of burning will prepare
a fire management plan..." and that "The Environmental Assessment
developed in support of the fire management plan will consider effects
on air quality, water quality, health and safety, and natural and
cultural resource management objectives."

Great Basin National Park (GRBA) was established in 1986 from the former
Lehman Caves National Monument and a portion of the HNF. Located in a
mountain range surrounded by high-desert basins, the park is mostly
forested. Due to topography and climate, Great Basin contains plant
assemblages, which can and do support fire. As a natural ecosystem
process, wildland fire is an integral component of a dynamic ecosystem,
or any National Park Service (NPS) unit essential­ly managed as if it
were one. This document addresses the management of fire as an ecosystem
process in Great Basin National Park (GRBA). The fire management program
at Great Basin National Park is directed toward allowing wildland fire
to operate as fully as possible in ecosystem dynamics, while
simultaneously protecting public safety and minimizing the injurious
influence of undesirable fire.

1.  **PROPOSED ACTION**

GRBA is proposing to define and implement a programmatic Fire Management
Plan that utilizes a systematic decision making process and the best
available science to guide management actions.

**1.2 GUIDELINES FOR POLICY**

The purpose of this document is to describe procedures to implement
wildland fire management activities consistent with the Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy and Program Review (USDI/USDA 1995)
recommendations.

According to NPS Management Policies (1988),

\"Most natural fires are lightning-caused and are recog­nized as natural
phenomena which must be permitted to continue to in­fluence the ecosystem
if truly natural systems are to be per­petuated.\"

The NPS Wildland Fire Management Guideline (NPS-18, 1990) further
defines the service-wide goal of wildland fire management:

> \"To achieve the resource objectives of the park through prevention of
> human-caused wildfire, to minimize the nega­tive impacts on resources
> from all wildfires that occur, and to guide the use of prescribed fire
> as an integral part of the resources management program in a manner
> which minimizes the risk to the lives of employees, visitors,
> neighbors, and to their property.\"

Allowing fire to play its natural role as an ecosystem process is a
service-wide emphasis underscored by Parsons et al (1986), who maintain
that:

\"\...the principal aim of NPS resource management in natural areas is
the unimpeded interaction of native ecosystem processes and structural
elements.

**1.3 LOCATION**

GRBA is located in east central White Pine County, Nevada near the Utah
border. The park encompasses 77,100 acres of the Southern Snake Range.
The park was established in 1986. Wheeler Peak, at 13,063-feet the
center piece of GRBA, overlooks two expansive basins --Spring Valley to
the west and Snake Valley to the east-- but GRBA includes only 80 acres
of the

basin environment as an administrative site. Surrounding the park are
public lands administered by the Humboldt/Toiyabe National Forest (HNF)
and Bureau of Land Management. The park is 300 miles north of Las Vegas,
250 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, and only a few miles south of
U.S. Highway 50. The nearest town is Baker, about 5 miles from the
current park headquarters. Some 65 miles to the west, Ely, Nevada,
provides major services and a regional airport. Delta, Utah, is 90 miles
to the east.

**1.4 NEED FOR ACTION**

Fire is recognized as a natural element of the plant communities in the
park; however, domestic livestock grazing and fire suppression have
greatly altered the natural fire regime. The buildup of fuels that could
lead to a catastrophic fire event is evident in forested sections of the
park. Dense pinyon-juniper communities are replacing sagebrush
communities with only the skeletal remains of the shrubs, which used to
dominate these sites. Ponderosa pine communities are all but lost due to
encroachment of white-fir. Dense, closed canopy pinyon-juniper
communities now dominate the lower elevations of the park. Suppressing
naturally occurring wild fires from the natural cycle has resulted in
overcrowded stands with dense multi-layered canopies. The resulting
buildup of fuels creates ladders for wildfire to climb into treetops and
then spread quickly from tree to tree in a phenomenon known as a crown
fire (Graham and McCaffrey 2003). All plant communities except those
found at the highest elevations have missed one or more fire events
based upon typical natural fire return intervals and display the
potential to support crown fire. Of the four factors (weather, fuel
abundance, moisture and terrain) that influence fire behavior, only fuel
abundance can be directly influenced through human intervention.
Combinations of fuels treatments are necessary to reduce fire risks,
improve forest health and minimize effects to ecological processes.

**1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES**

1\. Protect human life and designated resources within and adjacent to
GRBA.

-   Ensure that all fire management activities minimize risk to human
    health and safety.

-   Annually review and update the SACS Special Resources at Risk lists.

-   By 2008, change fuel conditions within 50% of the park's developed
    zones and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).

2\. Restore the landscape of GRBA to allow the return of natural fire as
a properly functioning ecological process.

-   By 2008, reduce fuel loads on at least 10% of identified FRCC 3
    areas to a normal distribution of historical forest structure and
    composition.

-   By 2008, restore at least 5% of park areas identified as FRCC 2 to a
    normal distribution of historical forest structure and composition.

-   Allow Wildland Fire Use fires to maintain a natural fire regime on
    areas of FRCC 1 and 2.

3\. Define a process to determine appropriate management actions to be
taken on all fire starts.

-   Designate and describe fire management units for the park.

-   Define a range of fire management prescriptions for each fire
    management unit.

-   Within 1 hour of a size-up, conduct a Stage One Initial Fire
    Assessment for every wildland fire to identify responses and
    strategies that address site-specific resource management concerns.

**1.6 DECISION TO BE MADE**

GRBA is required to develop a Fire Management Plan that is "...designed
to meet resource management objectives prescribed for the various areas
of the park and to ensure that firefighter and public safety are not
compromised"( DO18, 2002). The Fire Management Plan will be based on an
"Environmental Assessment developed in support of the fire management
plan and will consider effects on air quality, water quality, health and
safety, and natural and cultural resource management objectives."

**1.7 SCOPING**

Scoping is an early and open process to solicit public and internal
concerns relating to a proposed action. Issues are generated from
scoping comments that drive the NEPA process and determine the range of
actions, alternatives and impacts to be addressed.

A scoping notice was sent to all individuals on the GRBA NEPA mailing
list on June 25, 2002. On June 28, 2002 a press release was published in
the [Ely Daily Times]{.underline}. The notice informed the public that
the NPS intends to prepare a Fire Management Plan for GRBA that will
involve using fire and other treatments to reduce fuel loading and
restore park plant communities to some semblance of a natural fire
regime. Three letters of comment were received from the external scoping
process.

An interdisciplinary GRBA team met on April 23, June 24, November 11,
2002 and January 29, 2003 and developed the list of potential issues,
based upon external and internal scoping to drive the NEPA analysis.

**Consultation with Native Americans**

On June 25, 2002 a scoping notice was sent to all consulting Tribes.
This includes the Ely Shoshone Tribe, Kanosh Band of Southern Paiute
Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Kaibab Paiute
Tribe, and the Southern Paiute Tribe of Utah. The scoping letter
informed the tribes that the NPS intends to prepare a Fire Management
Plan for GRBA that will involve using fire and other treatments to
reduce fuel loading and restore park plant communities to a natural fire
regime. No responses were received.

**Interagency Participation**

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review
(USDI/USDA 1995) strongly encourage an interagency effort in the
development of Fire Management Plans. Park staff met with both Humboldt
National Forest (HNF) and Ely Resource Area of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) staff during the initial scoping phase for this action
to encourage an interagency fire management planning process. The BLM
was initiating the development of a new Resource Area Management Plan
and declined to participate due to this workload. HNF declined to
participate due to lack of staffing at the present time. GRBA will
participate with the Ely District of the HNF when staffing levels allow
the development of their Fire Management Plan.

**1.8 ISSUES**

The following are the major issues developed through the scoping
process:

#### 

#### 1.8.1 Issue: Effects on FRCC- Historical fire regimes are a depiction of fire regimes prior to Euro-American settlement. Historical fire regimes are derived from rule sets that primarily use potential natural vegetation, slope, and aspect. In rare exceptions, cover type and size class were used to modify the historical fire regime if the existing vegetation seemed incompatible with the fire regime. In order to restore fire to the landscape it is important to understand the history of fire within the various vegetation communities found in the parks. It helps to answer critical questions including "where, how frequently, how intense, and when it should be applied as a tool."

### The FRCC is an expression of the departure of the current condition from the historical fire regime. Consequently, it is derived from the historical fire regime and the current fire severity. It is used as a proxy for the probability of severe fire effects (e.g., the loss of key ecosystem components - soil, vegetation structure, species; or alteration of key ecosystem processes - nutrient cycles, hydrologic regimes). Consequently, the FRCC is an index of ecosystem risks attributable to wildland fire.

### 

Condition Class 1

Fire regimes are within or near an historical range.

The risk of losing key ecosystem components is low.

Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by no more
than one return interval.

Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and
functioning within an historical range.

Where appropriate, these areas can be maintained within the historical
fire regime by treatments such as fire use.

Native American use of fire within this Class tends to be low. This
could be due to a short growing season with reduced plant varieties for
consumption compared to Class 2 and 3.

# Condition Class 2

# Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. 

The risk of losing key ecosystem components has increased to moderate.

Fire frequencies have departed (either increased or decreased) from
historical frequencies by more than one return interval. This results in
moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency,
intensity, severity, or landscape patterns.

Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical
range.

Where appropriate, these areas may need moderate levels of restoration
treatments, such as fire use and hand or mechanical treatments, to be
restored to the historical fire regime.

The use of fire by Native Americans in the past within this Class would
have been high. This is based on the types of food and material plants
that can found within this Class. By burning these areas there would be
an increase in these consumptive plants.

# Condition Class 3

Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical
range.

The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high.

Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple
return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the
following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape
patterns.

Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their
historical range.

Where appropriate, these areas may need high levels of restoration
treatments, such as hand or mechanical treatments. These treatments may
be necessary before fire is used to restore the historical fire regime.

The use of fire by Native Americans in the past within this Class would
have been high. This is based on the types of food and material plants
that can found within this Class. By burning these areas there would be
an increase in these consumptive plants.

**1.8.2 Issue: Effects on Park Infrastructure -** GRBA contains numerous
houses, mobile homes, campgrounds, picnic areas, administrative offices
and the park's visitor center. These developments are critical for the
NPS to meet its mission. All of the Park's developments are within
forested areas capable of sustaining wildland fire.

**1.8.3 Issue: Effects on WUI -** WUI refers specifically to areas where
forests meet urban development, particularly houses. The only efforts
that will protect communities from the threat of wildfire are those that
seek to treat houses and the surrounding properties, and the forest
directly adjacent to houses. The WUI represents the area with highest
potential for loss of life and property from wildfires.

The WUI is primarily within 66-200 feet of houses, where fires most
directly threaten houses, and where a defensible zone can be developed.
In addition, forests within 1/2 mile from houses should also be
considered within this zone. A secondary concern in protecting
communities from forest fires is that the heat rising off a forest fire
can carry burning ash, leaves and branches called firebrands that can
ignite fires far from the fire front. These \"lead fires\" can start
miles ahead of the advancing flames, but usually start within a
half-mile of the flame front. Undoubtedly, this is a danger for houses
in the WUI, but projects beyond the WUI can only alleviate this concern
if they completely eliminate the risk of wildfire for several miles into
the wildland forest.

**1.8.4 Issue: Effects on Cultural Resources -** **--** At least 67
prehistoric archeological sites and 36 historic-period archeological
sites have been identified within GRBA (Blalack in draft; Teague 1990;
Wells 1990 and 1993). Sites range from buried habitation sites; surface
artifact scatters, rock art sites, prehistoric and historic cultural
landscapes, ethnographic resources, historic structures such as mining,
sheep herding/cattle grazing sites such as dendroglyph sites. The dates
of these sites range form the Paleo-Indian period of about 12,000 --
9,000 B.C. to the Euro-American historic period beginning in the 1850s
and continuing to the present. The NPS and GRBA will give consideration
to these site types in their development plans under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended.

#### 

1.8.5 Issue: Effects on NPS Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species -
Documented and probable Sensitive vertebrate species include 14 mammals,
3 amphibians, 1 fish and 6 birds. The action areas provide foraging
habitat and dispersal corridors for these species. Bonneville cutthroat
trout (BCT) are a unique native subspecies of trout, which occurs in
streams within the Snake Range. Due to the introduction of non-native
trout, their range has been restricted to only a few streams in Nevada.
Fish populations within the park are currently small and vulnerable to
impacts such as degraded watershed condition and hydrologic function.
The impacts of fire within watersheds and on aquatic habitat depends on
the fire intensity, size, and location in the watershed, and the
cumulative effects of past watershed impacts. The GRBA Resource
Management Plan and GMP state that "protecting threatened, endangered,
and endemic species and restoring them to within their natural ranges"
is a management objective.

**1.8.6 Issue: Effects on Nonnative Plants**- Nonnative invasive plants
create a substantial challenge in restoring a natural fire regime.
Invasive nonnative grasses, such as cheatgrass, benefit from fire and
promote recurrent fire to the point that natural plant communities
cannot be restored. This vegetative type-conversion can effect over all
biodiversity. The management of fire and invasive nonnative plants must
be closely integrated for each to be managed effectively (Brooks and
Pike 2001).

1.8.7 Issue: Effects on Water Quality - Large, high intensity fires have
potential to adversely affect water quality. Adverse effects are of
particular concern in watersheds that contain human populations and
developments. Water quality changes can include increased stream
temperature due to less canopy cover, increased phosphorus and nitrate
inputs from disruption of the terrestrial nutrient cycles (Tiedemann et
al. 1988). In addition, removal of canopy cover may increase water yield
due to reduced transpiration. Erosion may also be exacerbated by the
removal of the litter layer and organic debris, which normally controls
sediment flow (MacDonald et al. 1991).

**1.8.8 Issue: Effects on Air Quality -** As per public law 95-95,
compliance with Federal, state and local air quality regulations is
mandatory and will require coordination with the state and local air
quality authorities. Personnel developing Prescribed Fire Plans will be
aware of state and local regulations and the impacts that a specific
project may have on critical areas. Permitting is required and
prescriptions are altered by the State to meet legal mandates. Air
quality is of critical importance to visitor enjoyment, human health,
scenic vistas, and preservation of natural systems. While Great Basin
National Park remains one of the least polluted air regions in the
United States, air quality has deteriorated over the past several
decades. Monitoring programs instituted at the park measure different
parameters of air quality including visibility, particulates, ozone,
weather, and deposition. Wildfire, wildland fire use and prescribed fire
all affect air quality parameters.

**1.9 ISSUES DROPPED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS**

The following issues were dropped from further analysis. It was
determined by the NPS Interdisciplinary Team that these issues were
either beyond the scale and scope of the proposed action, were found to
be non-significant based upon existing conditions, or were covered by
the existing GRBA GMP.

1.  Wild & Scenic Rivers: Will the action result in the possibility of a
    river or stream being eliminated from consideration as a Wild &
    Scenic River? The existing GMP did not recommend or consider any
    stream system within the boundaries of GRBA for Wild & Scenic River
    status. The proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action
    will not result in the possibility of a river or stream being
    eliminated from consideration as a Wild & Scenic River.

2.  Wilderness: Will the action result in the possibility of an area
    being eliminated from consideration as a Wilderness Area? The
    current GMP did not recommend any areas for inclusion into the
    National Wilderness System. This possibility was deferred to a later
    date in conjunction with the development of a Backcountry Management
    plan.

3.  Threatened and Endangered Species: Will the action result in impacts
    to any species listed under the ESA or result in any modification of
    Critical Habitat as designated? There are currently no species
    listed under the ESA inhabiting GRBA. In addition, GRBA has not been
    designated as Critical Habitat for any species listed under the ESA.
    One species, BCT, is under a Conservation Agreement and is dealt
    with under NPS sensitive species issue.

**1.10 PROGRAMMATIC/ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT**

This document is designed to be programmatic in nature. All projects
implemented based upon the selected alternative will be developed
consistent with the selected alternative. All site-specific actions
developed to implement the selected FMP alternative will be assess by an
interdisciplinary team. The team will investigate each action utilizing
the NPS-12 NEPA Check List and for consistency with the FMP. If
consistency is found and no new issues arise, an administrative record
will be developed that tiers the project to this EA. If new issues are
found additional NEPA compliance as appropriate will be initiated. The
selected alternative will be on a 5-year NEPA reassessment schedule. At
that time, a interdisciplinary team investigate the FMP utilizing the
NPS-12 NEPA Check List to assess if new issues have arisen. Additional
NEPA compliance as appropriate will be initiated based upon the
findings.

An adaptive management philosophy will be utilized. Adaptive management
calls to an effectiveness-monitoring program, which allows one to assess
whether a project has been effective, and requires learning of how
things could have been done different to meet the project objective. One
needs to remember that all projects are funding dependent. In the past
years GRBA has averaged about 50 acres a year for fuels reduction
projects. It is expected that a minimum of 250 acres of fuels reduction
project will be implemented over the next 5-years.

## CHAPTER 2

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

This chapter describes the affected environment within the proposed
action area and deals with the conditions found based on existing
management, resource conditions, and data in relation to those issues
developed and carried through the analysis from the scoping process.

**2.0 BACKGROUND FIRE INFORMATION**

Oregon State University (OSU) carried out a fire history analysis in
conjunction with a vegetation analysis and range analysis for GRBA from
1988 through 1990 (Gruell et al 1994). The site specific fire history
analysis focused on the pinyon-juniper plant communities although
evidence of past fires was noted when observed in other vegetation
communities. Research data and field observations demonstrate that fire
was a major ecological factor over the past several hundred years in
this area. The data shows a complex and variable fire history influenced
greatly by aspect, topography, and ignition source.

An indepth study of fire history in all vegetation types in the park is
needed. Stan Kitchen of the Rocky Mountain Experiment Station is
developing a fire history in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetative
communities. A section removed from a ponderosa pine stump found at
about 8,250 ft elevation just off the Wheeler Peak Scenic Drive showed
that the site had burned eight times. Postulating a 1880 cutting date,
fires occurred in 1851, 1839, 1824, 1795, 1767, 1753, 1737, and 1727.
This data suggest a mean fire interval of 20 years.

Whereas additional fire history in the park would be desir­able, it is
not considered prerequisite for im­plementation of a fire management
program at GRBA. Sufficient data is available elsewhere on the general
fire regimes in pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, and other plant communities
found in the park (Wright et al 1979, Koniak 1985, Everett 1987).

Records indicate that 199 fires occurred in the Snake Range and initial
attack area. It is probable that many other small fires occurred in
inaccessible areas, but went unnoticed and, thus, were not recorded. Of
the recorded fires, 86 percent were lightning-caused and 14 percent were
human-caused. The majority of the natural fires in the park have
occurred primarily at higher elevations, or at lower elevations in
pinyon-juniper or mountain shrub vegetation types.

Two large fires have occurred in the past three years. In July 2000, the
Phillips Ranch Fire burned 2,667 acres of mixed conifer, spruce and
bristlecone pine on the west side of the park. Approximately 1,704 acres
of National Park Service lands and 963 acres of National Forest Service
land were affected. High intensity burn areas include more than a half
of total burned acreage. The Granite Fire started on August 18, 2001.
The fire burned approximately 614 acres of mixed conifer and ponderosa
pine at a high intensity. The fire burned 539 acres in GRBA and 75 acres
in the HNF.

