**United States Department of the
Interior**![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.145138888888889in"
height="10.702777777777778in"}

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Environmental Assessment UT- 030-04-010-EA**

**Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record**

**Five Mile Mountain Sagebrush Restoration Project**

***Location:* R2W T41S Sections: 25, 26, 34, 35, 36**

> **R2W T42S Sections: 1-10, 12, 16-21, 27-32**
>
> **R1W T41S Sections: 31, 32**
>
> **R3W T41S Sections: 16-18, 20-22, 28, 29**
>
> **R3W T42S Sections: 1-4, 8, 10-15, 17-34**
>
> **R3W T43S Sections: 4-9**

***Applicant/Address:***

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

190 E. Center Street

Kanab, Utah 84741

Phone: 435-644-4300

FAX: 435-644-4350

**October 5, 2006**

**Finding of No Significant Impact / Decision Record**

[Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument]{.underline}

**[Introduction]{.underline}**:

*[Overview]{.underline}*

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducted an environmental analysis
(EA No. UT-030-04-010-EA) to address sagebrush restoration on 33,038
acres of public lands within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument (GSENM) in the Five Mile Mountain area approximately 20 miles
east of Kanab, Utah in Kane County. The project consists of a mix of
treatment types to match the variety of conditions found within the
project area (see attached maps). Areas targeted for treatment include
both range seedings and previously untreated sagebrush and
pinyon-juniper communities. Treated areas will be rested for a minimum
of two growing seasons (43 CFR, Part 4100, Fundamentals of Rangeland
Health). See the Monitoring Section of this Decision Record for further
information regarding monitoring of the treated areas.

In general this selected action helps to:

-   Improve both degraded rangeland and sagebrush grassland communities,

-   Improve and sustain for the long term grazing conditions for
    livestock operators,

-   Enhance wildlife habitat,

-   Reduce soil erosion and improve soil health and,

-   Incorporate adaptive management through early experimental
    approaches to restoration.

This project will be implemented in phases beginning in the fall of 2006
(see Table 1). This table was modified from the Environmental Assessment
(EA) based on public comment. Specifically, some permittees requested
modifications to the phasing, and use of Tebuthiuron, to help maintain
sustainable grazing and meet restoration objectives.

Table 1 displays two scenarios with respect to types of treatment to
allow an adaptive management approach. The treatment type is listed
alongside the adaptive management option which will allow more
widespread use of experimental methods if they are found to be effective
in meeting site objectives. The need for and importance of adaptive
management protocols is outlined in the Monument Management Plan (MMP).
This approach is particularly important in restoration activities and is
an integral part of this Decision Record (DR).

Because of the extent of the project area, treatments will be phased
over the next seven to 10 years. Start years are given for each phase
but phases may be multi-year in length depending on project success and
yearly funding. The implementation phases are based on optimal funding
support for these projects. If funding is not available, the timeline
may be lengthened. However, the general approach and priority will
remain constant unless an emergency situation such as wildfire or insect
outbreak shifts priorities or if site conditions improve or decline
within the life of this project.

The acreage listed in Table 1 represents a reasonable percentage of a
given pasture that could be treated in each phase, given current
information. If site conditions deteriorate and funding increases for
these projects, increased acreage may be treated but will not exceed 75%
of the total acreage in a given pasture. Any changes in phases will be
made in cooperation with the permittee. The area left untreated will
vary between pastures depending on site conditions observed prior to
implementation.

