November 2005 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

VERNAL 

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT 

UT-080-2004-0430

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) # UT – 080- 2004 -0430 

Vernal Fire Management Plan EA 

This unsigned FONSI and the attached EA #UT- 080- 2004- 0430 for the Vernal Fire Management Plan are 

available for public review and comment for 30 days beginning on January 17, 2006.

Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts in the attached EA and consideration of the 

significance criteria in 40 CFR 1508.27, I have determined that with required and proposed protection 

measures the Vernal Fire Management Plan would not result in significant impacts on the human 

environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required. 

The decision to approve or deny the Vernal Fire Management Plan, and if appropriate a signed FONSI with 

rationale, will be released after consideration of public comments and completion of the EA. 

___________________________________ _______________ 

State Director Date 

November 2005 Table of Contents/Vernal i 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1 . PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH BLM LAND USE PLANS................................................................................... 1-4

1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER PLANS ............................................. 1-4

1.7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES.......................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.7.1 Issues Identified for Analysis ..............................................................................................................1-5

CHAPTER 2 . DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................... 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION......................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Overall Goals.........................................................................................................................................2-3

2.2.2 DESIRED WILDLAND FIRE CONDITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION..................2-3

2.2.3 Fire Management Actions for the Proposed Action.....................................................................2-8

2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................................2-11

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS.......................2-15

2.4.1 Historical Fire Alternative.................................................................................................................2-15

2.4.2 Non-fire Treatment Alternative......................................................................................................2-16

CHAPTER 3 . AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 GENERAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES 

BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.......................................................................................3-1

3.3.2 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.3 Floodplains..............................................................................................................................................3-5

3.3.4 Invasive, Non-native Species ..............................................................................................................3-7

3.3.5 Native American Religious Concerns ..............................................................................................3-8

3.3.6 Special Status Species...........................................................................................................................3-9

3.3.7 Water Quality......................................................................................................................................3-11

3.3.8 Wetlands and Riparian Zones..........................................................................................................3-14

3.3.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................................................3-15

3.3.10 Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................................................................3-16

3.3.11 Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................................3-17

3.3.12 Woodlands and Forestry ..................................................................................................................3-20

3.3.13 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................3-21

3.3.14 Fish and Wildlife..................................................................................................................................3-25

3.3.15 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................3-29

3.3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................3-31

3.3.17 Socioeconomics...................................................................................................................................3-32

3.3.18 Wild Horses and Burros...................................................................................................................3-33

3.3.19 Wilderness Characteristics ..............................................................................................................3-35

CHAPTER 4 . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES................................................................ 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 PROPOSED ACTION......................................................................................................................................... 4-2
ii Table of Contents/Vernal November 2005 

4.2.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.......................................................................................4-2

4.2.2 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................................4-4

4.2.3 Floodplains..............................................................................................................................................4-5

4.2.4 Invasive, Non-native Species ..............................................................................................................4-6

4.2.5 Native American Religious Concerns ..............................................................................................4-8

4.2.6 Special Status Species...........................................................................................................................4-9

4.2.7 Water Quality......................................................................................................................................4-14

4.2.8 Wetlands and Riparian Zones..........................................................................................................4-17

4.2.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................................................4-17

4.2.10 Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................................................................4-18

4.2.11 Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................................4-20

4.2.12 Woodlands and Forestry ..................................................................................................................4-21

4.2.13 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................4-23

4.2.14 Fish and Wildlife..................................................................................................................................4-26

4.2.15 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................4-28

4.2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................4-29

4.2.17 Socioeconomics...................................................................................................................................4-30

4.2.18 Wild Horses and Burros...................................................................................................................4-31

4.2.19 Wilderness Characteristics ..............................................................................................................4-31

4.2.20 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................4-34

4.2.21 Residual Impacts..................................................................................................................................4-34

4.2.22 Monitoring and Compliance.............................................................................................................4-34

4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................................4-35

4.3.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.....................................................................................4-35

4.3.2 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................4-35

4.3.3 Floodplains............................................................................................................................................4-37

4.3.4 Invasive, Non-native Species ............................................................................................................4-37

4.3.5 Native American Religious Concerns ............................................................................................4-39