According to Gruell et. al. (1994), data and observations demonstrate
that fire played a major role as an ecological factor on plant
communities found within GRBA over the past several hundred years. The
data shows a complex and variable fire history that largely took place
before 1860. Fire frequencies apparently varied considerably depending
on aspect, topography, and ignition source. It appears that fires
occurred at close intervals on north slopes, canyon bottoms, and in
other localities where light surface fuels were sufficient to carry
fire. Quantitative evidence suggests that north slopes in Snake Creek
and Strawberry Creek had a burn interval of 20 years. Light surface
fires promoted establishment and growth of grasses and other herbaceous
fuels. These highly combustible fuels were vulnerable to frequent
burning. The absence of fire for a decade or more would have allowed
establishment of big sagebrush. These shrubs, along with other flammable
vegetation, would have increased the odds of fire carrying into adjacent
areas. It is evident that localized sites did not burn cleanly because
of fuel discontinuity.

Within GRBA, trees have encroached upon what were formerly savannah,
grassland, or shrub steppes. Evidence of this exists in the dead
skeletons in tree understories. Pinyon-juniper and white-fir
encroachment is also closely tied to the virtual absence of fire since
the later 1800s. The cause of these profound successional changes has
usually been attributed to unrestricted livestock grazing between the
late 1800's and about 1940. Blackburn and Tueller (1970) came to this
conclusion after studying black sagebrush communities in the Burnt Mill
locality of the Snake Range. Livestock undoubtedly had a major role in
triggering changes through reduction of herbaceous vegetation, reduction
in fine fire fuels, and disturbance of soils.

[Prehistoric Fire History]{.underline}

In the past few years there has become much more evidence that Native
Americans had a major impact on the environment in the past with the
utilization of fire. Native Americans used fire to promote a diversity
of habitats. A variety of habitats were burned according to the desired
plants that the Native Americans wanted to promote. Some of the fires
were started in the late spring before the new growth appeared or in
late summer/early fall when growth of some plants occur in the winter.

Over the years there have been several theories as to why Native
Americans used fire (Lews1973; Russell 1983). The theories below are
taken from Gerald Williams (2003) list:

**Improve plant growth and yield** -- Improves big game grazing areas,
seed and berry plants and to promote or improve plants such as willows.

**Fireproof areas** -- Controlled fires were utilized to keep
settlements safe from wildfires and open prairies/meadows from
encroaching shrubs and trees.

**Hunting** -- Fire was utilized to divert large game into traps and to
promote new growth of grasses for not only large game but for waterfowl
if riparian zones were burned.

**Clearing riparian areas** -- Fire was utilized to clear and improve
plant growth such as willows, tulles, and cattails to benefit not only
the beaver and waterfowl but to also improve the quality of riparian
plants used for the making of baskets and clothing.

**Insect collection** -- Fire was utilized to collect and roast crickets
and grasshoppers, which are a good source of protein.

**Pest management** -- Fire was used to control rodents, fleas and
ticks.

**Crop management** -- Fire was utilized to promote desirable root
plants such as camas.

**Warfare and signaling** -- Fire was used so the enemy could not hide
in tall grasses or in the underbrush. Smoke signals warned of
approaching enemies or to signal a group to gather.

**Economic extortion** -- Setting areas on fire to deprive fur traders
or settles access to big game, which allowed the Native American to
become the food supplier to the fur traders and settlers.

Fire has not been a significant factor in the Snake Range since
settlement by Euro-Americans. As recalled by Wayne Gonder, a local
rancher, the largest fire in modern times took place in 1908-10 in the
Baker Creek Basin (200-300 acres). Winkler (1916) describes a series of
what was believed to be arson fires that burned 150-200 acres in the
aggregate in the Sagehen Creek - Strawberry Creek locality. Mention was
made previously of two small fires on Shingle Creek in 1941 and 1947. A
fire of limited size occurred near the head of Baker Creek in the early
1950's (A. Murchie, pers. comm., 1990). The long-standing policy of
suppressing all fires has been effective in keeping ignitions from
developing into major conflagrations. During the 30-year period
1959-1988, an average of less than 3 fires a year (total 83) were
suppressed in the Snake Range. Nearly all of these fires were less than
two acres, except for three of 60, 40, and 17 acres respectively.
Approximately half of the fires suppressed were situated in
pinyon-juniper, sagebrush-grass or pinyon-juniper mix with other shrubs
and trees. Lightning ignited 90% of all fires.

#### 2.1 Effects on FRCCs (Issue 1)

A century of active fire suppression has caused landscape-level changes
in plant successional patterns. The elimination of this natural
ecosystem process has shifted the landscape away from a diversity of
seral stages and community types and towards a preponderance of
late-successional woody plant communities with heavy fuel loading.
Examples include: dense closed-canopied curl-leaf mountain mahogany
stands; expanding pinyon-juniper forests at the expense of
sage-grasslands; declining/decadent quaking aspen groves; loss of
ponderosa pine communities; encroachment by white fir in all middle and
higher elevation plant communities and degraded riparian communities. Of
concern are the loss of spatial diversity in plant communities and the
decline of several important community types.

Of particular concern at GRBA is the increased density and distribution
of pinyon-juniper and the loss of shrub steppe. In pre-settlement times,
stand-replacing fires probably occurred at intervals averaging less than
50 years in pinyon-juniper woodlands. Because of fire, areas with mature
pinyon-juniper cover were somewhat restricted to locations with rocky
soils and rough topography, which inhibited fire spread (Bradley and
others 1992; Kilgore 1981; Wright and Bailey 1982). Where livestock
grazing reduced herbaceous fuels, fire occurrence decreased and pinyon
juniper woodlands expanded. In mature, closed stands, fire spreads
poorly because surface fuels are sparse. High winds and a high
proportion of pine to juniper increase the potential for fire spread
(Wright and Bailey 1982). In pre-settlement times, fires burned
sagebrush grasslands at intervals as short as 17 years and as long as
100 years (Wright and Bailey 1982). Fire severity in sagebrush varied,
depending on the occurrence of sufficient grass and litter to carry
fire. If fuel was sufficient, fires were stand replacing and after a
moist, productive growing season; mixed severity fire was more likely at
other times. Fire was most frequent and widespread in the Great Basin
Desert because of its greater shrub biomass (sagebrush) and because
grass biomass was usually severe, burning through the shrub crowns.
Where fuels were sparse, fires were patchy. Varied patterns of
vegetation and seasonal differences in burning conditions produced
substantial differences in fire severity and effects.

To determine FRCC, soils data completed for GRBA and compiled by the U.
S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service
(Blake 1992) was synthesized into a relational database and then further
incorporated into a Geographical Information System (GIS). Soils
information provides the best available data about potential natural
vegetation communities across the landscape. Soil scientist determined
the potential natural vegetation community, also called Range Site
Descriptions, through determination of the climax vegetation that best
reflects the influences of natural disturbances. Natural disturbances
include drought, fire, and grazing by native fauna and insects. These
natural disturbances along with soils provide an approximation for the
development and maintenance of a plant community.

Soils attribute information is used to determine the potential natural
vegetation community that is typically presented within soil series. A
soil series is the basic unit used in the classification of soils. For
each soil series a potential natural vegetation community or range site
has been described. Unfortunately, soils information compiled for
natural resource management is not mapped by soil series, but rather by
soils association. An association typically consists of several soil
series. Therefore, when a soils map is displayed the polygon for the
soils association can consist of two to many soil series and their
respective potential natural vegetation communities. Furthermore, it is
quite common to have widely varying potential natural vegetation
communities in a soils association. For example, an association may have
three soil series with each representing a different potential natural
vegetation community, such as Pinyon woodland, big sagebrush steppe and
little leaf mountain mahogany.

This provides a unique situation in regards to mapping potential FRCC's
across the park. To do this, the total area of each soils association
was determined using GIS. Soil survey information provides an estimate
of the percentage of the association comprised by each soil series.
Hence, if greater than 65 percent of the association consisted of
particular soil series with potential natural vegetation communities of
mountain big sagebrush steppe and less than 15 percent of the
association was pinyon, then the association was categorized as mountain
big sagebrush steppe. If mountain big sagebrush steppe was less than 65
percent and/or pinyon was greater than 15 percent of the association it
would be categorized as a sage and pinyon mix. This assessment yielded
39 potential natural vegetative communities. For this assessment, these
have been grouped by dominant over story species. Table 1 provides the
list of soils associations and the resulting potential natural
vegetation community category created using the above described
proportions. See Appendix 1 Figure1 for a map displaying FRCC's across
the park.

With dominant potential natural vegetation communities categorized for
each soils association, we can now determine the area and distribution
of these communities in the park by overlaying existing vegetation maps
to determine the departure from the potential natural vegetation
community. This departure represents those areas within the FRCC 3 zone.
The acreage of FRCC 1 and 2 was somewhat more difficult to estimate.
This is due to vegetation attributes having not been altered beyond a
historical range to be identified by a GIS analysis and not having
completed a timber stand inventory that identifies tree density and
percent cover. The NPS in conjunction with USGS Biological Resource
Division are currently conducting a fuels mapping project for the entire
park; however, this information will not be available until 2005.

Table 1. Potential natural vegetation

  --------------------------- ----------- -------------------- ------------
  Potential Natural           Acres       Estimated Fire       FRCC
  Communities                             Return               

  Alpine                      7,818       \>500 years          1

  Aspen                       654         50 -- 75 years       2

  Aspen/Ponderosa Pine        441         10 -- 25 years       3

  Barren                      21          N/A                  N/A

  Mt. Sagebrush/Mtn. Mahogany 16,516      50 -- 75 years       2

  Mixed Conifer/Ponderosa     21,265      30 -- 50 years       3
  Pine                                                         

  Montane Grasslands          4,138       50 -- 75 years       2

  Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands    10,002      30 -- 50 years       3

  Subalpine Pine              9,162       \>500 years          1

  Spruce-Fir                  2,973       \>100 years          1

  Sagebrush Steppe            5,272       10 --25 years        3
  --------------------------- ----------- -------------------- ------------

In order to calculate and map these areas, the natural fire return
interval and the 100 years of fire suppression assumptions were used.
Table 2 exhibits the acreage of FRCC. See Figure 2 for map of FRCC.

Table 2

  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  Fire Regime Condition Class             Acres

  FRCC 1                                  19,734

  FRCC 2                                  21,326

  FRCC 3                                  37,181
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------

**Condition Class One** - Fire regimes are within or near their
historical range. Fire frequencies have departed from historical
frequencies by no more than one return interval.

**Condition Class Two** - Fire regimes have been moderately altered from
their historical range. Fire frequencies have departed from historical
frequencies by more than one return interval.

**Condition Class Three** - Fire regimes have been significantly altered
from their historical range. Fire frequencies have departed from
historical frequencies by multiple return intervals.

#### 2.2 Effects on Park Infrastructure (Issue 2)

GRBA contains two maintenance buildings and yard, resource management
office trailer, protection office trailer, eight houses, two cabins,
four mobile homes, four developed campgrounds, two rustic campgrounds, a
picnic area, the park's visitor center and at least 50 outbuildings. The
entire infrastructure except for the Wheeler Peak campground is located
within areas classified as FRCC 2 & 3.

#### 

#### 2.3 Effects on Wildland/Urban Interface (Issue 3)

While seemingly isolated, GRBA does contain a wildland/urban interface
with high fire hazard potential. Residences nestled adjacent to the park
boundary with potential for direct effects of fire include:

-   Parkview Estates -- This area is directly adjacent to the park
    boundary within a former shrub-steppe community that is now a mature
    pinyon/juniper forest. There are 25 houses, 3 mobile homes, 28
    propane tanks and numerous outbuildings associated with this
    development.

-   Home Farm - This area is less than ¼ mile from the park boundary
    within the juniper woodlands and sagebrush grasslands. No known fire
    hazard assessment could be found concerning this development. Some
    clearance has occurred but heavy brush is still present around some
    structures. There are 9 homes, 3 apartment buildings, a combined
    dormitory/communal kitchen, 3-250 gallon gasoline tanks, 8 propane
    tanks, 2-300-gallon diesel tanks, a community center and numerous
    outbuildings.

-   Burnt Mill Canyon - This area is adjacent to the park boundary
    within the mature pinyon/juniper forest. Associated with Home Farm,
    this area contains three large storage buildings and is the site of
    the Home Farm water system with one steel and one plastic storage
    tank.

-   Rudolph's/Young Canyon Ranch - No known fire hazard assessment could
    be found concerning this development but efforts have been made to
    protect the house. There is one home, one mobile home, and an
    orchard.

-   Robison Ranch - This area is within 1/8 mile of the park boundary
    within a mix of Ponderosa Pine and mature pinyon/juniper forest. No
    known fire hazard assessment could be found concerning this
    development but it appears that some efforts have been made to
    protect the house. There is one home and numerous outbuildings, some
    historic.

-   Nevada Division of Wildlife Fish Rearing Station - This area is
    within 1/4 mile of the park boundary within a mix of mature
    pinyon/juniper forest and riparian area. There are two houses, a
    shop building, an office and two out buildings.

-   Big Wash Development: This development is approximately 1 mile from
    the park boundary. The area has three residences including a \$1.5
    million dollar house. Other developments include several bunkhouses
    for ranch hands, and Hidden Canyon Guest Ranch with cabins, teepees,
    cookhouse/recreation center, and numerous outbuildings.

Due to the great elevation differences found in the area, over 7000 feet
from mountain tops to valley floors, residences and businesses located
several miles from the park's boundary but within the same watersheds
have the potential for indirect effects from fires. Stand replacing
fires within the park accompanied by high runoff events, would send a
torrent of water and debris inflicting property damage in the towns of
Baker, Nevada and Garrison, Utah, Big Springs Ranch, Nevada Division of
Transportation Work Center, Strawberry Creek Ranch, and five Westside
ranches.

**2.4 Effects on Cultural Resources (Issue 4)**

An Archeological Survey and Site Assessment at Great Basin National Park
was completed by archeologists from the National Parks Service's Western
Archeological and Conservation Center (see Wells 1990, 1993). The survey
and site assessment looked at potently developed areas as well as areas
proposed for development. Rock art sites and certain cave sites were
also reviewed. A total of 45 sites were recorded, including 29
prehistoric sites and 16 historic sites. The historic sites are made up
of mining, homesteads, recreational, administration, and ranching. The
prehistoric sites are either artifact scatters comprised of lithic
scatters (obsidian, chert, and/or quartzite), ground stone, and/or
ceramics, rock art sites (both pictographs and petroglyphs), or cave
deposits. All these sites were determined to meet Criterion D of the
National Register Criterion for Evaluation. Specifically, these are
resources "that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history" (36 CFR 60.4).

[History]{.underline} -- The first written record of Euro-American
exploration into what is now Great Basin National Park occurred in June,
1855, when the Mormon's White Mountain Mission expedition entered the
area.

Sheep herding occurred within the south Snake Range from the late 1800s
to the present. Sites that are associated with this activity include
campsites and dendroglyph sites. These sites are also associated with
cattle grazing that occurred in the park until 1999.

Mining operations began in White Pine County in 1859. By 1869, there
were six mining districts within the south Snake Range. A number of the
park's most significant historic resources relate to these mining
activities. The Osceola Ditch is on the National Register of Historic
Places along with the Johnson Lake Mining District with its associated
mill, cabins, and cableway. The remains of a number of other, less
extensive, mining operations are also found scattered throughout the
park but lack integrity.

A Historical Resource Study was completed in 1990 (Unrau 1990), and
provides a comprehensive review of all known historic sites within the
park. Recommendations concerning the extent to which sites are
preserved, and determinations concerning eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have been made for all the sites
identified in the 1990 Historical Resource Study report.

During the 1989 archeological survey (see Wells 1990), sixteen historic
period sites were recorded. Of these, seven sites were determined to
possess archeological significance, which is defined under Criterion D
of 36 CFR 60.4, with thirteen of the sixteen sites also being listed on
the List of Classified Structures (LCS). The other three structures
were/are too deteriorated to be listed on the LCS.

Below is a list of the classified structures within Great Basin National
Park:

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Site              No. of Structures Significant       NRHP

  Baker Ranger      6                 Yes               X
  Station                                               

  Johnson Lake      8                 Yes               X
  Mining District                                       

  Lehman Aqueduct   1 -- linear       Yes               X

  Osceola (East)    1 -- linear       Yes               X
  Ditch                                                 

  Osceola (East)    1                 Yes               
  Ditch Tunnel                                          

  Rhodes Cabin      1                 Yes               X

  Stella Lake Rock  1                 Yes               
  Dam                                                   

  Baker Lake Cabin  1                 No                

  Pole Canyon       1                 No                
  Dugout                                                

  Pole Canyon Safe  1                 No                

  Robison Corral    1                 No                

  Tilford Spring    1                 No                
  Cabin                                                 

  Young Canyon      1                 No                
  Stone House                                           
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Below is a summary of the effects on fire on cultural resource:

> [Type of Cultural Resource]{.underline} [Type of Fire]{.underline}\*
>
> Surface -- Archeological
>
> Condition Class 1 Low intensity -- minimal

Condition Class 2 & 3 High intensity -- shatters lithics and

> ground stone. Ceramics will warp and paint is burned off
>
> Subsurface -- Archeological
>
> Condition Class 1 Low intensity -- minimal
>
> Condition Class 2 & 3 High intensity -- burning of fibrous
>
> plant or animal cordage, wood, and pollen material. If into the
> root-zone, can cause C^14^ contamination. Placement of fire lines or
> mechanical thinning prior to or after a fire can have a negative
> impact upon an archeological site.
>
> Historical Sites
>
> Condition Class 1, 2 & 3 Related to how much and what
>
> burned. Loss of architectural and dating materials.
>
> Ethnographic Resources
>
> Condition Class 1 Low intensity -- minimal
>
> Condition Class 2 & 3 High intensity -- loss of traditional
>
> use areas such as plant gathering places and scenic views.
>
> All Site Types Lack of cover increases erosion
>
> which destroys site integrity. Increased visibility will/could
> contribute to increased vandalism

[Archeological Collections]{.underline}

Artifacts (prehistoric and historic) collected during fieldwork are
stored either in the park museum or at the Western Archeological and
Conservation Center in Tucson, Arizona.

#### 2.5 Effects on NPS Sensitive Species (Issue 5)

Fire has influenced composition, structure, and landscape patterns of
animal habitat for millennia, so it is reasonable to assume that animals
have coexisted and adapted to periodic perturbations from fire (Smith
2000).

Natural Resources Management Guidelines NPS 77, states:

> The National Park Service will identify and promote the conservation
> of all Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species
> within park boundaries and their critical habitats\... [The National
> Park Service also will identify all state and locally listed
> threatened, endangered, rare, declining, sensitive, or candidate
> species that are native to and present in the parks, and their
> critical habitats]{.underline}\.... All management actions for
> protection and perpetuation of special status species will be
> determined through the park\'s resource management plan.

In addition, the Park's primary objective as stated in the GMP is to
manage the park to maintain the greatest degree of biological diversity
and ecosystem integrity within the provisions of the authorizing
legislation.