+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| **    |                 |       |               |                  |
| Table |                 |       |               |                  |
| 1**   |                 |       |               |                  |
|       |                 |       |               |                  |
| *     |                 |       |               |                  |
| *Impl |                 |       |               |                  |
| ement |                 |       |               |                  |
| ation |                 |       |               |                  |
| P     |                 |       |               |                  |
| hases |                 |       |               |                  |
| and   |                 |       |               |                  |
| Meth  |                 |       |               |                  |
| ods** |                 |       |               |                  |
+=======+=================+=======+===============+==================+
| P     | Pa              | Acres | Mechanical    | Adaptive         |
| hase/ | sture/Allotment |       | Method        | Management       |
|       |                 |       |               | Option           |
| Year  |                 |       |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| Phase | Five Mile       | 1,000 | Dixie Harrow/ | Dixie            |
| 1     | Mountain/Five   |       | Anchor        | Harrow/Anchor    |
| /2006 | Mile Mountain   |       | Chain\*       | Chain            |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | Te              | 1,000 | Dixie         | Anchor Chain     |
|       | legraph/Mollies |       | Harrow-Hand   |                  |
|       | Nipple          |       | Thin/         |                  |
|       |                 |       | Bullhog\*     |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | R               | 500   | Dixie         | Dixie            |
|       | CA2&3/Vermilion |       | Harrow-Hand   | Harrow-Hand      |
|       |                 |       | Thin/         | Thin/ Bullhog    |
|       |                 |       | Bullhog\*/    |                  |
|       |                 |       | Tebuthiuron\* |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Phase 1 Total* | *2    |               |                  |
|       |                 | ,500* |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| Phase | Rock            | 1,400 | Dixie         | Dixie            |
| 2     | House/Mollies   |       | Harrow-Hand   | Harrow-Hand      |
| /2007 | Nipple          |       | Thin          | Thin/Anchor      |
|       |                 |       |               | Chain            |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | Five Mile       | 1,000 | Dixie         | Anchor Chain     |
|       | Mountain/Five   |       | Harrow-Hand   |                  |
|       | Mile Mountain   |       | Thin          |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | RCA 1 and Clark | 750   | Dixie         | Dixie            |
|       | Ranch/Vermilion |       | Harrow-Hand   | Harrow-Hand      |
|       |                 |       | Thin          | Thin/Bul         |
|       |                 |       |               | lhog/Tebuthiuron |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Phase 2 Total* | *3    |               |                  |
|       |                 | ,150* |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| Phase | Sand            | 1,370 | Dixie         | Anchor Chain     |
| 3     | Gulch/Coyote    |       | Harrow-Hand   |                  |
| /2008 |                 |       | Thin          |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | Fivemile/Coyote | 1,320 | Dixie Harrow  | Dixie            |
|       |                 |       |               | Harrow-Hand Thin |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Phase 3 Total* | *2    |               |                  |
|       |                 | ,690* |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| Phase | Eight           | 1,700 | Dixie Harrow  | Dixie            |
| 4     | Mile/Cottonwood |       |               | Harrow-Hand Thin |
| /2009 |                 |       |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Phase 4 Total* | *1    |               |                  |
|       |                 | ,700* |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| Phase | Jenny Clay      | 1,800 | Dixie         | Anchor Chain     |
| 5     | Hole/Mollies    |       | Harrow-Hand   |                  |
| /2010 | Nipple          |       | Thin          |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | Blue            | 2,200 | Dixie         | Anchor Chain     |
|       | spring/Mollie   |       | Harrow-Hand   |                  |
|       | Nipple          |       | Thin          |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Phase 5 Total* | *4    |               |                  |
|       |                 | ,000* |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| Phase | Petrified       | 1,500 | Dixie         | Dixie            |
| 6     | H               |       | Harrow-Hand   | Harrow/Bullhog   |
| /2011 | ollow/Vermilion |       | Thin          |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | Cock            | 770   | Dixie         | Dixie            |
|       | scomb/Cockscomb |       | Harrow-Hand   | Harrow-Hand      |
|       |                 |       | Thin          | Thin/Bullhog     |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Phase 6 Total* | *2    |               |                  |
|       |                 | ,270* |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
| Phase | Paria           | 250   | Dixie         | Dixie            |
| 7     | Br              |       | Harrow-Hand   | Harrow-Hand      |
| /2012 | eaks/Cottonwood |       | Thin          | Thin/Bullhog     |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | Mine            | 1,000 | Dixie         | Anchor Chain     |
|       | Spring/Mollies  |       | Harrow-Hand   |                  |
|       | Nipple          |       | Thin          |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Phase 7 Total* | 1,250 |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+
|       | *Total Acres*   | 1     |               |                  |
|       |                 | 7,560 |               |                  |
+-------+-----------------+-------+---------------+------------------+

Note: \* indicates a research treatment.

**[Plan Conformance AND CONSISTENCY]{.underline}**:

This decision is in conformance with the MMP and does not conflict with
other decisions throughout the MMP. The treatments fulfill restoration
and land health requirements outlined in the MMP and adhere and conform
to the following decisions:

REV-00 The objective of revegetation projects is to stabilize areas that
are disturbed, often from overuse by human activities, and to prevent
further degradation of a site.

REV-01 Many factors will be considered when deciding to implement a
revegetation or restoration strategy. Each project and area to be
treated will be evaluated to determine the appropriate strategy. The
following general guidelines can be applied to determine which strategy
is the most appropriate and how it will be implemented in order to be
consistent with the overall vegetation management objectives.

> 1\) Restoration will be the goal whenever possible (i.e., an attempt
> will be made to return disturbed areas to conditions which promote a
> natural array of native plant and animal associations).
>
> 2\) Species used in both restoration and revegetation projects will
> comply with the non-native plant policy (i.e., native plants will be
> used as a priority).
>
> 3\) Revegetation strategies will be used in areas of heavy visitation,
> where site stabilization is desired.
>
> 4\) Restoration provisions will be included in all surface disturbing
> projects including provisions for post restoration monitoring of the
> area.
>
> 5\) Priority for restoration or revegetation will be given to projects
> where GSENM resources are being damaged. These sites will likely be in
> areas near development and/or heavy visitor use. Although these areas
> are more likely to be candidates for revegetation projects, careful
> evaluation of disturbed sites needs to be conducted to include desired
> future condition of an area. Restoration or revegetation of areas
> receiving heavy use may include limits on visitor use in order to
> promote recovery.