4.3.6 Special Status Species.........................................................................................................................4-39

4.3.7 Water Quality......................................................................................................................................4-40

4.3.8 Wetlands and Riparian Zones..........................................................................................................4-42

4.3.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................................................4-42

4.3.10 Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................................................................4-43

4.3.11 Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................................4-45

4.3.12 Woodlands and Forestry ..................................................................................................................4-45

4.3.13 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................4-47

4.3.14 Fish and Wildlife..................................................................................................................................4-49

4.3.15 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................4-49

4.3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................4-50

4.3.17 Socioeconomics...................................................................................................................................4-50

4.3.18 Wild Horses and Burros...................................................................................................................4-50

4.3.19 Wilderness Characteristics ..............................................................................................................4-51

4.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................................................................................................4-54

4.4.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario......................................................................................4-54

4.4.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.....................................................................................4-54

4.4.3 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................4-55

4.4.4 Floodplains............................................................................................................................................4-55

4.4.5 Invasive, Non-native Species ............................................................................................................4-56

4.4.6 Native American Religious Concerns ............................................................................................4-56

4.4.7 Special Status Species.........................................................................................................................4-56

4.4.8 Water Quality......................................................................................................................................4-57
November 2005 Table of Contents/Vernal iii 

4.4.9 Wetlands and Riparian Zones..........................................................................................................4-57

4.4.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................................................4-58

4.4.11 Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................................................................4-58

4.4.12 Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................................4-59

4.4.13 Woodlands and Forestry ..................................................................................................................4-59

4.4.14 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................4-59

4.4.15 Fish and Wildlife..................................................................................................................................4-60

4.4.16 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................4-60

4.4.17 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................4-60

4.4.18 Socioeconomics...................................................................................................................................4-61

4.4.19 Wild Horses and Burros...................................................................................................................4-61

4.4.20 Wilderness Characteristics ..............................................................................................................4-61

CHAPTER 5 . CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION......................................................... 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED............................................................................. 5-1

5.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.1 Public Meetings......................................................................................................................................5-4

5.3.2 Public Comments..................................................................................................................................5-4

5.4 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................................................................... 5-4

5.4.1 BLM Preparers.......................................................................................................................................5-5

5.4.2 Maxim Technologies Preparers.........................................................................................................5-5

CHAPTER 6 . ACRONYMS, GLOSSARY, AND REFERENCES.................................................. 6-1

6.1 ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................................................ 6-2

6.3 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................6-13

Appendices 

APPENDIX A INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ANALYSIS RECORD CHECKLIST

APPENDIX B WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION

APPENDIX C WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES BY FIRE MANAGEMENT 

UNIT FOR THE VERNAL PROPOSED ACTION

APPENDIX E RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES APPLIED TO SPECIFIC FIRE 

MANAGEMENT UNITS FOR THE VERNAL PROPOSED ACTION

APPENDIX F FEDERALLY LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND PETITIONED SPECIES 

FOUND WITHIN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA

APPENDIX G BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES FOUND WITHIN THE VERNAL PLANNING 

AREA

APPENDIX H FIRE’S INTERACTION WITH RESOURCES

APPENDIX I BIOLOGICAL OPINION TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

November 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Vernal 1-1 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents results of an analysis of proposed changes to the current 

management of wildland fire and hazardous fuels for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Vernal Field 

Office. Proposed revisions of the Vernal Fire Management Plan (FMP) serve as the Proposed Action for this 

EA. The revised FMP incorporates current planning requirements associated with fire management on public 

lands, including wildland fire suppression and fuel treatments. The EA analysis is designed to ensure 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It allows determinations to be made as to 

whether any significant impacts, as defined by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 

Regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, could result from the analyzed actions. 

An EA provides evidence for determining whether preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) statement is necessary. A Decision Record (DR) that includes a 

FONSI statement is a document that briefly presents reasons why implementation of the Proposed Action 

would not result in significant environmental impacts (effects) beyond those already addressed within other 

NEPA and BLM planning documents. If the decision-maker determines that this project would have significant 

impacts following the analysis in the EA, then an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, a DR may be 

signed for the EA approving the alternative selected. In the present case, the DR would identify fire 

management planning goals and objectives associated with the FMP and would provide language upon which 

future fire management planning and implementation actions could tier (as per 40 CFR 1502.20). 