Based upon these statements, the park is required to identify all
sensitive species and their habitats within the park and to manage for
their continuity. Based upon literature reviews, fieldwork, and
historical citations species are considered sensitive based on their
current status in the park meets one or more factors listed below:

-   Local rarity of native species.

-   Whether or not the species is endemic to the park or local vicinity.

-   The importance of the species to the park (as identified in park
    management objectives).

-   Whether the species is the subject of political concern or unusual
    public interest.

-   The usefulness of the species as an indicator species.

-   The vulnerability of the species to local population declines.

-   Whether the species or its habitat is subject to human disturbance
    during critical portions of its life cycle.

# 

# Mammals

-   Spotted Bat

-   Mexican Free-Tailed Bat

-   Fringed Myotis

-   Long-Eared Myotis

-   Long-Legged Myotis

-   Silver-Haired Bat

-   Townsend's Big-Eared Bat

-   Western Big-Eared Bat

-   Pygmy Rabbit

-   Merriam's shrew

-   Ring-Tailed Cat

-   Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

-   Beaver

-   Yellow Belly Marmots

# Fish

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah)

The park has worked for several years to find/restore BCT to Mill,
Strawberry and South Fork Big Wash Creeks and soon to Snake and South
Fork Baker Creeks. BCT populations also exist near the park boundary in
Pine, Ridge and Big Wash Creeks. (See Table 3.) See Figure 3 for
watershed classified as sensitive due to BCT populations.

Table 3. Bonneville cutthroat trout populations in and adjacent to Great
Basin National Park.

  ------------------ --------------- ------------------ ------------------
  Stream             BCT Habitat in  BCT Habitat        Estimated BCT
                     Park (miles)    outside Park       population
                                     (miles)            (3/2003)

  Mill               1.0             0.5                350

  Strawberry         5.0             3.0                60

  South Fork Big     3               0                  80
  Wash                                                  

  Snake              4.2             0                  Not yet
                                                        established

  South Fork Baker   1.2             0                  Not yet
                                                        established

  Pine/Ridge         0.25            1.25               800

  Big Wash           0               1.5                Not yet
                                                        established
  ------------------ --------------- ------------------ ------------------

# Birds

-   Northern Goshawk

-   Ferruginous Hawk

-   Swainson's Hawk

-   Golden eagle

-   Bald Eagle

-   Peregrine Falcon

-   Sage Grouse

-   Flammulated Owl

-   Three-Toed Woodpecker

It can be assumed that all bird populations associated with shrub
steppe, open woodlands and ponderosa pine habitats are declining due to
habitat loss and degradation.

#### 2.6 Effects on Nonnative Plants (Issue 6)

####  

There are 43 species of nonnative herbaceous plants growing within the
park's boundaries. Ten species are of the utmost concern wherever they
occur because of their extremely detrimental effects on native plant
communities and ability to spread. These are:

-   Cheatgrass

-   Spotted knapweed

-   Musk thistle

-   Bull thistle

-   Field bindweed

-   Common mullein

-   Crested wheatgrass

-   Kentucky bluegrass

-   Common timothy

-   Russian thistle

Of most concern at GRBA is Cheatgrass. Cheatgrass was accidentally
introduced into the United States sometime around the turn of the 20th
century, supposedly through contaminated grain (Pyke and Novak 1994). By
1930, it had achieved its current distribution (Pyke and Novak 1994).
During the next 3 decades, it spread rapidly into overgrazed sagebrush
rangeland (Billings 1994). Following disturbance by fire in areas where
cheatgrass is present, it reestablishes from abundant seed. Even if fire
destroys 90 percent or more of its seed, it can reestablish and compete
significantly with native perennials (Bradley 1986a; Monsen 1994). Over
a period of years, cheatgrass gains dominance over perennials and
increases the flammability of the site (Peters and Bunting 1994). Once
cheatgrass becomes abundant enough to increase the likelihood of fire,
repeated fires may occur frequently enough to eliminate shrubs such as
sagebrush and native perennials. As wildfires become more common
cheatgrass can essentially dominate a site (Monsen 1994). Native species
can occupy sites that were dominated by cheatgrass, but this is not a
common occurrence. Actions, which attempt to minimize disturbance such
as mechanical thinning, mulching and seeding with native perennial
grasses can help to restore sites to native vegetation while minimizing
cheatgrass invasions.

#### 2.7 Effects on Water Quality (Issue7)

Ten permanent streams originate in the Park between 6,200 and 11,000
feet elevation and are fed by numerous springs along their courses. The
streams average five miles in length. Five alpine lakes averaging three
acres in size also exist, two of which support nonnative introduced
salmonid populations. Five streams flow eastward into Snake Valley, and
five westward into Spring Valley. There are thirteen drainages in the
Park. The largest streams supply domestic and irrigation water to those
people holding water rights. Most of the streams gradually percolate
into the alluvium and/ or evaporate before reaching the adjacent
valleys.

#### 2.8 Effects on Air Quality (Issue 8)

Congress, as amended in 1977, enacted the Clean Air Act, after
determination that the nation\'s air quality was rapidly deteriorating,
and that Federal leadership and financial assistance were needed to cope
with the problem. The primary Federal responsibility is to provide
technical and financial assistance to state and local governments, who
have the responsibility to develop and execute air pollution prevention
and control programs. This includes the State of Nevada's Smoke
Management Plan.

As part of this preservation effort, the Clean Air Act created three
classifications of varying degrees of restriction of allowable air
quality deterioration. Under the terms of this classification, the
former Lehman Caves National Monument was designated a Class II area.
The establishment of Great Basin National Park in 1986 did not change
this classification.

In order to determine whether any air quality deterioration is taking
place, visibility and fine particulate monitoring and baseline data
gathering were initiated at Lehman Caves National Monument in 1982 and
continue currently at the park. From 1982 to 1986, NPS staff operated a
manual teleradiometer to record visibility parameters. Photographic
visibility using a 35 mm camera for monitoring of the Notch Peak target
ran from 1982 to 1995. Mean standard visual ranges greater than 120
miles are noted throughout the year, with the best visibility occurring
during the winter. A fine particulate sampler was operated from 1983 to
1985. Visibility data was confirmed regarding fine particles, which play
a major role in visibility impairment. The lowest average fine mass
concentration nationally occurs in an area extending from northern
California and southern Oregon to the Four Corners region, including the
area of eastern Nevada in which Great Basin National Park is located.

The NPS Air Quality Division selected Great Basin National Park as a
long term \"Trends\" monitoring site in 1991. The park is currently
monitoring air quality with three nationwide programs. The Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program monitors
visibility through aerosol sampling and transmissometer readings. The
Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) program provides
atmospheric data on acid rain, tropospheric (ground-level) ozone and
other forms of atmospheric pollution. The National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP) currently monitors pollutants in wet
deposition (rain and snow).

**CHAPTER 3**

#### ALTERNATIVES

3.0 ACTIONS COMMON TO THE ALTERNATIVES

-   Human health and safety are the first priority for all actions
    proposed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Suppress all human-caused and natural fires, which are not in
    prescription.

-   Mitigate any negative effects of suppression with timely and
    effective rehabilitation efforts.

-   Manage all natural starts within a predetermined pre­scription.

-   Complete a Fire Situation Analysis to guide Management WFU.

-   Utilize minimum impact suppression tactics unless specifically
    approved by the park Superintendent.

-   Areas with values at risk will be identified throughout the park in
    which natural ignitions will either be suppressed or tightly
    controlled to eliminate potential resource degradation.

**3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1. No Action, Implement Existing Fire Management
Plan**

The existing FMP was written in 1996 and updated in 1998. It divides the
park into three units: Unit One, Suppression; Unit Two, Conditional
Zone, Wildland fire use fire; and Unit Three, Natural Fire Zone,
Wildland fire use fire. These units were not developed based on
ecological type or fuels classes but instead on position relative to
boundaries and park infrastructure. For a summary of potential projects
that could occur under this alternative see appendix 1.

A program of prescribed burning would be used to simulate the natural
effects of fires and to reduce hazard fuel buildup. Fire hazards around
developments and boundaries would be systematically reduced. A mosaic of
burned and unburned areas would be created and maintained.

Natural ignitions would be allowed to burn in specified areas under
certain conditions favorable to their management. All human caused fires
would be promptly suppressed, as would fires, which pose a threat to
life or property. Only fires of a natural origin would be allowed to
burn, and only under prescribed conditions.

Areas with values at risk will be identified throughout the park in
which natural ignitions will either be suppressed or tightly controlled
to eliminate potential resource degradation. Examples of these areas are
developed areas, bristlecone pine groves and areas with cultural
resources. Other sensitive resource locations containing habitats for
sensitive species will also receive special consideration in planning
for fire management in order to avoid both direct and indirect impacts
from fire or suppression activities.

**Fire Management Units** (see figure 4)

## Unit One --Full Suppression 

Unit 1 is the most restrictive of the three fire management units and
comprises a total of approximately 12,300 acres, or 16% of the total
park area. Unit 1 consists of the Lehman Creek and Baker Creek drainages
below 9,000 feet, and a one-half mile wide buffer along most of the
north and east boundaries of the park. The one-half mile wide buffer
extends along the entire north boundary of the park, and along the east
boundary as far south as Snake Creek. The following developed areas lie
within Unit 1:

Lehman Caves Visitor Center/Park Administrative Offices

NPS Residential Area and Maintenance Area

Lower Lehman Creek Campground

Upper Lehman Creek Campground

Baker Creek Campground

Specific fire management goals for this unit are to:

1\. Limit all fires in developed areas and near historic structures to
less than 2 acres in size.

2\. Respond to all fires threatening facilities and historic structures
within 10 minutes.

Fire management policy in this unit will be to:

> 1\. Once any portion of a fire exceeds a prescription parameter,
> declares the fire a wildfire and employs the suppression strategy
> applicable to the situation and identified concurrently through the
> Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA).

2\. Suppress all human starts under a CONTROL mode, when possible.

> 3\. Suppress all fires in developed areas and within 1/8 mile of the
> park boundary or historic structures in the quickest, most effective
> manner possible.

## Unit Two

Unit 2 is located on the north and east side of the park generally from
one-half mile of the park boundary up to the 9,000 foot level, except
for the Lehman Creek and Baker Creek drainages. South of Snake Creek it
extends from the park boundary up to the 9,000-foot level. Unit 2
comprises approximately 23,900 acres, or 31% of the total park area

Within this unit, all structures on the List of Classified Structures
are identified as values at risk and will be protected by suppression
actions. The suppression area will extend 1/8 mile around each
development or historic structure, unless the fire situation or resource
value dictates a larger suppression unit.

Specific fire management goals for this unit are to:

> 1\. Manage natural fire consistent with a predetermined prescription
> to play a defined, role in ecosystem dynamics, while protecting human
> life and property.
>
> 2\. Continually refine the Wildland fire use fire pre­scriptions to
> allow for the widest spectrum of fire behavior possible while
> maintaining the capacity to suppress fires for safety or property
> protection reasons at any time.

Fire management policy in this unit will be to:

> 1\. Once any portion of a fire exceeds a prescription parameter,
> declare the fire a wildfire and employ the suppression strategy
> applicable to the situation and identified concurrently through the
> WFSA.

2\. Suppress all human starts.

3\. Suppress all fires within 1/8 mile of the park boundary.

## Unit Three

Unit 3 represents all lands not contained in Unit 1 or Unit 2. Unit 3
comprises approximately 40,900 acres, or 53% of the total park area,
everything above 9,000 feet elevation

Within this unit, the Wheeler Peak Campground developed area, all
structures on the List of Classified Structures, and all major
bristlecone pine groves are identified as values at risk and will be
protected by suppression actions. The suppression area will extend 1/8
mile around each value at risk, unless the fire situation or resource
value dictates a larger suppression unit. The prescription elements for
this unit have been selected according to their ability to allow natural
fire to play as full a role as practical in natural ecosystem dynamics.
It is recognized that a natural fire regime in these communities may
oc­casionally result in infrequent, large fires. As a result of allowing
fire to play an increased role in this unit, some vegetation type
conversion may naturally occur, such as from pinyon-juniper woodland to
perennial grassland/mixed shrubland. This is an acceptable consequence
as part of the natural process and ecosystem dynamics.

Specific fire management goals for this unit are to:

1\. Allow natural fire to play its [full role]{.underline} in ecosystem
dynamics, commensurate with human safety and property protection.

2\. Monitor natural fires in such a manner as to provide for baseline
data on fire weather, fire effects, and fire behavior.

3\. Continually refine the wildland fire use fire pre­scriptions to allow
for the widest spectrum of fire behavior possible while maintaining the
capacity to suppress fires for safety or property protection at any
time.

4\. Eliminate costly, unwarranted and ecologically damaging suppression
actions.

5\. Ancient Bristlecone pines will be protected from wildland fire use
fire and wildfire.

Specific fire management policy within this unit will be to:

1\. Once any portion of a fire significantly exceeds a prescription
parameter for an extended period, declare the fire a wildfire and employ
the appropriate suppression strategy as identified through the WFSA.

2\. Suppress all human starts.

3\. Suppress all fires within 1/8 mile of the park boundary.

**Implementation of Wildland Fire Use Strategies**

This section sets forth procedures to make prompt and informed decisions
concerning the assignment of wildland fire use fire status to all new
starts; to weigh the risks and benefits posed by the fire, as well as
thoroughly document this analytical process; and to detect as early as
possible any reasons for reclassification of the fire to wildfire
status.

**Overview of Process**

As an overview to the Analysis and Decision Process presented below, the
steps below show how the decision process is intended to work.

-   Within 2 hours of ignition use Stage I \"go/no go\" decision chart.
    Document decision on NPS decision form.

-   Within 24 hours do Stage II analysis.

-   Develop burn plan.

-   Ongoing do Stage III analysis (daily revalidation of risks).

This process provides for:

-   Identification of evaluation criteria for the initial \"go/no go\"
    decision.

    -   Risk Assessment that considers, as a minimum:

    -   Fire growth predictions

    -   Cost

    -   Local/Regional/National Status

    -   Fire proximity to park boundary

    -   Fuel conditions

    -   Amount of WFU manageable by acres

    -   Impacts-visitor/user/community

    -   Threat to life and property

    -   Smoke management concerns

    -   Availability of resources

    -   Fire behavior

    -   Drought evaluation/impact

    -   Existing/predicted weather

    -   Expected duration of wildland fire use fire

    -   Provision for daily revalidation

**Detailed Description of Process**

Stage I Analysis: Initial Decision on New Ignitions (2 hour time limit)

At this stage, the preliminary decision is made, following confirmation
of a fire start. The objective of this analysis is to determine whether
or not the start meets preliminary criteria to be declared a wildland
fire use fire. This will be the process followed for all Wildland fire
use fires. Limits of acceptable risk focus on the following variables
identified in the Decision Chart, Stage I Risk Decision Matrices, and
specific unit prescription.

-   Threat to life or property.

-   Long-term drought severity.

-   Mid-range drought severity (ERC).

-   Regional/National preparedness levels.

-   Other proximate fire activity.

This risk assessment chart is used for the initial decision. This
decision must be made by the Park Superintendent or designated acting
Superintendent within two hours from the time of detection. The first
step is to determine the Burning Index (BI) and adjective rating for the
day of ignition. These ratings and percentiles are based on the NIMS
weather station at Ely District BLM.

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Observed Burning Index for Fuel     Adjective Rating
  Model H                             

  Below 32                            Low

  32-41                               Moderate

  42-53                               High

  Above 53                            Extreme
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

The second step is to identify the presence of unusually early, dry
conditions, which would produce a high risk of a Wildland fire use fire
eventually going out of prescription due to a prolonged fire season.
This is done by comparing the period when the fire starts with the fire
danger rating for that day, described above. This risk will be described
to the Superintendent as part of the decision process.

+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Adjective  | 1/1 | 5/1  | 6/1  | 7/1  | 8/1  | 9/1  | 10/1 | 11/1 |
| Rating     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | to  | to   | to   | to   | to   | to   | to   | to   |
|            |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|            | 4   | 5/31 | 6/30 | 7/31 | 8/31 | 9/30 | 1    | 1    |
|            | /30 |      |      |      |      |      | 0/31 | 2/31 |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| LOW        | LR  | LR   | LR   | MR   | MR   | HR   | MR   | LR   |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| MODERATE   | LR  | LR   | LR   | MR   | HR   | HR   | MR   | LR   |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| HIGH       | MR  | MR   | MR   | HR   | HR   | HR   | MR   | LR   |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| EXTREME    | MR  | MR   | HR   | HR   | HR   | HR   | HR   | MR   |
+------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

LR = LOW RISK MR = MODERATE RISK HR = HIGH RISK

**A. Fire Management Unit 1 - Most Restrictive Prescription**

Natural ignitions within Fire Management Unit 1 will be allowed to burn
when they meet all the following parameters. Once any portion of the
fire exceeds prescription, the fire will be declared a wildfire and will
be suppressed using the CONTROL strategy.

[Prescription Parameter]{.underline} [Parameter (not to be
exceeded)]{.underline}

Size/number No other natural fires burning within the park.

Active fire front No active fire front burning toward the park boundary
for more than 1 burning period on fires greater than 2 acres in size and
within 1/4 mile of the boundary. No active fire within 1/8 mile of the
boundary.

Burning Index No more than 1 consecutive burn­ing period above a BI of 32
for Fuel Model H\*(Staffing Class 2 threshold).

Forecast No red flag alerts have been issued and no sustained winds of
15 mph or greater have been forecasted.

Spotting No more than 50 yards. No spotting that cannot be suppressed
within 1 burning period.

Drought Risk Palmer Drought Index higher than -2 (near normal or
moister).

**B. Prescription Parameters for Fire Management Unit 2 - Conditional
Zone**

Natural ignitions within Fire Management Unit 2 will be allowed to burn
when they meet all the following parameters. Once any portion of the
fire exceeds prescription, the fire will be declared a wildfire and will
be suppressed using the appropriate suppression strategy identified in
the Escaped Fire Situation Analysis.

[Prescription Parameter]{.underline} [Parameter (not to be
exceeded)]{.underline}

Size/number No more than 1 other natural fire with a combined total
acreage of 1000 acres or less burning within the park.

Active fire front No active fire front burning toward the park boundary
for more than 1 burning period on fires greater than 100 acres in size
and within 1 mile of the boundary, or on fires greater than 2 acres in
size and within 1/4 mile of the boundary. No active fire within 1/8 mile
of the boundary.

Burning Index No more than 1 consecutive burn­ing period above a BI of 53
for Fuel Model H (Staffing Class 5 threshold).

Forecast No red flag alerts have been issued and no sustained winds of
25 mph or greater have been forecasted.

Spotting No more than 1/16 mile. No more than one spot fire may burn
independently of the main body; any others must be suppressed or tied
into the main body. For fires within 1/2 mile of the park boundary, no
spotting toward the boundary that cannot be suppressed within 1 burning
period.

Drought/Risk Palmer Drought Index higher than -3 (no worse than moderate
drought).