NAT-01 In keeping with the overall vegetation objectives and
Presidential EO 11312, native plants will be used as a priority for all
projects in GSENM.

NAT-02 Non-native plants may be used in limited, emergency situations
where they may be necessary in order to protect GSENM resources by
stabilizing soils and displacing noxious weeds. This use will be allowed
to the extent that it complies with the vegetation objectives,
Presidential EO 11312, and the Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah (1997). In these
situations, short-lived species (i.e., nurse crop species) will be used
and will be combined with native species to facilitate the ultimate
establishment of native species.

NAT-04 Non-native plants may be used for restoration related research if
the use is consistent with and furthers the overall vegetation
management objectives, including NAT-02, and after consultation with the
GSENM Advisory Committee.

NAT-05 Non-native plants will not be used to increase forage for
livestock and wildlife.

NAT-06 Monitoring plots will be established in any areas where
non-native plants are used in order to document changes in vegetation
structure and composition and will be an integral part of the adaptive
management framework.

RM-01 Mechanical methods, including manual pulling and the use of hand
tools (e.g., chainsaws, machetes, pruners) may be allowed throughout
GSENM.

RM-02 The use of machinery (e.g., roller chopping, chaining) may be
allowed in all zones except the Primitive Zone. Chaining has been used
in the past to remove pinyon and juniper prior to reseeding with
perennial grasses. Due to the potential for irreversible impacts to
other GSENM resources, such as archaeological sites and artifacts, and
paleontological resources, this treatment method will not be used to
remove pinyon and juniper. It may be allowed to cover rehabilitation
seed mixes with soil after wildfires only where:

> ● noxious weeds and invasive non-native species are presenting a
> significant threat to GSENM resources or watershed damage could occur
> if the burned area is not reseeded,
>
> ● it can be demonstrated that GSENM resources will not be
> detrimentally affected (i.e., completion of full archaeological,
> paleontological, threatened and endangered species and other resource
> clearance and consultation),
>
> ● it is determined that seed cover is necessary for the growth of the
> native species proposed for seeding, and
>
> ● other less surface disturbing measures of covering seed are not
> available or cannot be applied in a timely manner.
>
> Visual impacts of chaining will also be minimized near routes and
> other points of concern by covering the native seed mix with harrows
> or light chains. GSENM Advisory Committee will be consulted before the
> use of machinery for treatments is permitted.

RM-03 Livestock grazing after native seedings are established will be
modified to ensure the survival of the native plants. The livestock
exclusion period required to allow full establishment of seeded native
species and recovery of surviving native plants after a wildfire may be
more than two years. Site evaluation will be required to determine when
the native seeding should be grazed again and the effectiveness of the
current or new grazing system on the persistence of native plants.

RM-07 With all of the methods described in Decisions RM-1 through RM-6,
vegetation monitoring plots will be established to determine the
effectiveness of the treatments in achieving management objectives and
to provide baseline data of overall change. This monitoring will include
species frequency, density, and distribution data, and will be part of
the overall adaptive management framework.

SOIL-01 The BLM will apply procedures to protect soils from accelerated
or unnatural erosion in any ground-disturbing activity, including route
maintenance and restoration. The effects of these activities such as
grazing developments, mineral exploration or development, or water
developments will be analyzed through the preparation of project
specific NEPA documents. This process will include inventories for
affected resources and the identification of mitigation measures.

**1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans:**

This decision is consistent with Federal and State laws. Utah's
Standards for Rangeland Health address upland soils, riparian/wetland,
desired and native species and water quality.

This decision also adheres to the following elements described in the
Kane County, Utah General Plan (1998):

> ● "Conservation efforts will focus on the rehabilitation of the land
> base in order to improve the functioning of natural systems for the
> benefit of residents and visitors."
>
> ● "In order to reverse past disturbances, it is vital to participate
> in efforts to reintroduce grasses and forbs as the dominant vegetation
> type across the country."
>
> ● "Maintain or improve the primary landscape soil, vegetation, and
> watershed resources in a manner that perpetuates and sustains a
> diversity of uses while fully supporting the custom, culture, economic
> stability and viability of Kane County and our individual citizens."
>
> ● "Provide for landscape vegetation maintenance and improvement which
> will support restoration of suspended AUM's, allocation of
> continuously available temporary non-renewable use as active
> preference, and will support continued and or increased use of State
> school endowment trust lands."
>
> ● "Implement rangeland improvement programs, including but not limited
> to; water developments, rangeland restoration, juniper/shrub control,
> and weed control to achieve forage and livestock grazing as well as
> other multiple use resource goals."