**C. Prescription Parameters for Fire Management Unit 3 - Natural fire
Zone**

Natural ignitions within Fire Management Unit 3 will be allowed to burn
when they meet all the following parameters. Once any portion of the
fire exceeds prescription, the fire will be dec­lared a wildfire and will
be suppressed using the appropriate suppression strategy identified in
the Escaped Fire Situation Analysis.

[Prescription Parameter]{.underline} [Parameter (not to be
exceeded)]{.underline}

Size/number No more than 2 other natural fires with a combined total
acreage of 2000 acres or less burning within the park.

Active fire front Active fire front may not exceed 1/2 of perimeter of
fire on fires greater than 500 A in size, for more than 2 burning
periods.

Burning Index No more than 5 consecutive burn­ing periods above a BI of
53 for Fuel Model H (Staffing Class 5 threshold).

Forecast No red flag alerts or warnings have been issued.

Spotting No more than 1/8 mile. No more than two spot fires may burn
independently of the main body; any others must be suppressed or tied
into the main body. No limit on spot fires within 100 yards of main
body. For fires within 1/2 mile of the park boundary, no spotting toward
the boundary that cannot be suppressed within one burning period.

Drought/Risk Palmer Drought Index higher than -3 (no worse than moderate
drought).

**[Stage II Analysis: (24 hour time limit)]{.underline}**

At this stage the Superintendent conducts a more thorough analysis of
the risk and assumption that formed the basis for the Stage I decision.
More time is spent looking at social, political, legal, economic, and
biological consequences associated with the long-term management of
escape of the Wildland fire use fire. Public safety needs to be
thoroughly addressed in this stage.

Objective: Determine whether the fire should remain a Wildland fire use
fire or be declared a wildfire, define a prescribed project area, and
describe management actions. This analysis will allow the Superintendent
to reassess the Stage I analysis.

**[Stage III Analysis: Management of Fire]{.underline}**

The objective during the management stage is to determine whether or not
fire activity matches the fire projections and is an acceptable risk. A
daily revalidation that assesses risk is required. As the fire increases
in size, management options may decrease. Management\'s ability to
exercise expedient control actions, which keep the fire within the
maximum allowable perimeter, demands adequate planning. The maximum
allowable perimeter is not a \"last chance line.\" Fire control actions
may need to be taken before the fire reaches the perimeter if the fire
is to be kept inside the perimeter. Continuity in personnel managing the
wildland fire use fire, and taking advantage of effective, topographical
control points becomes the foundations for success. The level of
analysis necessary for the daily revalidation will be commensurate to
the fire activity and predicted weather conditions.

3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2. Proposed Action

Under this alternative, the park will be zoned into FMUs based upon
FRCC, a Park infrastructure protection zone and a WUI zone. (See Figure
5 for FMU Zones.) Within these FRCC are numerous potential natural
vegetation communities. Prescriptions will be applied that will attempt
to return the landscape to conditions that resemble the natural fire
regimes (Projects will be targeted on a priority basis to the WUI,
infrastructure protection and areas in FRCC 2 or 3).

A program of prescribed burning and mechanical fuels reduction would be
used to simulate the natural effects of fires and to reduce hazard fuel
buildup. Fire hazards around developments and boundaries would be
systematically reduced. A mosaic of burned and unburned areas would be
created and maintained.

Natural ignitions would be allowed to burn in specified areas under
certain conditions favorable to their management. All human caused fires
would be promptly suppressed, as would fires, which pose a threat to
life or property. Only fires of a natural origin would be allowed to
burn, and only under prescribed conditions.

Areas with values at risk will be identified throughout the park in
which natural ignitions will either be suppressed or tightly controlled
to eliminate potential resource degradation. Examples of these areas are
developed areas, bristlecone pine groves and areas with cultural
resources. Other sensitive resource locations containing habitats for
sensitive species will also receive special consideration in planning
for fire management in order to avoid both direct and indirect impacts
from fire or suppression activities.

All fuels treatments under this alternative will be planned with the
following steps or environmental sideboards:

-   Identify the need for vegetative change.

-   Reducing risks/hazards to wildland urban interface communities;
    reintroducing fire into its natural role in ecosystems; and,
    protecting or enhancing resource values.

-   Identify resource at risk and develop mitigation measure to minimize
    potential impacts.

-   Identify the desired future condition. The desired future condition
    will be described from the GRBA Vegetation Management GIS database.
    Develop the project objectives. Objectives will be Number range
    CHAPTERSpecific, Measurable, Attainable, Reasonable, and Time
    Related (SMART) and will focus on reaching the desired future
    condition.

-   Identify and select design and treatment options.

-   Implement projects based upon availability of funding.

**Action Items in Priority:**

Under this alternative:

-   25 percent of the Wildland-Urban Interface FMU acreage will be
    treated during the life of this plan.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   50 percent of the Infrastructure FMU acreage will be treated during
    the life of this plan.

-   10 percent of the Condition Class 3 FMU acreage will be treated
    during the life of this plan. Emphasis will be given to restoration
    of the shrub-steppe, pinyon-juniper woodlands and the ponderosa pine
    potential natural vegetative community types.

-   5 percent of the Condition Class 2 FMU acreage will be treated
    during the life of this plan.

#### Fire management tools

1\) Wildland Fire Use **-** is the management of naturally ignited fires
to achieve resource benefits.. Wildland fire use will be managed to
provide benefits to the resources until fall rain or snowstorms put it
out.

2\) Prescribed Fire - is used to approximate the natural vegetative
disturbance of periodic fire occurrence. This tool will be used to
maintain fire dependent ecosystems and restore those outside their
natural balance. Generally, low intensity prescribed fire is applied to
clear ground of dangerous fuels like dead wood and brush. This
low-intensity fire is vital to the life cycles of fire-dependent range
and forest lands. Exactly how each unit is ignited depends on weather,
the lay of the land, and the intensity of the fire needed to meet the
goal of the burn. All ignition types will be considered under this
alternative. An approved burn plan will be required prior to any
treatments.

3\) Mechanical Fuels Reduction - In cases where prescribed fire cannot
be used due to risks to life, property and resources, mechanical
clearing of fuels will be conducted. This type of clearing is labor
intensive and expensive, but removes dangerous levels of vegetation
without the risks associated with prescribed fire. Mechanical treatments
will involve construction of fuel breaks for reduction of the vegetation
through the use of hand tools and chainsaws only. Mechanical treatments
will be conducted where on-site conditions are conducive to their use
and land use policies do not conflict.

4\) Full Suppression - Under Full Suppression, all ignitions are
aggressively attacked with the intent of control and containment.

# Fire Management Units for Great Basin National Park

**FRCC 1 FMU** - Fire regimes are within or near a historical range. The
risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Fire frequencies have
departed from historical frequencies by no more than one return
interval. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are
intact and functioning within a historical range. Where appropriate,
these areas can be maintained within the historical fire regime by
treatments such as fire use. FRCC 1 FMU = 19,734 acres.

# Fire Management Tools for this FMU

**Wildland Fire Use**-- Once a natural ignition occurs within this FMU,
a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) will be developed. The WFIP
is a progressively developed assessment and operational management plan
that documents the analysis and selection of strategies and describes
the appropriate management response for a wildland fire. A full WFIP
consists of three stages. Different levels of completion may occur for
differing management strategies (i.e., fires managed for resource
benefits will have two - three stages of the WFIP completed while some
fires that receive a suppression response may only have a portion of
Stage I completed). The following describes how the three stage WFIP
will be developed:

1\. Wildland Fire Implementation Plan - Stage I: Initial Fire Assessment

This is the preliminary stage of the WFIP and establishes documentation
groundwork for further stages. It is both an information gathering stage
and decision-making stage. This information provides location, fire
cause, administrative information, fuel conditions, weather, and fire
behavior. It consists of the Fire Situation, Initial GO/NO-GO Decision
Criteria Checklist, and Recommended Response Action. It aids Agency
Administrators in making the initial decision to manage a fire for
resource benefits or to suppress by providing location of fire, cause of
fire (human or natural caused), and validation of fire use decision
(GO/NO-GO decision). The fire situation analysis should be conducted
immediately after the report of an ignition.

The Initial GO/NO-GO Decision Criteria Checklist, and Recommended
Response Action should be conducted a minimum of 2 hours after report of
the ignition. The Decision Criteria Checklist provides the standard
evaluation criteria to determine if the current wildland fire meets
criteria to be managed for WFU. These criteria assess threats from the
fire, potential effects of the fire, risk from the fire, effects of
other fire activity on management capability, and allow the Agency
Administrator to evaluate other, possibly unforeseen or unanticipated,
issues. Once the Decision Criteria Checklist is complete, managers can
determine whether to initiate actions to manage the fire for resource
benefits or to initiate a suppression response.

2\. Wildland Fire Management Plan - Stage II: Short-Term Implementation
Actions

This stage will provide managers and staff with information to initiate
and continue management of the wildland fire for resource benefits. It
includes validation of short-term implementation actions as a decision.
This stage will provide predictions of where the fire may go, how
intense it may burn, how fast it may spread, what the necessary
short-term management actions are, what the full complexity is, and if
long-term management actions need to be addressed immediately.

Components of the WFIP Stage II and output products are:

##### Fire Behavior Predictions and Risk Assessment 

Short-term fire behavior predictions are vital to initial implementation
actions because they provide:

-   estimates of fire size and shape at a given time,

-   models of management alternatives,

-   determination of resource needs, production rates, and requirements,

-   placement of resources,

-   estimates of behavior under differential weather patterns,

-   estimates of ignition patterns, including spotting,

-   modeling for contingency action planning,

-   developing prescriptions through historical weather records,

-   verifying prediction outputs.

#  

Short-Term Implementation Actions

The Short-term Implementation Actions section describes what the initial
or immediate implementation actions will be. These actions can vary
significantly, depending upon specific circumstances of the particular
fire. In cases where the fire may be fuel-limited, surrounded by sparse
fuels or natural barriers with only limited spread potential, monitoring
may be specified as the necessary implementation actions. In other
cases, monitoring plus some form of limited mitigation actions may be
necessary. In still other cases, fuel types in which the fire is burning
may require immediate actions to delay, check, or direct the spread of
fire.

##### 

##### Complexity Analysis 

A Wildland and Prescribed Fire Complexity Analysis has been developed to
aid in evaluating the overall complexity of specific fires. This
analysis incorporates an assigned numeric complexity value for specific
complexity elements that are weighted in their contribution to overall
complexity. The weighted value is multiplied times the numeric value to
provide a total element rating. Then all total values are added to
generate the summed complexity numeric value. Breakpoint values are
provided for low, moderate, and high complexity.

Complexity elements that have been established include:

-   Safety

-   Threats to boundaries

-   Fuels and fire behavior

-   Objectives

-   Management organization

-   Improvements to be protected

-   Natural, cultural, and social values to be protected

-   Air quality values to be protected

-   Logistics

-   Political concerns

-   Tactical concerns

-   Interagency coordination

##### 

> 3\. Wildland Fire Implementation Plan - Stage III: Long-Term
> Assessment

This assessment provides the Agency Administrator with an aid to
determine if the Stage III, Long-Term Assessment and Implementation
Actions need to be developed, documented, and implemented immediately,
or if the fire can be managed through the established short-term
implementation actions until indicated otherwise by the Periodic Fire
Assessment. For many wildland fires, fuel continuity and spread
potential will be low. In other situations, environmental conditions
will preclude active burning and spread. For instances such as these,
immediate completion of Stage III of the WFIP will not need to occur
until specific thresholds are reached. These thresholds are assessed
subjectively on a chart or through the continued assessment provided by
the Periodic Fire Assessment.

To complete the assessment, local staff will evaluate the criteria and
determine if the fire warrants completion of the long-term
implementation actions (Stage III) at this time or if Stage II
implementation directions are adequate (if Stage II actions continue,
the Periodic Fire Assessment will determine if and when Stage III will
be prepared).

This supplements the Fire Management Plan by providing the full
long-term implementation actions necessary to manage the wildland fire
to accomplish identified objectives. This stage will provide a
definition of the ultimate acceptable geographic size of the fire
(represented by the Maximum Manageable Area (MMA). It will consider
long-term fire behavior predictions and long-term risk assessment. It
will assess the likelihood of the fire reaching the MMA perimeter, and
will document those operational management actions necessary to manage
long duration fires that will need mitigating measures to strengthen and
defend the MMA.

This stage details operational activities and documents the planning
completed to ensure adequate mitigation actions have been developed.
These actions will provide the best protection against fire activity
exceeding acceptable limits. Mitigation actions are those on-the-ground
activities that will serve to increase the defensibility of the MMA,
check, direct, or delay the spread of fire, and minimize threats to
life, property, and resources. Mitigation actions may include mechanical
and physical non-fire tasks and specific fire applications. Their
purpose is to construct fire lines, reduce excessive fuel
concentrations, reduce vertical fuel continuity, create fuel breaks or
barriers around critical or sensitive sites or resources, create
\"blacklines\" through controlled burnouts, and limited suppression
actions to limit fire spread and behavior. Completion of this stage is
determined (triggered) by either the Stage III Need Assessment or
through the Periodic Fire Assessment.

All wildland fires being managed under appropriate management response
strategies requiring WFIP Stage I, II, and III (meaning those fires
where the WFIP planning has progressed to Stage III) will have a defined
MMA. This is to ensure that there is a clear and common understanding of
the authorized size and location of the fire among Agency Administrators
and cooperators.

The maximum manageable area delineates the ultimate acceptable size for
a given wildland fire managed for resource benefits. It provides for
closely directed fire management application in a specific area defined
by resource objectives, fire and weather prescription elements, social
needs, political considerations, and management capability.

4\. Periodic Fire Assessment

This step provides a process to evaluate the continued capability of the
local unit to manage the fire for resource benefits, and to determine if
the fire is escalating in complexity and operational needs. If the
assessment shows inadequate capability to continue to manage the fire,
an indication is given to proceed to development of a WFSA. If
complexity and operational needs are escalating, the assessment
indicates the need to fully define a MMA, develop long-term fire
behavior predictions, conduct long-term risk assessment procedures, and
define detailed long-term implementation actions (WFIP - Stage III).
This assessment is completed as frequently as specified by the local
unit.

**Prescribed Fire -** Prescribed Fire will be used in those areas and
under conditions that will not result in the loss of key ecosystem
components to approximate the natural vegetative disturbance of periodic
fire occurrence. One hundred years of fire suppression has resulted in
heavy fuel loading in most ecosystems within the park. Low intensity
prescribed fire will be applied in order to prevent the loss of key
ecosystem components. This low-intensity fire is vital to the life
cycles of fire-dependent range and forest lands.

Fire management policy in this Fire Management Unit will be to:

-   All structures on the List of Classified Structures are identified
    as values at risk and will be protected by suppression actions. The
    suppression area will extend 1/8 mile around each historic
    structure, unless the fire situation or resource value dictates a
    larger suppression unit.

-   Once any portion of a fire exceeds a prescription parameter, declare
    the fire a wildfire and employ the suppression strategy applicable
    to the situation.

-   Suppress all human ignitions.

-   Only 10% of the acreage within sensitive watersheds will be treated
    until herbaceous vegetation has recovered to reduce sediment inputs
    from past treatment.

-   Within shrub-steppe and pinyon-juniper plant communities below 8,500
    feet elevation, fuel reduction and ecological restoration projects
    will be limited to mechanical treatments. All naturally occurring
    ignitions will be suppressed. This policy will prevent complete
    ecosystem conversion from cheatgrass invasion.

**FRCC 2 FMU** - Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their
historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components has
increased to moderate. Fire frequencies have departed (either increased
or decreased) from historical frequencies by more than one return
interval. This results in moderate changes to one or more of the
following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape
patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their
historical range. Where appropriate, these areas may need moderate
levels of restoration treatments, such as fire use and hand or
mechanical treatments, to be restored to the historical fire regime.
FRCC 2 FMU = 21,326 acres.

## Fire Management Tools for use in this FMU

**Wildland Fire Use** -- Once a natural ignition occurs within this FMU,
the steps as described under FRCC 1 FMU will be used to evaluate whether
to allow burning or suppressing.

**Prescribed Fire -** Prescribed Fire will be used in those areas and
under conditions that will not result in the loss of key ecosystem
components to approximate the natural vegetative disturbance of periodic
fire occurrence. A low intensity prescribed fire will be applied.

**Mechanical Treatments** -- In areas where it is determined that
prescribed fire and WFU will result in loss of key ecosystem components,
restoration treatments will be applied. Treatments that return the
landscape to a semblance of a natural fire regime will include thinning
the canopy, removing ladder fuels, and reducing fuel loading.
Silvicultural prescriptions will be developed to achieve the desired
future conditions for the site. Mechanical treatments will involve
construction of fuel breaks for reduction of the vegetation through the
use of hand tools and chainsaws. A small Bobcat will be used to assist
in removing fuels and the chipping of slash. Larger materials will be
sold as firewood or piled and burned on site.

Fire management policy in this Fire Management Unit will be to:

-   All structures on the List of Classified Structures are identified
    as values at risk and will be protected by suppression actions. The
    suppression area will extend 1/8 mile around each historic
    structure, unless the fire situation or resource value dictates a
    larger suppression unit.

-   Once any portions of a fire exceeds a prescription parameter,
    declare the fire a wildfire and employ the suppression strategy
    applicable to the situation and identified concurrently through the
    WFSA.

-   Suppress all human ignitions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Only 10% of the acreage within sensitive watersheds will be treated
    until herbaceous vegetation has recovered to reduce sediment inputs
    from past treatment.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Within shrub-steppe and pinyon-juniper plant communities below 8500
    feet in elevations, fuel reduction and ecological restoration
    projects will be limited to mechanical treatments only. All
    naturally occurring ignitions will be suppressed. This policy will
    prevent complete ecosystem conversion from cheatgrass invasion.

**FRCC 3 FMU** - Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their
historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high.
Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple
return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the
following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape
patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from
their historical range. Where appropriate, these areas may need high
levels of restoration treatments, such as hand or mechanical treatments.
These treatments are necessary before fire is used to restore the
historical fire regime. FRCC 3 FMU = 37,181 acres.

## Fire Management Tools for use in this FMU

**Full Suppression** -- All natural ignitions will be subject to full
suppression within this FMU due to very heavy fuel accumulations. The
risk of losing key ecosystem components is high from the resulting stand
replacing event.

**Mechanical Treatments** -- This will be the preferred fuel
reduction/fire regime restoration tool of choice. Treatments that return
the landscape to a semblance of a natural fire regime will involve
thinning the canopy, removing ladder fuels, and reducing the fuel
loading. Ladder fuels will be largely removed by cutting understory
trees and high fire-risk trees (such as brush, dog hair thickets, and
trees heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe and fir-engraver beetles).
The prescriptions cleanup will be covered in the biomass disposal
section.

**Prescribed Fire** - After restoration treatments have been completed
and monitoring shows that vegetation attributes have been restored, low
intensity prescribed fires will be used to maintain the natural
disturbance of periodic fire occurrence.

Fire management policy in this Fire Management Unit will be to:

-   Suppress all human and natural ignitions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Within shrub-steppe and pinyon-juniper plant communities below 8,500
    feet elevation, fuel reduction and ecological restoration projects
    will be limited to mechanical treatments only. All naturally
    occurring ignitions will be suppressed. This policy will prevent
    complete ecosystem conversion from cheatgrass invasion.