**[Finding of No Significant Impact Determination]{.underline}**:

Based upon a review of the EA and the supporting documents, I have
determined that the project is not a major federal action and will not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually
or cumulatively, with other actions in the general area. No
environmental effects meet the definition of significance in context or
intensity as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27 and do not exceed those effects
described in the MMP. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is
not needed. This finding is based on the context and intensity of the
project as described:

**[Context]{.underline}**:

The project is a site-specific action directly involving approximately
33,000 acres of BLM administered land that does not in and of itself
have international, national, regional, or state-wide importance. This
project is a result of a collaborative effort that will be completed
with the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development (UPCD),
livestock grazing operators, and others. This project is one of a suite
of similar projects that will be implemented in Utah. The result of
these projects over time will be a cumulative improvement to rangeland
and sagebrush grassland communities throughout the state. Direct
improvements that will result from this project could be observed
outside of the project area, particularly for migratory or mobile
species.

**[Intensity]{.underline}**:

The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significant
Criteria described in 40 CFR 1508.27 and incorporated into BLM's
Critical Elements of the Human Environment list (H-1790-1), and
supplemental Instruction Memorandum, Acts, regulations and Executive
Orders. The following have been considered in evaluating intensity for
this proposal:

1.  **Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse**.

> The proposed action will impact resources as described in the EA.
> Mitigating measures to reduce adverse impacts to cultural resources,
> hydrology, soils and biological soil crusts, livestock grazing,
> vegetation including sensitive plant species, and wildlife were
> incorporated in the design of the action alternatives. None of the
> environmental effects discussed in detail in the EA and associated
> appendices are considered significant.
>
> Beneficial impacts include improvement in the health and stability of
> plant communities in the project area. Improvements to livestock
> forage and wildlife habitat will occur if this project is successfully
> implemented. The research component of this project will also allow
> GSENM to evaluate the most appropriate tools and seed mixes for
> particular soil types and plant communities.

2.  **The degree to which the selected alternative will affect public
    health or safety**.

> Public health or safety will not be affected by this project.

3.  **Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to
    historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farm lands,
    wetlands, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically
    critical areas**.

> There are no park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, wilderness, wild
> and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas in the project area.
> The historic and cultural resources of the area have been inventoried
> and potential impacts mitigated in the design of the proposed action.

4.  **The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human
    environment are likely to be highly controversial**.

> The nature of the impacts associated with this project are not highly
> controversial. GSENM has consulted with livestock operators on the
> project and made agreed upon modifications.

5.  **The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment
    are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks**.

> The environmental effects to the human environment are fully analyzed
> in the EA. There are no predicted effects on the human environment
> that are considered to be highly uncertain or involve unique or
> unknown risks.

6.  **The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for
    future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in
    principle about a future consideration.**

> The actions considered in the selected alternative were considered by
> the interdisciplinary team within the context of past, present, and
> reasonably foreseeable future actions. Significant cumulative effects
> are not predicted. A complete analysis of the direct, indirect, and
> cumulative effects of the selected alternative and all other
> alternatives is described in Chapter 4 of the EA.

7.  **Whether the action is related to other actions with individually
    insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts -- which include
    connected actions regardless of land ownership.**

> The interdisciplinary team evaluated the possible actions in context
> of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
> Significant cumulative effects are not predicted. However, the result
> of this and other similar projects being implemented throughout the
> state of Utah will result in a cumulative improvement to resource
> conditions. A complete disclosure of the effects of the project is
> contained in Chapter 4 of the EA.

8.  **The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts,
    sites, highways,** **structures, or other objects listed in or
    eligible for listing in the National Register of** **Historic Places
    or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific,
    cultural, or** **historical resources.**

> The project will not adversely affect districts, sites, highways,
> structures, or other objects listed in or eligible for listing in the
> National Register of Historic Places, nor will it cause loss or
> destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical
> resources. A cultural inventory is ongoing and a report will be
> submitted to the SHPO at the appropriate time.

9.  **The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered
    or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be
    critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or the degree to
    which the action may adversely affect: 1) a proposed to be listed
    endangered or threatened species or its habitat, or 2) a species on
    BLM's sensitive species list**.

> Mitigating measures to reduce impacts to wildlife have been
> incorporated into the design of the action alternatives. No threatened
> or endangered plants or animals are known to occur in the area. BLM
> listed sensitive plant species occur within the project area but will
> be avoided during implementation.

10. **Whether the action threatens a violation of a federal, state,
    local, or tribal law, regulation or policy imposed for the
    protection of the environment, where non-federal requirements are
    consistent with federal requirements.** The project does not violate
    any known federal, state, local or tribal law or requirement imposed
    for the protection of the environment. State, local, and tribal
    interests were given the opportunity to participate in the
    environmental analysis process. Furthermore, letters were sent to
    four Native American tribes (Hopi, Zuni, Navajo, and Paiute)
    concerning consulting party status, and there was no response from
    any of the tribes.

**[Decision:]{.underline}**

It is my decision to authorize vegetation restoration within the Five
Mile Mountain Sagebrush Restoration Project Area. This decision involves
the merging of Alternatives B and D as described in the Introduction on
pages 1-5. This decision is contingent upon following mitigation
measures listed below under "Terms/Conditions/Stipulations".