# Infrastructure FMU - This unit is located around park infrastructure. Under this alternative a 1/8 mile radius circle will be classified as the infrastructure unit around all campgrounds, housing, picnic areas, water systems and the visitor center. The intent of this unit is to reduce fuels where necessary to reduce the loss of structures. Infrastructure FMU = 1,047 acres.

Fire Management Tools for use in this FMU

**Mechanical Treatments** -- This will involve a thinning treatment that
thins the canopy, removes ladder fuels, and reduce fuel loads for up to
1/8 mile from the center of the infrastructure. An uneven-aged
silvicultural prescription utilizing a group-selection cutting method
will be implemented. The uneven-aged silvicultural system involves the
manipulation of the stand to simultaneously maintain high forest canopy
of a diversity of desirable species, remove interlocking crowns,
stimulate regeneration of a diversity of both over-story and under-story
species and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range
of age classes. Ladder fuels will be largely removed by cutting
understory trees and high fire-risk trees. The prescriptions cleanup
will involve removal of 100 percent of the large biomass and the
chipping and/or pile burning of smaller materials.

**Prescribed Fire -** After mechanical treatments have been completed,
low intensity prescribed fires will be used to maintain the natural
disturbance of periodic fire occurrence.

Fire management policy in this Fire Management Unit will be to:

-   Suppress all human and natural ignitions.

-   Within shrub-steppe and pinyon-juniper plant communities below 8,500
    feet elevation, fuel reduction and ecological restoration projects
    will be limited to mechanical treatments only. All naturally
    occurring ignitions will be suppressed. This policy will prevent
    complete ecosystem conversion from cheatgrass invasion.

# Wildland/Urban Interface FMU - The only effort that will protect communities from the threat of wildfire are those that seek to treat houses and the surrounding properties, and the forest directly adjacent to houses. Under this alternative, the WUI Unit refers to areas 1/2 mile from the houses on the edge of the park boundary. WUI FMU = 4,444 acres

Fire Management Tools for use in this FMU

**Mechanical Treatments** - The fuels reduction efforts will be
implemented as two distinct treatments. The intensive zone will involve
a heavy thinning for the first 1/8 mile from houses or private lands on
the park boundary. The extensive zone will involve a more conservative
treatment for up to 3/8 mile from the intensive zone. The goal of the
intensive zone treatment is to reduce the intensity of an approaching
wildfire, preferably reducing it to a surface fire. Thinning the canopy,
removing ladder fuels, and reducing the fuel load accomplish this. This
area can serve as a \"defensible space\", a fuel break, and a potential
fire line. The prescriptions will leave 75 trees or more per acre and
include cleanup of 100% of the slash through chipping and/or pile
burning. The goal of the extensive zone treatment is to reduce the
ability of the forest to sustain or initiate a crown fire. Groups of
trees will be left intact in the extensive zone, with interlocking
crowns within the groups, but continuous canopy is thinned to separate
tree groups. Ladder fuels will be largely removed by cutting understory
trees and high fire-risk trees. Larger biomass will be removed from the
site. Smaller biomass will be chipped and scattered to slow the
infestation of cheatgrass. A small portion of slash will be lopped and
scattered to create an environment conducive to recovery of herbaceous
vegetation.

**Prescribed Fire -** After mechanical treatments have been completed.
Low intensity prescribed fires will be used to maintain the natural
vegetative disturbance of periodic fire occurrence.

Fire management policy in this Fire Management Unit will be to:

-   Suppress all human and natural ignitions.

-   Utilize mechanical treatments that reduce fuels to prepare sites for
    prescribed fire in the future.

-   Within shrub-steppe and pinyon-juniper plant communities below 8500
    feet in elevations, fuel reduction and ecological restoration
    projects will be limited to mechanical treatments only. All
    naturally occurring ignitions will be suppressed. This policy will
    prevent complete ecosystem conversion from cheatgrass invasion.

    **Monitoring and Evaluation**

    All treatments will have an effectiveness-monitoring program. The
    objective of the program will be to determine if treatments are
    meeting the objectives as outlined. All projects do not need
    complete programs. Numerous projects with similar objectives in
    similar vegetation types will be grouped under a single monitoring
    program. It is recognized that the volume of monitoring must remain
    within the available staff time and financial constraints.
    Monitoring is the feedback component of the adaptive management
    process, where the success or failure of a treatment is incorporated
    into decisions for future management.

**Smoke Management**

As per Public Law 95-95, compliance with Federal, state and local air
quality regulations is mandatory and will require coordination with the
state and local air quality authorities. Personnel developing Prescribed
Fire Plans will be aware of state and local regulations and the impacts
that a specific project may have on critical areas. If potential
negative impacts from smoke could occur, an assessment of potential
downwind impacts using an appropriate smoke management model will be
completed.

# Biomass Disposal

Biomass created from thinning operations will be disposed of in several
ways. Most materials will be sold for firewood to local communities.
Larger materials could be sold for milling if a buyer can be found.
Removal of small-diameter timber from overstocked forests reduces the
fire hazard. To return nutrients to the soil, a portion of slash usually
in the form of chips will be left in the field. Leaving slash increases
the fire hazard again, but once the slash begins to decay, the fire
hazard decreases substantially. This will provide options for low-value
or underutilized material removed to accomplish forest restoration,
reduce fuel loading to prevent catastrophic forest fire, and offset land
management costs

**3.3 ALTERNATIVE DROPPED FROM ANALYSIS**

A full suppression alternative was proposed but was dropped from further
analysis since it did not address the intent of: 1) The National Fire
Plan which is a long-term investment that will help protect communities
and natural resources, and most importantly, the lives of firefighters
and the public; and, 2) The GRBA GMP, which directs the park to maintain
the greatest degree of biological diversity and ecosystem integrity
within the provisions of the authorizing legislation.

Table 4. Comparison of Effects by Alternative

+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| #### Issues    | #### Alternative 1       | #### Alternative 2       |
|                |                          |                          |
|                | #### No Action           | #### Proposed Action     |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Issue 1 Effect | #### Long-term           | ####                     |
| on Fire Regime |  moderate beneficial imp | Long-term major benefici |
| Condition      | acts to areas of FRCC 1  | al impacts to areas with |
| Classes.       | and 2. Negligible benefi | in all FRCC's and restor |
|                | cial impacts to FRCC 3.  | ing a natural fire regim |
|                |                          | e across the landscape.  |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Issue 2        | Major long-term adverse  | #                        |
| Effects on     | impacts to park          | ### Moderate long-term b |
| Park           | infrastructure. Loss of  | eneficial impacts to pro |
| Infrastructure | infrastructure would be  | tecting park infrastruct |
|                | an irretrievable         | ure. Loss of infrastruct |
|                | commitment of resources. | ure would be minimized.  |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Issue 3        | #### Ma                  | #### WUI FM              |
| Effects on     | jor long-term adverse im | U utilizes thinning; fir |
| Wildland/Urban | pacts to areas classifie | e intensity would be red |
| Interface.     | d as WUI. Fails to addre | uced as a wild fire ente |
|                | ss existing fuel loads.  | rs the FMU. Major long-t |
| ####           |                          | erm beneficial impacts t |
|                |                          | o private developments.  |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| ####           | #### Major               | Major long-term benefits |
|  Issue 4 Cultu | long-term adverse impact | to cultural resources.   |
| ral Resources. | s to cultural resource.  | Reducing heavy fuels     |
|                |                          | around historic          |
|                |                          | structures would lower   |
|                |                          | fire intensity           |
|                |                          | minimizing potential     |
|                |                          | effects                  |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| #### Iss       | Continual decline of     | #### Continual dec       |
| ue 5 Effects o | sensitive species due to | line of sensitive specie |
| n NPS Sensitiv | habitat loss and         | s due to habitat loss an |
| e Wildlife and | degradation. Long-term   | d degradation. Short-ter |
|  Fish Species. | major adverse impacts    | m major adverse impacts  |
|                | can be expected.         | can be expected. Over ti |
| #              |                          | me, long-term beneficial |
|                |                          |  effects can be expected |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Issue 6        | #### M                   | Major long-term          |
| Effects on     | ajor long-term adverse i | beneficial impacts. Fire |
| Nonnative      | mpacts due to the failur | intensity would be       |
| Plants.        | e of the no action alter | lowered allowing         |
|                | native to address the is | vegetation to recover    |
| ####           | sue of nonnative plants. | and out compete          |
|                |                          | nonnatives               |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Issue 7        | Large-scale fires near   | #### Tr                  |
| Effects on     | water sources that would | eatments will have long- |
| Water Quality. | not be resource          | term major beneficial im |
|                | beneficial.              | pacts to water quality.  |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Issue 8        | All projects will be     | ###                      |
| Effects on Air | kept within established  | # All projects will be k |
| Quality.       | thresholds for air       | ept within established t |
|                | quality developed by the | hresholds for air qualit |
|                | State of Nevada.         | y developed by the State |
|                | Short-term impacts can   |  of Nevada. Short-term i |
|                | be expected.             | mpacts can be expected.  |
|                |                          |                          |
|                | ####                     |                          |
+----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+

####  

#### CHAPTER 4

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

This chapter provides the analytical basis for comparison of
alternatives outlined in the prior section. It discusses the anticipated
environmental effects associated with implementation of the various
alternatives.

**4.0 METHODOLOGY**

The following definitions were used to evaluate the context, intensity,
duration and cumulative impacts associated with project alternatives:

**Context** is the setting in which each impact is analyzed, such as
affected region, society as a whole, affected interests, and/or
locality. In this EA, the intensity of impacts is evaluated within a
park-wide context.

**Intensity** is a measure of the scale of the impact, which can be
defined as detrimental as well as beneficial. The intensity of an impact
may be:

1.  negligible, when an impact is localized and not measurable or at the
    lowest level of detection;

2.  minor, when the impact is localized and slight but detectable;

3.  moderate, when an impact is readily apparent and appreciable; or

4.  major, when the impact is either severely adverse or of great
    benefit and highly noticeable.

**Duration** is a measure of the time period over which the effects of
an impact persist. The duration of impacts may be:

1.  short term, when impacts occur only during the implementation phase
    or last less than one year; or

2.  long term, when the impact lasts one year or longer.

**Cumulative impacts** are impacts on the environment that result from
the incremental impacts of the action when added to the other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who
takes the action. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

**4.1 IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCE VALUES**

NPS Management Policies 2001 leave determinations of impairment to the
responsible park manager and only direct that an action should be
considered to constitute impairment if, in the manager's professional
judgment, the action "would harm the integrity of the park resources or
values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for
the enjoyment of those resources or values." NPS policies (*Section
1.4.5*) further state that whether an impact meets this definition (i.e.
would harm the integrity of the park resources or values) depends on

1\) the particular resources and values that would be affected;

2\) the severity, duration, and timing of the impact;

3\) the direct and indirect effects of the impact; and,

4\) the cumulative effects of the impact in question along with other
impacts that are in

existence.

The current management policies do not state what would be acceptable or
not acceptable (i.e. constitute impairment) under any of these factors.
It is left to the manager to assess information on each of these
factors, weigh that information, and use professional judgment to decide
if the integrity of the park resources or values will be harmed by the
action.

An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent
that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is:

1\) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park,

2\) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or

3\) identified as a specific goal in the park's general management plan
or other relevant NPS planning documents.

An impact would be less likely to constitute impairment to the extent
that it is an unavoidable result, which cannot reasonably be further
mitigated, of an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity
of park resources or values.

Impairment may occur from visitor activities; NPS activities in the
course of managing a park; or activities undertaken by concessionaires,
contractors, and others operating in the park as well as from external
actions. Impairment can occur from inaction as well as action. For
example, failure to prevent the spread of a seriously disruptive alien
species may impair park resources.

A determination of impairment is made for each issue under each
alternative within each "Conclusion" section under "Environmental
Consequences".

**4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1. No Action, Implement Existing Fire Management
Plan**

Issue 1: Effects on FRCCs.

Environmental Consequences: Under the No Action alternative there would
be negligible impacts to areas within FRCC 3. Since mechanical
treatments are not included in this alternative most condition class
areas could not undergo any pretreatments to allow future WFU. This is
especially true for pinyon-juniper woodlands, shrub-steppe and ponderosa
pine plant communities.

Current conditions within Pinyon-Juniper and Ponderosa pine communities
would not support the use of prescribed fire due to dense stand
conditions and the loss of understory vegetation. Ladder fuels are dense
and a running crown fire would result if one attempted to ignite these
stands. Resource benefits would not be achieved. Shrub-steppe
communities are severely encroached upon by pinyon and juniper and have
also lost the majority of herbaceous and shrub vegetation. Remnant areas
of shrub steppe vegetation need to be protected to serve as a seed
source for repopulation of this plant community. The inability to
pre-treat these areas under the alternative is a major impediment to
restoring a natural fire regime across the landscape. Due to existing
fuel conditions within the park, the prevention of large high intensity
wild fires is a remote possibility. This alternative limits the ability
to treat sites in FRCC 3 areas to lower fire intensity.

Under the No Action alternative there would be long-term moderate
impacts to areas of FRCC 1 and 2. Prescribed fire and Wildland Fire Use
for Resource Benefit would be used to maintain the natural fire regimes
within these areas. Higher elevation forest and grasslands would be the
beneficiary of this alternative.

Conclusion: This alternative limits the ability to treat sites in FRCC 3
areas to lower fire intensity minimizing potential resource damage.
Under the no action alternative there would be long-term moderate
impacts to areas of FRCC 1 and 2. Actions necessary to preserve or
restore the integrity of park resources or values are not met. Under
this alternative impairment to park resource would not likely occur but
the inability to treat FRCC 3 areas would allow continued degradation of
vegetative resources as a result of fire suppression and increase the
potential for large scale stand replacing events.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse impacts under this
alternative would result from potential stand replacing returning those
areas of FRCC 3 to FRCC 1. While this meets the intent of fuel reduction
it has the potential for slow recovery or the need for human
intervention.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur with this alternative. Over time, a long time,
plant communities supported on these sites would return. Restoration
could be conducted that would allow seeding and erosion controls which
would assist in ecosystem recovery.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
resources would occur with this alternative.

Mitigation: None prescribed.

## Issue 2: Effects on Park Infrastructure.

Environmental Consequences: FMU Unit 1 contains all park infrastructures
except the Wheeler Campground and is the most restrictive of the three
fire management units. All park infrastructure except for Wheeler
Campground are located in areas of FRCC 3. Since mechanical treatments
are not included, most areas could not under go any type of
pretreatments to allow the use of fire as a tool. This alternative fails
to address the current existing conditions and sets the stage for a
stand replacing events by not allowing fuel reduction in areas with
excessive fuels accumulations. Infrastructure would be damaged or lost
under this alternative. This alternative would have potential major long
term adverse impacts to park infrastructure.

Conclusion: All park infrastructure except for the Wheeler Campground
and located in areas of FRCC 3. Mechanical treatments are not included
in this alternative. This alternative fails to address the current
existing conditions and sets the stage for high intensity fire events
with potential adverse impacts to park infrastructure. Fuels
accumulation would continue with no clear plan of protection.
Infrastructure could potentially damaged or lost under this alternative.
This alternative would not constitute impairment but has unavoidable
result, which cannot reasonably be further mitigated based upon the
alternative.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse impacts would include
the loss and damage of park infrastructure.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: The loss of existing
infrastructure from a wildfire would be an irreversible commitment of
resources. Once destroyed, the only option would be to replace in kind.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
resources would occur.

Mitigation -- Based upon the alternative, no mitigation is prescribed.

## Issue 3: Effects on WUI.

Environmental Consequences: FMU Unit 1 contains all areas classified as
the WUI and is the most restrictive of the three fire management units.
All acreage classified as WUI are located in areas of FRCC 2 or 3. Since
mechanical treatments are not included in this alternative most areas
could not under go any type of pretreatments to allow the use of fire as
a tool. This alternative fails to address the current existing
conditions and sets the stage for a wildfire event by not allowing fuel
reduction in areas with excessive fuels accumulations. The potential for
structure loss and human safety concerns are great. This alternative
would have potential major long-term adverse impacts to areas classified
as within the WUI.

Conclusion: This alternative fails to address current existing
conditions. The potential for structure loss and human safety concerns
exists. This alternative would not constitute impairment to park
resources but has potential adverse consequences to adjacent private
property.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse impacts would include
the loss and damage of private structures adjacent to the park boundary.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur. Private structures can be rebuilt following loss
from a wild fire.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation is prescribed.

Issue 4: Effects on Cultural Resources.

Environmental Consequences: Heavy fuel loads would create a high
intensity fire that would be hard to control, resulting in total loss of
the architectural and dating materials pertaining to historical
structures. As for the prehistoric sites, a high intensity fire would
also have a negative effect not only on artifacts such as lithics, which
will shatter, or ceramics, in which paint will burn off or warp but also
on pictograph and petroglyph sites. Large quantities of fuels at these
types of sites would cause the rock surface to spall causing total loss.
Alternative 1 would have potential adverse impacts to the cultural
resource within the park. In order to prevent impacts to cultural sites
from mechanical treatments, archeological Section 106 compliance will be
performed for all proposed actions. Prescriptions will then be adapted
to minimize or eliminate impacts.

Conclusion: Fuels accumulation would be allowed to continue resulting in
increased efforts to protect cultural resource. By waiting for a fire to
occur prior to treatments, the loss of historic structures, with several
of these sites on the National Register of Historic Places could occur,
along with possibly having an adverse effect upon the prehistoric sites
within the park. This alternative would be less likely to constitute an
impairment to the extent that it is an unavoidable result, which cannot
reasonably be further mitigated based upon the alternative.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

## Unavoidable Adverse Effects: None expected.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: Irreversible commitment of
historic resources would occur due to potential consumption by fire.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation prescribed.

**Issue 5: Effects on NPS Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species.**

As a result of re-establishing more natural fire regimes, species that
had previously benefited from fire suppression may, in the future, see
their habitat reduced in size. This will have negative impacts on
species that use fire-suppressed habitats. In general, it is better to
re-establish a more natural fire regime rather than attempt to maintain
unnatural fire regimes and unnatural plant communities. This generality
holds even if re-established fire regimes have a negative effect on
individual species. However, while the long-term goal may be to
re-establish natural fire regimes, it may have short-term goals that
retain key habitat for native species until other habitat has become
suitable or until we are comfortable that the species is adequately
managed. It is possible, for example, for the overall goal of
re-establishing natural fire regimes to be non-impairment and for an
aggressive series of projects to be impairment if they are timed so as
to have unacceptable short-term affects on habitat and population levels
that preclude viable populations of naturally occurring species in the
future.

Wildlife: For animals, the vegetation structure spatially arranges the
resources needed to live and reproduce, including food, shelter and
hiding cover. Some fires alter the vegetation structure in relatively
subtle ways, for example, reducing litter and dead herbs in
variable-sized patches. Other fires change nearly every aspect of
vegetation structure: woody plants may be stripped of foliage and
killed; litter and duff may be consumed, exposing mineral soil;
underground structures, such as roots and rhizomes, may be killed (for
example, in most coniferous trees) or rejuvenated (for example, in many
grass and shrub species, aspen, and oak) (Smith 2000).