**Authorities:** The authority for this decision is contained in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.).

*[Mechanical Methods]{.underline}*

The mechanical methods selected match site conditions and resource
objectives and provide opportunities to explore experimental approaches.

For many portions of the project area, the most appropriate
implementation tool is the Dixie Harrow. Throughout much of the project
area, shrubs have become dense and composed primarily of older age
classes. The Dixie Harrow removes this older age class and allows
younger sagebrush and some understory species to persist. Applying seed
in front of a Dixie Harrow allows for scarification of the seed bed for
establishment of seeded species (L.Greenwood, 2004, S.B. Monson et al.,
2004). Because of the maneuverability of this tool, objectives for a
mosaic treatment pattern can also be met.

The anchor chain has similar benefits as the Dixie Harrow but generally
results in less disruption to soils and understory species, depending on
the type of chain used. If this tool is successful on the initial
experimental portion, it will be used on areas that do not need much
surface disturbance to remove weeds and loosen soils. Sagebrush
grasslands that have not been previously treated typically meet these
criteria. It is also appropriate on large continuous blocks that do not
have sinuous boundaries or require numerous untreated islands. One of
the main benefits of the anchor chain is the cost effectiveness of the
treatment (S.B. Monson et al., 2004).

Hand thinning will be used to remove larger junipers. Desirable grasses
and forbs will be left and released from woody species competition. This
tool will be used on relatively small areas. Use of this tool is
typically very cost effective relative to the bullhog and was therefore
the primary tool selected where tree removal is required. Also, the
bullhog has not been used in or adjacent to the project area and
therefore was selected as an experimental tool.

The bullhog will be used for tree removal where high juniper densities
make hand thinning uneconomical and would create a fire hazard due to
the amount of slash. This tool will allow creation of fire breaks around
hand thinned areas and application of mulch on the ground to aid in seed
establishment. The rangeland drill may be used to seed in bullhog areas
if understory species do not respond to treatment.

Control of sagebrush and juniper with the herbicide Tebuthiuron was
selected for areas that do not require soil disturbance or application
of seed. These areas contain existing but reduced amounts of understory
species that will benefit from reduced competition with woody species.
Use of "Spike" is an approved chemical and is authorized for use under
the Noxious Weed Control Environmental Assessment (EA)
(UT-030-98-006/UT-049-98-006, May 4, 1998). This method was incorporated
as a result of input from the permittee.

*[Seed Mixes]{.underline}*

Seed mixes for range seedings and previously undisturbed sagebrush
grasslands are in compliance with decisions in the MMP. A complete list
of seed mixes for each treatment area is found in Appendix B of the EA.

In range seedings, both introduced and native species will be used.
Introduced species will be used in the seed mix to provide immediate
soil stabilization and competition with exotic weed species. Natives
will be included for long term site stability, drought resistance, and
diversity (Monson, S.B. et al. 2004). Increasing numbers of studies have
shown that diverse native seed mixes are able to establish well relative
to introduced species (Pyke et al, 2003, Thompson et al, 2006,
Huber-Sannwald and Pyke, 2005).

Where an introduced and native species mixture is used because of
erosion or competition with weeds, at least one full native seed mix
will also be tested in the same area. Use of several seed mixes in
disturbed areas will help identify the most effective way to stabilize
soils and compete with weeds.

Where sagebrush grasslands do not meet emergency situations that warrant
introduced species, all native seed mixes will be used. Several seed
mixes will be tested in sagebrush grasslands to determine the most
effective seed mix for a particular area.

*[Research]{.underline}*

The Presidential Proclamation which established the GSENM lays the
groundwork for scientific research. This decision contains a research
element that allows for testing of lesser used methods and experimental
seed mixes that will inform management decisions in future projects.
Research elements include use of experimental all native seed mixes in
areas where introduced species are used in a mix, interseeding native
species into stands of introduced species (in consultation with the
permittee), use of herbicide to reduce sagebrush competition with
grasses and forbs, and use of mechanical methods such as the anchor
chain and the bullhog that have a limited or nonexistent history of use
on GSENM. Experimental all native seed mixes will be used in range
seedings on 30 acres or less. Interseeding will occur on less than 200
acres. The remaining tools (anchor chain, bullhog, and herbicide
application to sagebrush) will occur on less than 300 acres. Other
scientific studies include 1) the use of all introduced seed mixes to
track the effects on soil chemistry and site stability over time, 2)
rainfall simulation studies to evaluate erosion potential following
seeding and 3) biological soil crust studies to evaluate seed
establishment on crust communities.

*[Monitoring]{.underline}*

All project phases will be monitored to determine project effectiveness
and to evaluate when livestock grazing could resume. A baseline survey
will be conducted for each area prior to treatment for comparison
purposes with post treatment monitoring. Monitoring of treated areas
will occur one growing season following treatment. Monitoring will
continue every year after for the first five years and then in five year
increments thereafter.