Under the no action alternative, short-term impacts would be negligible
since no mechanical treatments would occur and prescribed fire would not
likely occur due to high fuel loads. These areas are within the FRCC 3
zone. However, long-term impacts would be major and adverse. Existing
shrub steppe, open woodland and ponderosa pine habitats would continue
to shrink in area due to woodland and forest expansion. Wildfire would
continue to be a threat, which could lead to the immediate loss of
existing shrub steppe and open woodland with extensive restoration
efforts needed post-fire. Since most sensitive wildlife species are
associated with shrub steppe and open woodland habitats, the no action
alternative would likely lead to further declines in abundance and
distribution.

Impacts to sensitive wildlife species associated with higher elevation
forests would be long-term, moderate and beneficial. Fire and other
natural disturbances would be allowed to continually play a role in
forest succession. Short-term impacts would be negligible due to no
mechanical treatments and limited prescribed fire.

Fish: Due to high fuel loadings in sensitive watersheds containing BCT,
effects of this alternative would be major and adverse in both the short
term and long term. Large-scale stand replacing events would occur.
Impacts to aquatic habitats and BCT would result from increased
sedimentation and erosion processes that could render habitats
unsuitable. Specifically, increased temperature can impair or even kill
the species; increased nitrates and phosphates (from retardant drops)
can cause algae blooms that will drastically reduce the amount of oxygen
in the water; and increased turbidity from falling ash and erosion can
impair spawning grounds. Even prescribed fires and WFU has the potential
to adversely impact BCT populations. The Granite fire that occurred in
2001 was within a sensitive watershed. While only 614 acres in size,
this stand-replacing event had major impacts on the newly established
BCT population due to high sediment loading. It is thought that this
event eliminated young of the year BCT. While attempts are being made to
restore BCT to streams, populations for several years will remain small.
The loss of one or more of these populations would set back recovery and
require a reassessment of this species under the ESA.

Conclusion: The no action alternative would lead to the decline of
sensitive species associated with shrub steppe, open woodlands and
ponderosa pine habitats due to woodland expansion and habitat loss.
Sensitive wildlife species associated with higher elevation forests
would experience readily apparent and appreciable response in abundance
and distribution due to continued succession. Impacts to sensitive
watersheds would be major and long-term. While in the short-term it
might appear as impairment to park wildlife and fisheries resources as a
result of species decline but in the long-term these systems would
recover either naturally or though human intervention. This alternative
would not likely constitute impairment to park resources.

Cumulative Effects: Continued application of alternative 1 would lead to
decreasing area and distribution of shrub steppe and open woodland
habitat with associated abundance and distribution declines of sensitive
wildlife species. Loss would occur due to woodland expansion and fire
occurrence in such habitats by managing to maintain an unnatural fire
regime.

## 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Sedimentation in to live water sources due
to treatments utilizing fire will occur.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: Limit prescribed fire to 10 percent of the area shrub steppe
or open woodland habitat in any given fire return interval. Since over
16,000 acres of shrub steppe and open woodland have been lost to
woodland expansion, remaining habitat needs to be preserved and
maintained. Limit prescribed fires to less then 10 percent of any
sensitive watershed and located area to ½ mile from stream channels.

#### 

Issue 6: Effects on Nonnative Plants.

Environmental Consequences: The No Action Alternative does not address
the issue of nonnative plants. In particular, Cheat grass is a major
concern. Prescribed fire and WFU in the lower elevation plant
communities would set the stage for infestation and potential ecosystem
change. This alternative would have potential major long-term adverse
impacts to the park by failing to address nonnative plant infestation.

Conclusion: The No Action Alternative does not adequately address
nonnative plant issues. In particular, Cheat grass is a major concern.
Prescribed fire and WFU in the lower elevation plant communities would
set the stage for infestation and potential major long-term ecosystem
change. As wildfires become more common cheatgrass can essentially
dominate a site. Native species can occupy sites that were dominated by
cheatgrass, but this is not a common occurrence (Monsen 1994). Under
this alternative impairment to park resource would not likely occur but
impacts associated with this issue would require intensive restoration
efforts to reverse.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Cheat grass infestations in lower elevation
areas treated through either prescribed fire or wildland fire use.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation -- Suppressing all wildland fires and not conducting
prescribed fires in communities that are subject to nonnative plant
infestation would mitigate potential effects of alternative 1. Utilize
restoration techniques on ground disturbing actions for treatment
preparation. This would include the Sagebrush-Steppe, Mountain
Sagebrush - Mahogany Savannah and Pinyon-Juniper woodlands.

**Issue 7: Effects on Water Quality.**

Environmental Consequences: Under the No Action alternative there would
be negligible impacts to water quality. Most fires would continue to be
suppressed, which would limit the input of sediments and nutrients into
park waters. Vegetation will continue to encroach upon water sources,
which will in effect alter the water quantity and quality by reducing
the amount of water available to flow downstream, reduce temperature and
filter out additional sediments and nutrients.

Since vegetation is expected to continue to build up near water sources,
if and when it does burn, the impacts to water quality will be immense,
with large amounts of sediments and nutrients entering the water, along
with excessive water temperatures. Sediments can bury fish spawning
grounds; nutrients, in particular nitrates, can cause algal blooms which
will deprive the water of oxygen for other aquatic organisms; and
increased water temperatures can exceed aquatic organisms tolerance
levels. For example, trout do not survive in water greater than 70
degrees Fahrenheit.

Conclusion: Under the no action alternative there would be negligible
impacts to water quality. Impairment to park water resources would not
likely occur; however the continued buildup of vegetative resources as a
result of fire suppression could set the stage for large scale fires
near water sources that would not be resource beneficial.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Unavoidable adverse impacts under this
alternative would result from hot fires near water sources that would
impact water quality. While this meets the intent of fuel reduction it
would result in ecosystem change and slow recovery.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur with this alternative. Over a long time span, the
water quality of the effected streams, springs, and lakes would return
to levels that would support a diversity of aquatic life.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
resources would occur with this alternative.

Mitigation: None prescribed.

**Issue 8: Effects on Air Quality.**

Environmental Consequences: Smoke emissions from unwanted wildland fires
will continue to occur at some level every year under this alternative.
Some fire management tools allow more control over when and where fires,
and hence smoke events, occur. The geography of the park offers many
advantages that will serve to minimize smoke impacts: its high elevation
and vigorous winds assure good mixing during most of the fire season.
Most smoke plumes from fire operations would disperse at middle to upper
elevations into remote areas. Each WFU and prescribed fire project will
be implemented in compliance with the state Smoke Management Plan and
managed to maintain smoke emissions below the legal health thresholds.

Wildfire - Wildfires produce varying effects to air quality because the
level of impact is dependent upon the location, size and time needed for
suppression of any fire that occurs in a given fire season. There is the
potential for episodes of low air quality due to large wildfires burning
in the accumulated fuels from previous fire suppression. Extreme
conditions can create unmanageable fires and extended low air quality
periods. Under the Clean Air Act, smoke from a naturally caused wildfire
is not considered a man-caused activity. Fire suppression activities are
not regulated by the state Smoke Management Plan. It is anticipated that
suppression strategies will be successful in limiting air quality
problems by confine, contain, and control strategies.

Prescribed Fire - This fire management tool allows for the highest
degree of air quality management. Burns would be scheduled to coincide
with periods of acceptable burn conditions and mixing heights. Smoke
impacts would be managed, monitored, and mitigated according to
requirements contained in the state Smoke Management Plan. The
visibility-monitoring network of the National Park Service has not
identified Wildland fire use fires to be a significant contributor to
visibility degradation in the park.

Wildland Fire Use - The effects to air quality should be less than
wildfire and slightly greater than prescribed fire. WFU provides
opportunities for careful planning and management, though their random
nature and often-long duration make them somewhat less predictable to
manage than prescribed burn operations. Naturally occurring fires would
be allowed to burn as long as prescribed conditions are being met. The
park will mitigate smoke impacts by taking appropriate control actions
to suppress a fire if serious visibility impairment occurs. The park
will consult with the Nevada Department of Environmental Quality and the
Nevada Smoke Management Plan to determine whether smoke dispersal
conditions and air quality conditions are adequate to allow fires to
continue to burn. If the impact of smoke does become significant (as
evaluated through the daily decision tree), several actions may be
taken: additional fires may be classified as wildfires and suppressed;
the current fire(s) may be suppressed; or the current fire(s) may be
allowed to continue with smoke warnings posted for visitors and daily
re-evaluations made through the decision tree.

Conclusion: This alternative will have moderate short-term impacts to
air quality. Impairment to park resources would not likely occur.

Cumulative Effects: Depending upon the number of wildfires burning and
the proximity to the park. Smoke effects could become cumulative on a
regional scale.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: None anticipated.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: Mitigate smoke impacts by taking appropriate control actions
to suppress a fire if serious visibility impairment occurs.

**4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2. Proposed Action**

Issue 1: Effects on FRCCs.

Environmental Consequences: Based upon the existing acreage within areas
of FRCC 3 and its predominately down slope location from areas FRCC 1
and 2, the prevention of a large-scale high intensity fire event is
remote. Thinning and prescribed fires would; however, lower the
intensity of such an event in areas treated. This will improve the
chance of containment or create containment areas as a wildfire moves
into treated areas. This lowering of intensity would also facilitate
ecosystem recovery by leaving large areas of vegetation intact after the
fire passes. This is especially true for pinyon-juniper woodlands, shrub
steppe and ponderosa pine plant communities. Thinning can allow land
managers to conduct prescribed fire with less risk of escape. Thinning
also opens up stands to greater solar radiation and wind movement
resulting in warmer temperatures and drier fuels throughout the fire
season. While this openness can encourage a surface fire to spread, it
is also easier to control -- and even under severe weather conditions,
an open stand is less likely to support a crown fire. The ability to
pre-treat these areas has major long-term benefits in restoring a
natural fire regime across the landscape. This alternative allows the
ability to treat sites in FRCC 3 areas to lower fire intensity and not
result in resource damage, which would have long-term beneficial
impacts.

Under this alternative there would be long-term moderate beneficial
impacts to areas of FRCC 1 and 2. Prescribed fire and WFU would be used
to maintain the natural fire regimes within these areas. Higher
elevation forest and grasslands would be the beneficiary of this
alternative.

The WUI and FMU are mostly within areas of former shrub steppe. This
alternative calls for intensive thinning within these areas, which over
time will restore this plant community.

Conclusion: This alternative allows the ability to treat sites in FRCC 3
areas to lower fire intensity and not result in resource damage, which
would have long-term beneficial impacts.

Under this alternative there would be long-term moderate beneficial
impacts to areas of FRCC 1 and 2. Under this alternative impairment to
park resources would not likely occur.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: None.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are prescribed.

## Issue 2: Effects on Park Infrastructure.

Environmental Consequences: This alternative specifically addresses park
infrastructure. By creating a separate FMU that utilizes thinning, fire
intensity would be reduced as a wildfire enters the FMU. Damage to park
infrastructure would be minimized under this alternative. This
alternative will have moderate long-term beneficial impacts in
protecting park infrastructure from wildfires.

Conclusion: Impairment to park infrastructure would not likely occur. By
creating a separate FMU that utilizes thinning, fire intensity would be
reduced as a wild fire enters the FMU. Damage to park infrastructure
would be minimized.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: None anticipated.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are prescribed.

## Issue 3: Effects on WUI.

Environmental Consequences: This alternative specifically addresses WUI.
By creating a separate FMU that utilizes thinning, fire intensity would
be reduced as a wildfire enters the FMU. Damage to adjacent private
developments would be minimized under this alternative. This alternative
will have major long-term beneficial impacts in protecting private
developments adjacent to the park boundary from wildfire events. By
treating 100 percent of the FMU over time, fires that originate could be
readily contained as they enter the WUI FMU.

Conclusion: Impairment to park resources and adjacent resources would
not likely occur. By creating a separate FMU that utilizes thinning,
fire intensity would be reduced as a wild fire enters the FMU.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are prescribed.

Issue 4: Effects on Cultural Resources.

Environmental Consequences: With Alternative 2 using mechanical
treatments for fuel load reduction, the impact of fire upon
archeological (prehistoric and historic) is reduced significantly. By
reducing heavy fuels around historic structures and then conducting low
intensity prescribed burns, if a large fire were to occur, this site
preparation would lower the intensity minimizing potential effects. This
alternative would have major long-term benefits to cultural resources.

Conclusion: With the reduction of heavy fuels within and around
archeological sites (prehistoric and historic) and the use of prescribed
burns, there is a reduction in the adverse impact that could occur
during a high intensity fire resulting in the protection of the cultural
resource. No resource impairment would likely occur.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Until which time, an alternative of this
type can be funded and implemented, large-scale high intensity wildfires
will have the potential to consume untreated historic structures.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: Mitigation of potential effects would be using mechanical
treatments and conducting prescribed burns that are focused on cultural
sites within areas of FRCC 2 and 3. Reducing fuel loads that threaten
cultural sites would not only protect the sites from high intensity
fires but from vegetation over-growth.

Issue 5: Effects on NPS Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species.

Wildlife: Under the proposed action short-term impacts from mechanical
treatments would be moderate for sensitive wildlife species associated
with shrub steppe and open woodland. Mechanical treatments would be
targeted in woodlands adjacent to remnant shrub steppe and open
woodlands. Since shrub-steppe and open woodland wildlife habitat would
not be directly impacted, sensitive wildlife populations would not be
impacted. Long-term impacts of mechanical treatments would be
beneficial. The objective would be to expand shrub steppe and open
woodland habitats. Sensitive shrub steppe dependent wildlife species
should respond favorably to impacts through increased abundance and
distribution.

Short-term impacts of prescribed fire treatments could have minor
negative impacts to sensitive wildlife species due to immediate loss of
habitat and forage. Long-term impacts would have moderate beneficial
impacts to sensitive wildlife species. Mechanical treatments done prior
to prescribed fire will result in reduced fuel loads and increased
abundance of native vegetation leading to a cooler fire. This would lead
to greater recovery towards shrub steppe or open woodland habitats.
Sensitive wildlife species abundance would increase appreciably.

Impacts of wildfire over the long-term would be minor due to
implementation of mechanical thinning treatments and prescribed fire.
Such actions would reduce the severity of such fire, deriving better
succession to shrub steppe and open woodland habitats and benefiting
sensitive wildlife species abundance and distribution.

Impacts to sensitive wildlife species associated with higher elevation
forests would be long-term, moderate and beneficial provided fire and
other natural disturbances continually play a role in forest succession.
Short-term impacts would be negligible due to no mechanical treatments
and limited prescribed fire.

Fish: Due to high fuel loadings in sensitive watersheds containing BCT,
effects of this alternative would be moderate and still somewhat adverse
in the short term. The scale of thinning required within the sensitive
watershed to create a low intensity burn will require an extensive
effort. Large-scale stand replacing events would still occur. Impacts to
aquatic habitats and BCT would result from increased sedimentation and
other erosion processes that could render habitats unsuitable.
Specifically, increased temperature can impair or even kill the species;
increased nitrates and phosphates (from retardant drops) can cause algae
blooms that will drastically reduce the amount of oxygen in the water;
and increased turbidity from falling ash and erosion can impair spawning
grounds. Even prescribed fires and wildland fire use have the potential
to adversely impact BCT populations. Thinning and prescribed fires would
reduce the intensity of fires, which would in turn help preserve more of
the watershed and thus reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment
entering water sources. This alternative could also help increase water
quantity, which would in turn help buffer changes in water temperature
during fire events by creating deeper pools and more refugia for aquatic
organisms.

Thinning will open up areas near water sources, but a riparian buffer
will be left to help filter sediments and nutrients. The thinned areas
outside those buffers will be less likely to burn during a large fire,
and thus will effectively increase the buffer area.

Conclusion: The proposed action would have some short-term adverse
impacts through the use of prescribed fire but long-term impacts would
be beneficial by increasing abundance and distribution of sensitive
wildlife species and habitat patch size associated with shrub steppe and
open woodland habitats. If efforts are made to concentrate fuel
reduction projects within sensitive watershed, this alternative could
have long-term beneficial effects by preventing stand replacing events.
Impairment of park resources would not likely occur.

Cumulative Effects: Wildfires should become less severe and prescribed
fire more feasible as a tool over time, providing for greater abundance
and distribution of sensitive wildlife species and decreased impacts to
BCT and aquatic habitats.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Some sedimentation into live water sources
due to treatments utilizing fire will always occur.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: Limit prescribed fire to 10 percent of the area within
shrub-steppe or open woodland habitat in any given fire return interval.
Since over 16,000 acres of shrub-steppe and open woodland have been lost
to woodland expansion, remaining habitat needs to be preserved and
maintained. Limit prescribed fires to less then 10 percent of any
sensitive watershed and located ½ mile from stream channels.

Issue 6: Effects on Nonnative Plants.

Following disturbance by fire in areas where cheatgrass is present, it
reestablishes from abundant seed. Even if fire destroys 90 percent or
more of its seed, it can reestablish and compete significantly with
native perennials (Bradley 1986a; Monsen 1992). Over a period of years,
cheatgrass gains dominance over perennials and increases the
flammability of the site (Peters and Bunting 1994). Repeated fire will
diminish the perennial seed bank and allow cheatgrass to increase its
dominance. Once cheatgrass becomes abundant enough to increase the
likelihood of fire, repeated fires may occur frequently enough to
eliminate shrubs such as sagebrush and native perennials. As wildfires
become more common cheatgrass can essentially dominate a site (Monsen
1994).

The Alternative does address the issue of nonnative plants in
particular, cheatgrass. Suppressing all wildland fires and not
conducting prescribed fires in communities that are already infested by
nonnative plants would minimize increased nonnative plant infestation.
This would include the Sagebrush-Steppe, Mountain Sagebrush - Mahogany
Savannah and Pinyon-Juniper woodlands at or below elevations of 8,500
feet. Potential for treatments that will limit nonnative plant
infestations and potential ecosystem change can occur. Mechanical
thinning ecosystems that have either been encroached upon by
pinyon-juniper or contain abnormally high fuel and tree density would
contribute to ecological restoration. This alternative would have
potential major long-term beneficial impacts to the park by addressing
nonnative plant infestation. While it is a huge task to treat such a
large scale of acreage, fire intensity would be lowered allowing
remaining vegetation to recover and hopefully out compete nonnatives
over time.

Conclusion: This alternative would have potential major long-term
beneficial impacts to the park by addressing nonnative plant
infestation. Impairment of park resources would not likely occur.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: None anticipated.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: Utilize restoration techniques on ground disturbing actions
for treatment preparation.

**Issue 7: Effects on Water Quality.**

Environmental Consequences: Under the Proposed Action alternative, water
quality would have more opportunity to remain excellent in the park.
Thinning and prescribed fires would reduce the intensity of fires, which
would in turn help preserve more of the watershed and thus reduce the
amount of nutrients and sediment entering water sources. This
alternative could also help increase water quantity, which would in turn
help buffer changes in water temperature during fire events by creating
deeper pools and more refugia for aquatic organisms.