Once baseline vegetation surveys are completed and seed mixes finalized,
specific monitoring plans for each treatment area will be developed. The
following approach will be applied. Vegetation cover and frequency data
will be collected. The reproductive stages of seeded species will be
evaluated. Ground cover data such as biological soil crusts, rock,
litter, and bare ground will be collected. Soil aggregate stability and
basal and canopy gaps will be measured to evaluate the impacts of the
different treatments on soils. Mobile rain gauges will be installed in
treated areas to evaluate precipitation and its effects on seeding
success. Utilization studies will occur to document use of wildlife
during seeding re-establishment. Detailed methods are described in
Appendix C of the EA.

Reference sites will be established prior to treatment. The monitoring
plan will define and describe specific reference conditions for each of
the treatment areas. Reference conditions/sites will be determined
differently for range seedings and sagebrush grassland communities.
Range site descriptions will be used to create reference conditions for
sagebrush grasslands. Because range site descriptions are not available
for range seedings, descriptions of the Desired Future Condition, along
with consultation with the permittee regarding their knowledge of the
range, will be used to create reference conditions for range seedings.

The following project success criteria must be met before grazing could
return to current permitted levels in a treated pasture. The criteria
are based on averages across the sampling locations.

-   Total cover (including, but not limited to, plant canopy, litter,
    biological soil crust, and rock/gravel) of at least 80% of reference
    site conditions for the site

-   Minimum of 55% of desired species at reproductive stage.

After each monitoring period, the monitoring data will be summarized and
the permittee will be contacted to discuss the results and the degree of
progress toward the above criteria. If monitoring data show that the
criteria are met at the end of the second growing season, the pasture
would be available for grazing in the next authorized season of use.
Monitoring will typically occur at the end of the monsoon season. For
permittees who would be authorized for fall use, they will be notified
that their pasture will be ready for use by September 15^th^. For all
other seasons of use, the permittee will be notified by November 1^st^
if their pasture has met success criteria.

If project success criteria are not met at the end of two growing
seasons, the permittee will be consulted and an interdisciplinary team
will begin an evaluation of site conditions and development of a site
specific contingency plan. The site will be compared to other treatment
sites in the project area with similar conditions to evaluate the cause
and appropriate future actions. Depending on the likely cause of the
seeding failure, alternative actions may include different treatment
methods, different seed mixes, or timing of implementation. Plans for
implementing these actions will be developed and funding avenues
pursued. Contingency plans could begin to be implemented as funding
allows and the BLM and cooperators agree.

If success criteria are not met after the third growing season,
livestock grazing may resume during the dormant season if it is
determined by the permittee and GSENM restoration and range staff that
grazing will not adversely affect the treatment or further establishment
of seeded species. This determination will be based on an evaluation of
the amount of forage available for grazing and the length of time that
it could be grazed. If grazing is resumed, GSENM staff will monitor the
effects and livestock will be removed if it is determined that it is
causing an adverse effect on the seeding.

*[Terms/Conditions/Stipulations]{.underline}*

General:

All work on the project will be performed during daylight hours. No
night work or artificial lighting will be used.

Cultural Resources:

Prior to implementation of the project, the treatment areas will be
inventoried for cultural resources. All properties eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be flagged
and avoided by mechanized ground disturbing activities. On some sites,
treatment with hand tools may be recommended to protect cultural
resources.

Herbicide Application**:**

Herbicide treatment will occur according to the BLM Integrated Pest
Management Plan requirements and MMP. Treatments will meet or exceed
individual States' label standards. Chemicals may be applied by backpack
sprayers, ATV Sprayers, and/or sprayer attached to a tractor.

Herbicide applications are scheduled and designed to minimize potential
impacts on non-target plants and animals, while remaining consistent
with the objectives of the vegetation treatment program. The rates of
application depend on the target species, presence and condition of
non-target vegetation, soil type, depth to water table, presence of
other water sources, and the requirements of the label.

Hydrology:

No mechanical treatments will occur within the active floodplain of
stream channels or within 30 feet of intermittent stream channels.
Perennial streams are those that flow year-round; intermittent streams
are those that flow throughout the wet season and are typically
sustained by groundwater flow between precipitation events. Ephemeral
streams are those that flow only in direct response to precipitation.

Equipment crossing of intermittent or perennial streams will only be
allowed when no other practical alternative exists and will only occur
at designated locations.

Equipment crossing of ephemeral channels will be minimized. Areas with
flat slopes will be the preferred locations for equipment crossings. No
equipment crossing will be allowed at locations where the streambank
angle exceeds 35%, or where bank height exceeds two feet (measured from
the bottom of the channel to the top of the bank).

Post-treatment site rehabilitation may be required at stream crossings.
Site rehabilitation techniques may include placing of organic materials
(juniper boles and/or branches or woody material from shrubs) and
installing water bars, where needed.

The following restrictions will apply to mechanical site preparation and
planting treatments within 330 feet of intermittent streams:

> ● At any given location, no more than two equipment passes will be
> allowed; and,
>
> ● Equipment passes will follow the contour of the terrain (in general,
> this will parallel the stream channel)

Seed Selection:

When developed strains of species are used in seedings, an effort will
be made to include a variety of locally adapted cultivars. Use of a
range of cultivars will allow the cultivars to match the range of
microsite conditions and diversify the genetic stock of the seeding.

Soils and Biological Soil Crusts:

When hand thinning occurs in an area, the cut material will be placed in
nearby deep gullies or areas of excessive water erosion to reduce
deepening of headcuts.

Ground disturbing equipment will contour to the slope when operating.
Erosion control structures that are damaged during implementation will
be repaired.

Mechanical equipment will not be used on slopes \> 20% and mechanical
operations will be suspended when soil moisture exceeds the plastic
limit (water content where soil changes from a plastic state to a
semi-solid - derived from the NRCS soil survey).

Areas of desirable vegetation and/or well developed biological soil
crust will be incorporated into untreated leave islands where possible.
Well developed soil crust communities are defined as containing a
diversity of species and morphological groups with lichens and mosses
present.

Vegetation:

In areas where the plant community has not been previously seeded (not a
range seeding), a mosaic pattern will be used for treatment. This mosaic
pattern will be used to mimic a natural appearance and will allow for
multiple aged shrub stands and thermal cover for wildlife. When areas
have been previously seeded, such as the range seedings, a more uniform
approach will be adopted to rehabilitate as much area as possible.

To prevent mechanical damage to rare plants, surveys will be done before
treatment to locate and avoid these populations.

Weeds:

If any listed noxious weed species are found at a project site,
treatment of those species will occur prior to commencing work to
prevent further spread.

To minimize exotic weed invasion, efforts will be made to plant seed
during advantageous climatic conditions and to control exotics quickly
if the seedings fail and exotics invade. Areas that are properly
functioning with adequate functional groups, good soil condition, and
high cover of biological soil crust will generally not be disturbed.
These areas are less at risk of exotic invasion than they will be if
they were disturbed by restoration activity.

For all phases of the proposed action, equipment will be cleaned with a
pressure washer prior to delivery and work to avoid spreading of noxious
or invasive weeds.

Wildlife:

Treatments will occur in late fall or winter. This will allow animal
species to complete brood raising and allow time for the young to become
mobile enough to avoid project activities better. The timing will also
alleviate some animal mortality by having some species hibernating
underground.

If condors are found feeding on carrion within the project area
boundaries, any project related activities near the feeding area will be
avoided until the birds are finished feeding and have moved on.

If burrowing owls are found and there are indications of nesting within
the project area boundaries, a buffer zone will be established around
the nesting area to protect the owls and their nesting habitat.

**[Alternatives Considered:]{.underline}**

The EA considered a No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and two
other action alternatives, Alternatives C and D. Alternative C
emphasized treating the range seedings first before treating sagebrush
grassland communities. Research in restoration techniques and seed mixes
was not emphasized in Alternative C. Alternative D proposed increased
use of experimental tools without initial experimental use (e.g. anchor
chain and bulllhog).

This decision merges Alternatives B (Proposed Action) and D to support
adaptive management opportunities. If experimental tools are found to be
successful in meeting site objectives, the treatment application
outlined in Alternative D could be adopted. This approach allows for an
initial testing period of tools and, using current information, applying
these methods over a wider area, as appropriate. This decision also
allows concurrent treatment of sagebrush grasslands and range seedings.

The No Action alternative was not selected because it would not meet
project objectives. Alternative C was not selected because delaying
treatment of sagebrush grasslands in favor of range seedings could
render sagebrush communities more difficult and costly to treat. Weed
encroachment and soil loss would be exacerbated making these communities
less amenable to restoration efforts. Wildlife that depend on these
communities may also shift use to adjacent treated range seedings,
creating conflicts of use.

**[Rationale for Decision:]{.underline}**

The merging of the Proposed Action and Alternative D selected in this DR
was evaluated against the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
articulated in Section 101 of NEPA and implemented through regulations,
policies, and guidelines issued by the Council on Environmental Quality
at 40 CFR 1500. This action conforms to MMP decisions listed in the
FONSI above.

This project was initially scoped by posting a notice on the Electronic
Notification Bulletin Board and sending scoping letters to interested
publics in April 2004. Consultation occurred between two permittees and
the BLM. Public comments from this initial effort were responded to in
Chapter 5 of the EA. Initial concerns from the public focused on
favoring use of native species, limiting mechanical disturbance, and the
role of livestock grazing and drought in seeding success. Permittee
comments generally supported the proposed project and requested
additional areas be treated as part of the project. Other public
comments suggested implementation of smaller pilot projects instead of
treating large acreage.

The alternatives in the EA were created as a result of public response
and input from the GSENM interdisciplinary team. In accordance with the
MMP, native species mixes were proposed for all areas not previously
treated and were incorporated into the range seedings with introduced
species to provide long term site stability and diversity. Additional
acres to be treated were added to the range seedings. An experimental
approach was also adopted to evaluate restoration tools on smaller
acreage early in the process. Alternative D treatment methods were
paired with the proposed action phasing to allow an adaptive management
approach if the experimental methods are successful.