Thinning will open up areas near water sources, but a riparian buffer
will be left to help filter sediments and nutrients. The thinned areas
outside those buffers will be less likely to burn during a large fire,
and thus will effectively increase the buffer area for the water source.

Prescribed fires near water sources will increase sediment and nutrient
loads to water source, but as long as a riparian buffer is maintained,
slight increases should not be detrimental to the water quality, and
additional nutrients can in fact increase the food base for aquatic
organisms. Excellent water quality is most important during fish
spawning periods, and prescribed fires can be timed to not interfere
with these periods.

Conclusion: Under this alternative impairment to park water resources
would not likely occur. Water quality would remain rated as excellent in
the park.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: Some sedimentation into live water sources
due to treatments utilizing fire will always occur.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
resources would occur.

Mitigation: None prescribed.

**Issue 8: Effects on Air Quality.**

Environmental Consequences: Smoke emissions from unwanted wildland fires
will continue to occur at some level every year under this alternative.
Some fire management tools allow more control over when and where fires,
and hence smoke events, occur. The geography of the park offers many
advantages that will serve to minimize smoke impacts: its high elevation
and vigorous winds assure good mixing during most of the fire season.
Most smoke plumes from fire operations would disperse at middle to upper
elevations into remote areas. Each wildland fire use and prescribed fire
project will be implemented in compliance with the state Smoke
Management Plan and managed to maintain smoke emissions below the legal
health thresholds.

Wildfire - Wildfires produce varying effects to air quality because the
level of impact would be dependent upon the location, size and time
needed for suppression of any fire that would occur in a given fire
season. There is the potential for episodes of low air quality due to
large wildfires burning in the accumulated fuels from previous fire
suppression. Extreme conditions can create unmanageable fires and
extended low air quality periods. Under the Clean Air Act, smoke from a
naturally caused wildfire is not considered a man-caused activity. Fire
suppression activities are not regulated by the state Smoke Management
Plan. It is anticipated that suppression strategies will be successful
in limiting air quality problems by confine, contain, and control
strategies.

Prescribed Fire - This fire management tool allows for the highest
degree of air quality management. Burns would be scheduled to coincide
with periods of acceptable burn conditions and mixing heights. Smoke
impacts would be managed, monitored, and mitigated according to
requirements contained in the state Smoke Management Plan. The
visibility-monitoring network of the National Park Service has not
identified wildland fire use fires, to be a significant contributor to
visibility degradation in the park.

Wildland Fire Use - The effects to air quality should be less than
wildfire and slightly greater that prescribed fire. WFU provides
opportunities for careful planning and management, though their random
nature and often-long duration make them somewhat less predictable to
manage than prescribed burn operations. Naturally occurring fires would
be allowed to burn as long as prescribed conditions are being met. The
park will mitigate smoke impacts by taking appropriate control actions
to suppress a fire if serious visibility impairment occurs. The park
will consult with the Nevada Department of Environmental Quality and the
Nevada Smoke Management Plan to determine whether smoke dispersal
conditions and air quality conditions are adequate to allow fires to
continue to burn. If the impact of smoke does become significant (as
evaluated through the daily decision tree), several actions may be
taken: additional fires may be classified as wildfires and suppressed;
the current fire(s) may be suppressed; or the current fire(s) may be
allowed to continue with smoke warnings posted for visitors and daily
re-evaluations made through the decision tree.

Conclusion: This alternative will have moderate short-term impacts to
air quality. Impairment to park resources would not likely occur.

Cumulative Effects: Depending upon the number of wildfire burning and
the proximity to the park. Smoke effects could become cumulative on a
regional scale.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects: None anticipated.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources: No irreversible commitment of
resources would occur.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: No irretrievable commitment of
park resources would occur.

Mitigation: Mitigate smoke impacts by taking appropriate control actions
to suppress a fire if serious visibility impairment occurs.

Table 5. Mitigation Matrix

+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| # Issue    | ### Alt 1           | ### Alt 2           | **R        |
|            | Mitigation Measures | Mitigation Measures | esponsible |
|            |                     |                     | Party**    |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| ####       | None                | None                |            |
| Issue #1 E |                     |                     |            |
| ffects on  |                     |                     |            |
| Fire Regim |                     |                     |            |
| e Conditio |                     |                     |            |
| n Classes. |                     |                     |            |
|            |                     |                     |            |
| ####       |                     |                     |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| Issue #2   | None                | None                |            |
| Effects on |                     |                     |            |
| Park       |                     |                     |            |
| Infra      |                     |                     |            |
| structure. |                     |                     |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| Issue #3   | None                | None                |            |
| Effects on |                     |                     |            |
| WUI.       |                     |                     |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| Issue #4   | Use mechanical      | Use mechanical      | Ar         |
| Effects on | treatments and      | treatments and      | cheologist |
| Cultural   | conducting          | conducting          |            |
| Resources. | prescribed burns    | prescribed burns    |            |
|            | that are focused on | that are focused on |            |
|            | cultural sites      | cultural sites      |            |
|            | within areas of     | within areas of     |            |
|            | FRCC 2 and 3 to     | FRCC 2 and 3 to     |            |
|            | reduce fuel loads.  | reduce fuel loads.  |            |
|            |                     | Perform Section 106 |            |
|            |                     | compliance on       |            |
|            |                     | mechanical fuel     |            |
|            |                     | reduction projects. |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| Issue #5   | Limit prescribed    | Limit prescribed    | Biologist  |
| Effects on | fire to 10 percent  | fire to 10 percent  |            |
| NPS        | of the area within  | of the area within  |            |
| Sensitive  | shrub steppe or     | shrub steppe or     |            |
| Wildlife   | open woodland       | open woodland       |            |
| and Fish   | habitat in any      | habitat in any      |            |
| Species.   | given fire return   | given fire return   |            |
|            | interval. Limit     | interval. Limit     |            |
|            | prescribed fires to | prescribed fires to |            |
|            | less than 10        | less than 10        |            |
|            | percent of any      | percent of any      |            |
|            | sensitive watershed | sensitive watershed |            |
|            | and located area to | and located area to |            |
|            | ½ mile from stream  | ½ mile from stream  |            |
|            | channels.           | channels.           |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| Issue #6   | Suppressing all     | Utilize restoration | Resource   |
| Effects on | wildland fires and  | techniques on       | Specialist |
| Nonnative  | not conducting      | ground disturbing   |            |
| Plants.    | prescribed fires in | actions for         |            |
|            | communities that    | treatment           |            |
|            | are subject to      | preparation.        |            |
|            | nonnative plant     |                     |            |
|            | infestation.        |                     |            |
|            | Utilize restoration |                     |            |
|            | techniques on       |                     |            |
|            | ground disturbing   |                     |            |
|            | actions for         |                     |            |
|            | treatment           |                     |            |
|            | preparation.        |                     |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| Issue #7   | Utilize restoration | Utilize restoration | Ecologist  |
| Effects on | techniques on       | techniques on       |            |
| Water      | ground disturbing   | ground disturbing   |            |
| Quality.   | actions for         | actions for         |            |
|            | treatment           | treatment           |            |
|            | preparation.        | preparation.        |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+
| Issue #8   | Mitigate smoke      | Mitigate smoke      | Resource   |
| Effects on | impacts by taking   | impacts by taking   | Specialist |
| Air        | appropriate control | appropriate control |            |
| Quality.   | actions to suppress | actions to suppress |            |
|            | a fire if serious   | a fire if serious   |            |
|            | visibility          | visibility          |            |
|            | impairment occurs.  | impairment occurs.  |            |
+------------+---------------------+---------------------+------------+

**CHAPTER 5**

**COMPLIANCE/Participants/REVIEW**

**5.0 Compliance**

The following laws and associated regulations provided direction for the
design of project alternatives, the analysis of potential impacts and
the formulation of mitigation measures:

**National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Title 42 U.S. Code Sections
4321 to 4370 \[42USC 4321-4370\]).** The purpose of NEPA include
encouraging "harmony between \[humans\] and their environment and
promote efforts which would prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment...and stimulate the health and welfare of \[humanity\]". The
purposes of NEPA are accomplished by evaluating the effects of federal
actions. The results of these evaluations are used to inform the public,
federal agencies and public officials in documented format for
consideration prior to taking action or making decisions. Implementing
regulations for the NEPA are contained in Part 1500 to1515 of Title 40
of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40CFR 1500-1515).

**Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16USC 1531-1544).**
The purposes of the ESA include providing "a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which an endangered species and threatened species
depend may be conserved". The ESA requires that "all Federal departments
and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened
species" and "each Federal agency shall...insure that any action
authorized, funded or carried out by such agency...is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species". Section 7 of the ESA requires that through
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service the effects of any agency action that may affect
endangered, threatened, proposed species or designated critical habitat
must be evaluated. Implementing regulations that describe procedures for
interagency consultation to determine the effects of actions on
endangered, threatened, proposed species or designated critical habitat
are contained in 50 CFR 402.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) (16 USC
470 *et sequential*). Congressional policy set forth by the NHPA
includes preserving "the historical and cultural foundations of the
Nation" and preserving irreplaceable examples important to our national
heritage to maintain "cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational,
economic and energy benefits". Section 106 of the NHPA requires that
federal agencies take into account the effects of their actions and
consult as appropriate in fulfilling Section 106 requirements. Section
106 further requires federal agencies to propose and evaluate
alternatives to undertakings that would adversely affect historic
properties or to adequately mitigate adverse effects if avoidance cannot
be reasonably achieved.

**Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended (PL 101-549).** The Clean Air Act,
as amended in 1977, was enacted by Congress after determination that the
nation\'s air quality was rapidly deteriorating, and that Federal
leadership and financial assistance were needed to cope with the
problem. The stated purpose of the Act is to protect and enhance the
nation\'s air quality. The primary Federal responsibility is to provide
technical and financial assistance to state and local governments, who
have the responsibility to develop and execute air pollution prevention
and control programs. This includes the State of Nevada's Smoke
Management Plan.

**The Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (PL 95-217).** The Clean Water
Act is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United
States. (The Act does not deal directly with ground water nor with water
quantity issues.) The statute employs a variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into
waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage
polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of
restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation\'s waters so that they can support \"the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
recreation in and on the water.\"

**5.1 List of Preparers**

The core interdisciplinary team consisted of the following GRBA
personnel:

Neal Darby, Wildlife/Fisheries Biologist

Gretchen Schenk, Ecologist

JoAnn Blalack, Cultural Resource Program Manager

Tod Williams, Natural Resource Program Manager

Ben Roberts, Natural Resource Specialist/Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Krupa Patel -- Lead Physical Science Technician

Bryan Hamilton -- Lead Biological Science Technician

5.2 List of EA Recipients:

# Federal Agencies

Humbolt National Forest Bureau of Land Management

Ely Ranger District Ely Resource Area

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Western Regional Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services -- Reno Field Office

# 

# Local/State Agencies

White Pine County Commission Nevada Department of Wildlife

Ely, NV Reno, NV

Nevada Division of Environmental Quality Nevada Department of Wildlife

Reno, NV Elko, NV

# Native American Tribes

Southern Paiute Tribe of Utah Indian Peaks Band

Cedar City, UT Southern Paiute Tribe, Cedar City, UT

Southern Paiute Consortium Goshute Business Council

Fredonia, AZ Ibapah, UT

Ely Shoshone Council Skull Valley Band of Goshutes

Ely, NV Salt Lake City, UT

# 

**5.3 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms**

BCT = Bonneville Cutthroat Trout

EA = Environmental Assessment

ESA = Endangered Species Act

FRCC = Fire Regime Condition Class

FMU = Fire Management Unit

GMP = General Management Plan

GRBA = Great Basin National Park

HNF = Humboldt National Forest

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA = National Historic Preservation Act

NPS = National Park Service

TES = Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

USFWS = U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

WFIP = Wildland Fire Implementation Plan

WUI = Wildland Urban Interface

**5.4 Glossary of Terms**

Action - All activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded or
carried out, in whole or in part by Federal agencies.

Affected Environment -- Is the description of the existing environment
potentially affected by the proposed action and alternatives to the
proposed action.

Context - The setting in which each impact is analyzed, such as affected
region, society as a whole, the affected interests, and/or locality.

Cumulative Impacts -- Is the impact on the environment, which results
from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency (Federal or non-Federal) or persons undertake such actions.

Duration - Is a measure of the time period over which the effects of an
impact persist.

Environmental Consequences -- Are the analytic evaluations of the
potential effects or impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to
the proposed action to the effected environment.

Intensity - Is a measure of the scale of the impact, which can be
defined as both detrimental as well as beneficial.

Issues -- Are concerns and opportunities raised by the internal and
external public about the proposed action through the scoping process.
Issues drive the NEPA process and determine the range of actions,
alternatives and impacts to be addressed.

Irretrievable Commitment of Resources - Are uses that may cause
resources to be lost because the lands providing these resources are
allocated for other uses.

Irreversible Commitment of Resources - Includes consumption or
destruction of nonrenewable resources such as minerals and archeological
remains.

Mitigation Measure - Are actions designed to minimize or eliminate
adverse impacts of an action on the environment.

Scoping - Scoping is an early and open process to solicit public and
internal concerns relating to a proposed action.

Sensitive Species -- Species whose population status is either unknown
or thought to be declining.

Threatened and Endangered Species - Any species of fish, wildlife or
plant actually listed under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.

**REFERENCES**

Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Ecology, silviculture, and management of the
Englemann spruce-subalpine fire type in the central and southern Rocky
Mountains. USDA, U.S. Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 659. 144
pp.

Anderson, H. E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating
fire behavior. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT-122. 22 pp.

Arnold, J. F., D. A. Jameson, and E. H. Reid. 1964. The pinyon-juniper
type of Arizona: effects of grazing, fire and tree control. USDA Forest
Service Production Research Report No. 84. 28 pp.

Barber, M. J., and W. R. Josephson. 1987. Wildfire patterns and
vegetation response in east-central Nevada. Pp. 158-160 in: Everett, R.
L., ed., Proceedings \-- pinyon-juniper conference, Reno, NV, January
13-16, 1986. Gen. Tech. Report INT-215. Ogden, UT: USDAFS Intermountain
Research Station. 581 pp.

Barney, M., and N. Frischnecht. 1974. Vegetation changes following fire
in the pinyon-juniper type of west-central Utah, Journal of Range
Manage. 27(2): 91-96.

Beatley, J. C. 1976. Vascular plants of the Nevada Test Site and central
southern Nevada, ecologic and geographic dis­tribu­tions. National Tech.
Info. Serv., Springfield, VA TID-2688. DAS 316 pp.

Betancourt, J. 1987. Paleoecology of pinyon-juniper woodlands: summary.
Pp. 129-139 in: Everett, R. L., ed., Proceedings -pinyon-juniper
conference, Reno, NV, January 13-16, 1986. Gen. Tech. Report INT-215.
Ogden, UT: USDAFS Intermountain Research Station. 581 pp.

Billings, W. D. 1994. Ecological impacts of cheatgrass and resultant
fire on ecosystems in the western Great Basin. In: Monsen, Stephen B.;
Kitchen, Stanley G., comps. Proceedings---ecology and management of
annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 22-30.

Billings, W.D. 1954. Nevada Trees. Agric. Ext. Serv., Univ. Nev. Bull.
94:1-125.

Billings, W. D. 1951. Vegetational zonation in the Great Basin of
western North America. In Les Bases Ecologiques de la Regene­ration de la
Vegetation des Zones Arides. Series B (U.L.S.B., Paris) 9:101‑122.

Billings, W. D. 1949. The Shadscale vegetation zone of Nevada and
eastern California in relation to climate and soils. Am. Mid. Nat.
42:87‑109.

Biswell, H. 1967. Forest fire in perspective. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol.
Conf. 7:43-63.

Blackburn, W.H. and P.T. Tueller. 1970. Pinyon and juniper invasion in
black sagebrush communities in east-central Nevada. Ecology 51:841-848.

Blackburn, W. H., and A. D. Bruner. 1975. Use of fire in manipulation of
the pinyon-juniper ecosystem. Pp. 91-96 in The pinyon-juniper ecosystem:
a symposium. Logan, UT: Utah State Univ.

Blalack, J.K. In draft. *Archeological Site Documentation, 1998 and
1999, Great Basin National Park, Nevada*. Western Archeological and
Conservation Center, Tucson.

Bowns, J. E., and N. E. West. 1976. Blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima)
on southwestern Utah rangelands. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 27.
Logan, UT.

Bradley, A. F.; Noste, N. V.; Fischer, W. C. 1992. Fire ecology of
forests and woodlands in Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 128 p.

Bradley, W. G. and J. R. Deacon. 1967. The biotic communities of
southern Nevada. in Wormington, H. M. and D. Ellis, (eds), Pleistocene
studies in southern Nevada. Nev. State Mus. Anthro. Pap. No. 13. pp.
201-295.

Bradley, Anne F., Nonan V. Noste, and William C. Fischer. 1992. Fire
Ecology of Forests and Woodlands in Utah. USDA, U.S. Forest Service.
Gen. Tech. Report, INT-287. 14 pp.

Britton, C. M., and R. G. Clark. 1985. Effects of fire on sagebrush and
bitterbrush. Pp. 22-26 in, Sanders, K., and J. Durham, eds., Rangeland
fire effects: a symposium. Boise, ID: U.S.D.I., Bureau of Land
Management. 124 pp.

Brown, J.K. 1985. The "unnatural fuel buildup" issue. P. 127-128 *in*
Proceedings of the Wilderness Fire Symposium, Missoula, MT. J.E. Lotan,
B.M. Kilgore, W.C. Fischer, and R.W. Mutch (tech. coords.). USDA For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182.

Brown, James K. and Dennis G. Simmerman. 1986. Appraising Fuels and
Flammability in Western Aspen: A Prescribed Fire Guide. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, General Technical Report INT-205.

Brown, M. 1960. Climates of the states: Utah. Climatology of the United
States. US Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C. 15
pp.

Bryant, L.D., and C. Maser. 1982. Classification and distribution. *IN*:
J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill (eds). Elk of North America - Ecology and
Management. Stackpole Books, Penn. 698 pp.

Bunting, S. 1985. Prescribed burning of live standing western juniper
and postburning succession. Pp. 69-73 in: Bedell, T., ed., Proceedings:
western juniper management short course, Bend, OR, October 15-16, 1984.
Corvallis, OR: Ore­gon State Univ.

Burkhardt, J.W., and E.W. Tisdale. 1969. Nature and successional status
of western juniper vegetation in Idaho. J. Range Manage. 22:264.-270.

Callison, J., J. D. Brotherson and J. E. Bowns. 1985. The effects of
fire on the blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) community of southwestern
Utah. J. Range Manage. 38(6): 535-538.

Christensen, E.M. and H.B. Johnson. 1963. Presettlement vegetation and
vegetational changes in three valleys in central Utah. Brigham Young
Univ. Sci. Bul. Biol. Ser. 4(4):1-16.

Christensen, E.M., and H.B. Johnson. 1964. Presettlement vegetation and
vegetational change in three valleys in central Utah. Brigham Young
University Science Bulletin Biology Series 4:1-16.

Cook, C.W. 1966. Factors affecting utilization of mountain slopes by
cattle. J. Range Manage. 19:200-204.

Cottam, W.P., and G. Stewart. 1940. Plant succession as a result of
erosion since settlement in 1862. J. Forest. 39:613-620.

Cottam, W.P., and G. Stewart. 1940. Plant succession as the result of
grazing and of meadow desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1862.
J. For. 38:613-626.

Cronquist, A, A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K.
Holmgren. 1977. Intermountain Flora. Vascular Plants of the
Intermountain West, U.S.A. Volume 6, The Monocotyledons. Columbia
University Press, New York. 584 pp.

Davis, O. K. 1987. Palynological evidence for historic juniper invasion
in central Arizona: a late-quaternary perspective. Pp. 120-124 in:
Everett, R. L., ed., Proceedings \-- pinyon-juniper conference, Reno,
NV, January 13-16, 1986. Gen. Tech. Report INT-215. Ogden, UT: USDAFS
Intermountain Research Station. 581 pp.

Davis, L.S. and R.W. Cooper. 1963. How prescribed burning affects
wildfire occurrence. J. For. 61:915-917.

Deal, K. 1988. An archeological overview of Great Basin National Park.
Publications in Anthropology No. 49, USDI, Natl. Park Serv., Wash., D.C.

Deeming, J. E., R. E. Burgan, and J. D. Cohen. 1977. The National Fire
Danger Rating System - 1978. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-39.
63 pp.

Despain, D.W., and S.D. Klemmedson. 1987. Potential error in ring counts
of Utah juniper and pinyon pine. p. 315. IN: Abstr. 40^th^ Ann. Meet.
Soc. Range Manage. Boise, ID.

Dodge, M. 1972. Forest fuel accumulation---a growing problem. Science
177:139-142.

Eddleman, L. and R. Jaindl. 1990. Range survey final report by Oregon
State University under contract to Great Basin National Park. 84 pp.

Eddleman, L. and R. Jaindl. 1991. Fire History of the Pinyon-Juniper
Woodland. Final report by Oregon State University under contract to
Great Basin National Park. 20 pp.

Eddleman, L.E., and R. Jaindl. 1994. Great Basin National Park Range
Analysis. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Natl. Park Serv. Planning Report. 94
pp.

Eddleman, L.E., and R. Jaindl. 1994a. Great Basin National Park
allotment grazing analysis. Planning Report. USDI, Natl. Park Serv.,
Pacific. NW Reg., Seattle, Wash.

Eddleman, L.E., and R. Jaindl. 1994b. Great Basin National Park
vegetation analysis. Tech. Rep. NPS/PNROSU/NRTR-94-02. USDI, Natl. Park
Serv., Pacific NW Reg., Seattle, Wash. 110 pp.

Egler, F. E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts. I. Initial floristic
composition a factor in old field vegetation deve­lopment. Vegetation. 4:
412-417.

Everett, R. L. 1987. Plant response to fire in the pinyon-juniper zone.
Pp. 152-157 in: R. L. Everett, ed., Proceed­ings \-- pinyon-juniper
conference, Reno, NV, January 13-16, 1986. General Technical Report
INT-215. Ogden, UT: USDAFS Intermountain Research Station. 581 pp.

Everett, R. L, and K. O. Ward. 1984. Early plant succession in
pinyon-juniper controlled burns. Northwest Science 58: 57-68.

Fowler, D. and D. Koch. 1982. The Great Basin. Pages 7-102 in Bender, G.
(ed.) Reference handbook of the deserts of North America. Greenwood
Press, Westport, Conn.

Freet, B. 1992. Resource baseline inventory. Great Basin National Park
Special Publication No. 1 NPS/SS0 GRBA/92-01. Great Basin National Park,
Baker, Nev. 56 pp.

GAO Report to Congress. 1988. Public Rangelands - Some riparian areas
restored but widespread improvement will be slow. GAO/RCED-88-105
Riparian Areas. 85 pp.

Gruell, G.E. 1966. Unpublished photo pairs on file at: U.S. Depart. of
Agri., Forest Service, Humboldt National Forest, Elko, Nevada.

Gruell, G., and S. Bunting, and L. Neuenschwander. 1984. Influences of
Fire on Curleaf Mountain-Mahogany In the Intermountain West. Paper
presented at the Symposium on Fire Effects on Wildlife Habitat,
Missoula, Mont., March 21, 1984.

Gruell, G.E. 1985. Indian fires in the Interior West - a widespread
influence. In: proceedings-symposium and workshop on wilderness fire;
1983 November 15-18; Missoula, MT. General Technical Report INT-182,
Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart. of Agri., Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station; p. 68-74.

Gruell, G.E. 1986. Post-1900 mule deer irruptions in the Intermountain
West: principle cause and influences. General Technical Report INT-206,
Ogden, Ut: U.S. Depart. of Agri., Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station; 37 p.

Gruell, G. and J. K. Brown, and Charles L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed Fire
Opportunities in Grassland Invaded by Douglas-Fir: State-of-the Art
Guidelines. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-198.

Gruell, G., L.E. Eddleman, and R. Jaindl. 1994. Fire history of the
pinyon-juniper woodlands of Great Basin National Park. Tech.
Rep.NPS/PNROSU/NRTR-94-01. USDI, Natl. Park Serv., Pacific NW Reg.,
Seattle, Wash. 27 pp.

Hironaka, M., and .W. Tisdale. 1963. Secondary succession in annual
vegetation in southern Idaho. Ecology 44:810-812.

Hobbs, N. T., and R. A. Spowart. 1984. Effects of prescribed fire on
nutrition of mountain sheep and mule deer during winter and spring. J.
Wildl. Manage. 48: 551-560.

James, J.W. 1988. Climate of Lehman Caves, Nevada. Climatological
Summary by the Office of the Nevada State Climatologist. 4 pp.

Jameson, D. A. 1962. Effects of burning on a galleta-black grama range
invaded by juniper. Ecology 43: 760-763.

Jensen, D. E., M. W. Buzan, D. E. Dimock, and R. C. Holmgren. 1960.
Bureau of Land Management report of field examinations. Blackbrush burns
on Las Vegas grazing district (Nev. 5).

Johnson, T. N. 1962. One-seed juniper invasion of northern Arizona
grasslands. Ecol. Monogr. 32.

Kilgore, B. M. 1981. Fire in ecosystem distribution and structure:
western forests and scrublands. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.;
Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech. coords.
Proceedings of the conference: fire regimes and ecosystem properties;
1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 58-89.

Klebenow, D. A. 1985. Big game response to fire in sagebrush-grass
rangelands. Pp. 53-57 in Sanders, K., and J. Durham, eds., Rangeland
Fire Effects: A Symposium. Boise, ID: USDI, Bureau of Land Management.
124 pp.

Knorr, P.N. 1963. One effect of control burning on the Fort Apache
Indian Reservation. Proc. 7^th^ Annual Watershed Symposium, Arizona
Watershed Program.

Koniak, S. 1985. Succession in pinyon-juniper woodlands following
wildfire in the Great Basin. Great Basin Nat. 45: 556-566.

Kramp, B. A., D. R. Patton, and W. W. Brady. 1983. The effects of fire
on wildlife habitat and species. RUN WILD Wildlife/­Habitat Relationships
Technical Report. Albuquerque, NM: USDA Forest Service, Southwestern
Region. 29 pp.

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, timber, and fire in southern Arizona. J. For.
22(6):1-10.

Lewis, H.T. 1973. Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and
Ethnohistory. Lowell John Bean (ed.). *Ballena Anthropological Papers
Vol. 1*. Ballena Press. Ramona, CA

Lissoway, J., and J. Propper. 1988. Effects of fire on cultural
resources. Paper delivered at the Effects of Fire In Management of
Southwestern Natural Resources Symposium (Tucson, Arizona, November
14-17, 1988).

Lyon, L. J., H. Crawford, E. Czuchai, R. C. Fredriksen, R. F. Harlen, L.
J. Metz, and H. A. Pearson. 1978. Effects of fire on fauna: a
state-of-the-knowledge review. General Technical Report WO-6.
Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 41 pp.

Martin, R. E. 1978. Fire manipulation and effects in western juniper
(Juniperus occidentalis). Pp. 121-136 in: Proceed­ings, western juniper
ecology and management workshop. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-74. Portland, OR:
USDAFS Pacific North­west Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Martin, R. E, and C. H. Driver. 1983. Factors affecting an­telope
bitterbrush reestablishment following fire. Pp. 266-279 in Tiedemann, A.
R., and K. L Johnson, eds., Proceed­ings\--re­search and management of
bitterbrush and cliffrose in Western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-152. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Sta­tion. 279 pp.

Mehringer, P.J. Jr., and P.E. Wigand. 1987. Western juniper in the
holocene. p. 109-119. IN: R.L. Everett (compiler)
Proceedings\--Pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV.
General Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S.D.A., U.S. Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Stn.

Minnich, R.A. 1983. Fire mosaics in Southern California and Northern
Baja California. Science 219:1287-1294.

Monsen, Stephen B. 1994. The competitive influences of cheatgrass
(*Bromus tectorum*) on site restoration. In: Monsen, Stephen B.;
Kitchen, Stanley G., comps. Proceedings---ecology and management of
annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station: 43-50.

Mueggler, W.F. 1988. Aspen community types of the Intermountain Region.
USDA For. Serv. Intermountain Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-250. 135 pp.

National Park Service. 1988. Management policies. USDI, NPS.

National Park Service. 1990. Wildland fire management guide­line, NPS-18.
Release No. 2. U.S.D.I, N.P.S.

National Park Service. 1990. Western Region fire monitoring handbook
USDI, NPS. 133 pp.

National Park Service. 1990. Western Region revegetation and
rehabilitation handbook.

Neilson, R.P. 1987. On the interface between current ecological studies
and the paleobotany of pinyon-juniper woodlands. *IN*: R.L. Everett
(compiler). Proc. Pinyon-Juniper Conference. USDA For. Serv.,
Intermountain Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT. pp. 93-98.

Peters, Erin F.; Bunting, Stephen C. 1994. Fire conditions and pre and
post-occurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. In: Monsen,
Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., comps. Proceedings: ecology and
management of annual rangelands; 1992 may 18-22;

Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 31-36.

Plummer, A.P., S.B. Monsen, and R. Stevens. 1977. Intermountain range
plant names and symbols. USDA For. Serv., Intermountain For. and Range
Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-38. 82pp.

Richardson, S.J. no date. Checklist of mammals, amphibians, and
reptiles: Lehman Caves National Monument and Wheeler Peak Scenic Area.

Riordan, P. 1970. Weather extremes around the world. Earth Sciences
Laboratory Technical Report 7045ES, Series ES53. Natick, Mass.: Natick
Laboratories, U. S. Army.

Russell, E.W.B. 1983. Indian-Set Fires in the Forests of the
Northeastern United States. *Ecology*, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Feb.):78-88

Sipson, J.H. 1876. Report of explorations across the Great Basin of the
Territory of Utah for a direct wagon-route from Camp Floyd to Genoa, in
Carson Valley, 1859. Washington, D.C.: Gov. Print. Off. 518 pp.

Skau, C.M., R.O. Meeuwig, and T.W. Townsend. 1970. Ecology of eastside
Sierra chaparral, a literature review. Univ. Nevada Reno Ag. Res. Stat.
R71. 14 pp.

Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of
fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station. 83 p.

Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Major land resource area 28B Central
Nevada Basin and Range. Nevada range site descriptions.

Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Soil survey of Eureka County Area,
Nevada. USDA Soil Conserv. Serv. 623 pp.

Springfield, H. W. 1976. Characteristics and management of southwestern
pinyon-juniper ranges: the status of our know­ledge. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper RM-160. Fort Collins, CO: USDAFS, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Ex­periment Station. 32 pp.

Stager, D. W., and D. A. Klebenow. 1987. Mule deer response to wildfire
in Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodland. Pp. 572-579 in R. L. Everett
(compiler), Proceedings \-- Pinyon-Juni­per Conference, Reno. NV, January
13-16, 1986. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 581 pp.

Steele, R.W., S.F. Arno, and K. Geier-Hayes. 1986. Wildfire patterns
change in central Idaho's ponderosa pine---Douglas-fir forest. Western
J. of Appl. For. 1:16-18.

Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith, and T.W. Box. 1975. Range Management.
McGraw-Hill Book Company. 532 pp.

Tausch, R.J., N.E. West, and A.A. Nabi. 1981. Tree age and dominance
patterns in Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodlands. J. Range Manage.
34:259-264.

Tausch, R.J. and N.E. West. 1988. Differential establishment of pinyon
and juniper following fire. The American Midland Naturalist (119):
174-184.

Teague, G.A. 1990. *Archeological Survey of the Baker Center Property,
Baker, Nevada*. On file, western Archeological and Conservation Center,
National Park Service, Tucson.

Thornbury, W. D. 1965. Regional geomorphology of the United States. New
York: Wiley and Sons.

Turner, R. M. 1982a. Great Basin desert scrub, Pages 144‑155 in Brown,
D. E. (ed.), Biotic communities of the American Southwest. Desert Plants
4(104).

Turner, R. M. 1982b. Mohave desert scrub. Pages 156‑168 [in]{.underline}
Brown, D. E. (ed.), Biotic communities of the American Southwest. Desert
Plants 4(104).

Unrau, H. 1990. A history of Great Basin National Park, Nevada. Historic
Resource Study, USDI, Natl. Park Serv., Wash., D.C. 690 pp.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1978a. Effects of fire on air. Proceedings from
the National Fire Effects Workshop, Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rept. WO-9.
40 pp.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1978b. Effects of fire on water. Proceedings
from the National Fire Effects Workshop, Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rept.
WO-10. 28 pp.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1978c. Effects of fire on soil. Proceedings
from the National Fire Effects Workshop, Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rept.
WO-11. 32 pp.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1995. Fire Effects Information System. Fire
Research Laboratory. Missoula, MT.

Vaitkus, M. R., and L. E. Eddleman. 1987. Composition and productivity
of a western juniper understory and its response to canopy removal.
*IN*: R.L. Everett, (compiler). Proc. Pinyon‑Juniper Conference. USDA
For. Serv. Intermountain Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT‑215. Ogden, UT.
pp. 456‑460.

Van Wagner, C.E. and I.R. Methven. 1980. Fire in the management of
Canada's National Parks: Philosophy and strategy. Occasional Paper No.
1, Parks Canada, Ottowa, Ont. 18.

Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1985. Fire suppression effects on fuels and
succession in short-fireinterval wilderness ecosystems. P. 119-126 *in*
Proceedings of the Wilderness Fire Symposium, Missoula, MT. J.E. Lotan,
B.M. Kilgore, W.C. Fischer, and R.W. Mutch(tech. coords.). USDA For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182.

Vogl, R. J. 1967. Controlled burning for wildlife in Wisconsin. Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference proceedings 6:47-96.

Von Wernstedt, L. 1906. Report on the proposed Ely, Steptoe, Osceola,
and Snake National Forests, Nevada. General Land Office, Division \"R\",
National Forests, Nevada, Record Group 49. Records of the Bureau of Land
Management, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington,
D.C.

Waite, R.S. 1974. The proposed Great Basin National Park. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Ward, K. O. 1977. Two year vegetation response and successional trends
for spring burns in pinyon-juniper wood­lands. M.S. thesis. Reno, NV:
UNLV, Reno. 62 pp.

Weaver, H. 1964. Fire and management problems in ponderosa pine. Tall
Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 3:61-79.

Welch, P.H. 1983. An historic overview of the BLM Shoshone‑Eureka
Resource Area, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Land Management. Tech. Rep. 7,
Reno, Nevada.

Wells, S.J. 1990. Archeological Survey and Site Assessment at Great
Basin National Park. Western Archeological and Conservation Center
Publications in Anthropology 53. Tucson.

West, N.E., K.H. Rea, and R.J. Tausch. 1975. Basic synecological
relationships in juniper-pinyon woodlands. *IN*: G.F. Gifford and F.E.
Busby. The pinyon-juniper ecosystem: A symposium. Utah State University,
Logan, Utah. pp. 41-53.

Whitebread, D.H. 1969. Geologic map of the Wheeler Peak and Garrison
quadrangles, Nevada and Utah. USDI Geological Survey. Miscellaneous
Geologic Investigations, Map I-578. 7 pp. plus map.

Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems. New York: Macmillan
Publ. Co. 385 pp.

Whittaker, R. H. and W. A. Niering. 1975. Vegetation of the Santa
Catalina Mountains, Arizona V. Biomass production and diversity along
the environmental gradient. Ecology 56:771-789.

Williams, G.W. 2003. Introduction. References on the American Indian Use
of Fire in Ecosystems.
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/Bibliography/Introduction.doc. September
29, 2003.

Wilshire, H. G. 1983. The impact of vehicles on desert soil stabilizers.
Pp. 31-50 [in]{.underline} Webb, R. H., and H. G. Wilshire (eds.),
Environmental Effects of Off-road Vehicles, Impacts, and Management in
Arid Lands. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Wilson, L., M.E. Olsen, T.B. Hutching, A.R. Southard, and A.J. Erickson.
The soils of Utah. Bull. 492. Logan, UT. Utah Agricultural Experiment
Station, Utah State University. 94 pp.

Wink, R. L., and H. A. Wright. 1973. Effects of fire on an Ashe juniper
community. J. Range Manage. 26: 326-329.

Winkler, E. 1916. Memorandum for the District Forester. Ernest Winkler,
Inspector of Grazing, October 25, 1916, 1440-inspection, Year 1916, RG
96, National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno Accession
No. 61-333/Location No. 88830.

Winograd, I. J, and W. Thordarson. 1975. Hydrogeologic and
hydro-chemical framework, south-central Great Basin, Nevada-California,
with special reference to the Nevada Test Site. U. S. Geological Survey
Prof. Paper 712-C. 126 pp.

Wright, H. A. 1985. Effects of fire on grasses and forbs in
sagebrush-grass communities. Pp. 12-21 in: Sanders, K., and J. Durham,
eds., Rangeland fire effects: a symposium. Boise, ID, November 27-29,
1984. Boise, ID: USDI BLM.

Wright, H. A, and A. W. Bailey. 1984. Fire ecology \-- United States and
southern Canada. New York: J. Wiley and Sons. 501 pp.

Wright, H. A, L. F. Neuenschwander, and C. M. Britton. 1979. The role
and use of fire in sagebrush-grass and pinyon-juni­per plant communities:
a state-of-the-art review. Gen Tech. Rep. INT-58. U.S.D.A Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 48 pp.

Young, J.A., R.A. Evans and J. Major. 1972. Alien plants in the Great
Basin. J. Range Manage. 25:194‑201.

**APPENDIX 1**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.654861111111111in"
height="7.3694444444444445in"}

**Figure 1**

Acreage difference is due to the inclusion of two sections of Humboldt
National Forest Lands for which soils and veg. data were available.
These sections have been proposed for addition to the park in the GMP
but never acted on by Congress.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.198611111111111in"
height="8.114583333333334in"}

**Figure 2**

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="6.303472222222222in"
height="8.208333333333334in"}

**Figure 3**

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.49375in" height="8.403472222222222in"}

**Figure 4**