The EA was mailed out for public review in August 2006. Public comments
departed from initial comments and focused on favoring introduced
species, concerns about grazing operations being suspended during
seeding establishment, perceived legal commitments due to existing
cooperative agreements and Allotment Management Plans, and the overall
purpose of the project (i.e. too much emphasis on wildlife benefits).

This decision takes into account recent public input and input from the
GSENM interdisciplinary team. While introduced plants can be used to
stabilize soils and displace noxious weeds, the MMP states that
non-native plants will not be used to increase forage for livestock or
wildlife (NAT-05). The mix of non-native and native species in range
seedings is meant to provide immediate soil stabilization and
competition with exotic weed species while increasing long term site
stability, drought resistance, and diversity. Through monitoring, if the
initial treatments do not meet project success criteria, a modified seed
mix could be used to help meet the above purposes. The current seed
mixes are based on range site descriptions, soil conditions, and the
best available data concerning plant success and growth. For plant
communities where range site descriptions are not available, such as
range seedings, species were selected that are best suited to the soil
type, competitive with existing weeds, and complement existing desirable
species. Species that were observed to persist through the drought were
included for long term stability. Input from permittees on species to
include in the mix was considered. During meetings with permittees,
Russian wildrye was suggested for seed mixes and this species is
included in the EA. Use of Alkali sacaton was also suggested but not
included because the species requires 12-14 inches of annual
precipitation which is higher than the site average of 10 inches or
less.

This decision allows for some return of livestock, in consultation with
the permittee, after three growing seasons. This decision also reflects
BLM's commitment to continue to consult with permittees, in accordance
with the MMP, regarding treatments in the range seedings and to develop
joint contingency plans if the seedings are not successful. While some
Cooperative Agreements are in place for the range seedings, these
documents are not in compliance with the MMP. The BLM will continue to
consult with the permittee on improvement of the range seedings to
sustain livestock grazing for the long term and modify Cooperative
Agreements and Allotment Management Plans as needed. The purposes of
this project, as described in the Introduction of this DR, include
improvement of both degraded rangeland and sagebrush grassland
communities to sustain long term grazing conditions for livestock
operators and enhance wildlife habitat. The BLM recognizes our multiple
use mandate which supports permittees, their heritage and their culture.

**[Appeals Language:]{.underline}**

The decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals,
Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in
43 CFR Part 4. Public notification of this decision will be considered
to have occurred on October 5, 2006*.* Within 30 days of this decision,
a notice of appeal must be filed in the office of the authorized officer
at GSENM, 190 E. Center St., Kanab, UT 84741. If a statement of reasons
for the appeal is not included with the notice, it must be filed with
the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy St., Suite 300, Arlington,
VA 22203 within 30 days after the notice of appeal is filed with the
authorized officer.

If you wish to file a petition for stay pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4.21(b),
the petition for stay should accompany your notice of appeal and shall
show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

\(1\) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied,

\(2\) The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits,

\(3\) The likelihood of irreparable harm to the appellant or resources
if the stay is not granted, and

\(4\) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.

If a petition for stay is submitted with the notice of appeal, a copy of
the notice of appeal and petition for stay must be served on each party
named in the decision from which the appeal is taken, and with the IBLA
at the same time it is filed with the authorized officer.

A copy of the notice of appeal, any statement of reasons and all
pertinent documents must be served on each adverse party named in the
decision from which the appeal is taken and on the Office of the
Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 6201 Federal
Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1180, not
later than 15 days after filing the document with the authorized officer
and/or IBLA.

> **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**
>
> Authorized Officer Date

**Attachments:** Maps, Literature Cited.

**Literature Cited:**

Greenwood, L. Multiple Use Management -- Dixie Harrow Style. BLM
Resource Notes. No. 75. 9/10/04

Huber-Sannwald, E., and D.A. Pyke. 2005. Establishing native grasses in
a big sagebrush dominated site: an intermediate restoration step.
Restoration Ecology 13:292-301.

Monson, S.B., R. Stevens, N.L. Shaw, comps. 2004. Restoring western
ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. Pages 1-294 plus index.

Pyke, D.A., T.O. McArthur, K.S. Harrison, and M. Pellant. 2003.
Coordinated intermountain restoration project -- fire, decomposition,
and restoration. In: N. Allsop, A.R. Palmer, S.J. Milton, K.P. Kirkham,
G.I.H Kerley, C.R. Hurt, and C.J. Brown (eds). Proceedings, 7^th^
International Rangeland Congress; 26 July-August1 2003; Durban, South
Africa. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. P. 1116-1124.

Thompson, T.W., B.A. Roundy, E.D. McArthur, B.D. Jessop, B. Waldron, and
J.N. Davis. Fire rehabilitation using native and introduced species: A
landscape trial. Rangeland Ecological Management. 59:237