Issues identified for analysis within this EA are included as Appendix A (Interdisciplinary Team Analysis 

Record Checklist). This appendix includes the resource concerns identified in the EA (including those 

resources considered as critical elements of the human environment) and related issues derived from the 

BLM, affiliated agency resource reviews, and comments received during the public scoping process. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

The Vernal Field Office evaluated its current FMP and determined that an update was needed to comply with 

current federal fire management direction. Applicable federal fire management direction is outlined in Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review (USDI and USDA 1995); USDI and USDA Implementaiton 

Action Plan Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDI and USDA 2001a); 

and A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-year 

Comprehensive Strategy (USDI and USDA 2001b). Additionally, the focus on hazardous fuel treatments called 

for by the National Fire Plan and Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 were not known at the time the 

current FMP was written. 

The planning area for the EA encompasses approximately 2.5 million acres of land owned and managed by 

various entities (e.g., public, private, and state). BLM-administered lands within the Vernal planning area 

account for approximately 1.7 million of these acres. BLM lands in the planning area are administered by the 

Vernal Field Office. Figure 1.1 illustrates the Vernal Field Office boundaries and BLM-administered land 

within the planning area. 

The acreages presented in this EA are approximate, due to slight variations in geographical information 

system (GIS) data sets. The variations represent an insignificant quantity of land area and have a negligible 

effect on analyses of fire management action impacts. 
1-2 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 1.1: VERNAL FIELD OFFICE BOUNDARY AND BLM-ADMINISTERED LAND WITHIN THE 

PLANNING AREA
November 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Vernal 1-3 

1.3 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 

National fire management policy has evolved in response to increased fatalities, property losses, local 

economic disruption, risks to ecosystems associated with increasingly severe wildland fires, and increasing 

wildland urban interface (WUI) conflicts. National policy requires that federal land management agencies 

change their fire management practices to increase protection of human life and decrease natural resource 

and private property damage. Revision of the FMP would result in fire management direction that is 

compliant with national and interagency direction. 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review (USDI and USDA 1995) and USDI and USDA 

Implementation Action Plan Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDA and 

USDI 2001a) directed that FMPs be developed for all areas of burnable vegetation on federal lands. 

Management direction is further organized within the revised FMP through the use of land area subdivisions 

called fire management units (FMUs). 

The revised FMP formally documents the fire management program and is based on existing management 

framework plans and resource management plans (RMPs), both of which are known as land use plans (LUPs). 

FMPs incorporate the broader LUP management direction and are a fire manager’s primary guide for 

planning, and in some instances, implementing fire-related direction on the ground. 

The revised FMP would result in a document that provides for fire management direction compliant with 

national and interagency direction. The revised FMP would further the ultimate goals of improving firefighter 

and public safety, reducing fuel loads, and maintaining the ecological functions of landscapes within the Vernal 

planning area. 

The following underlying objectives drive the need to revise the Vernal FMP: 

 Protect human life. This would be the prime suppression priority. Setting priorities among protecting 

human communities and community infrastructures, other property and improvements, and natural and 

cultural resources would be done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and 

cost. 

 Use the full range of fire management actions to achieve ecosystem sustainability. 

 Reduce hazardous fuels. 

 Restore ecosystems. 

 Protect communities-at-risk. 

Acreages in the Proposed Action are based on achieving these goals and objectives. 

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Director of BLM’s Office of Fire and Aviation has instructed all field offices to develop a new FMP or 

revise their existing FMP. The revised FMP should identify and integrate all federal wildland fire management 

guidance, direction, and activities required to implement national fire policy, fire management policy, and 

program direction from the following: Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review (USDI and 

USDA 1995); the Interagency Strategy for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (BLM 

2003a); and A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-

year Comprehensive Strategy (USDI and USDA 2001b). 

Ecosystems have evolved with, and adapted to, specific fire regimes. Control and suppression of wildfires 

have altered natural frequencies, sizes, intensities, and seasons of occurrence and have resulted in increased 
1-4 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Vernal November 2005 

hazardous fuel loads, increases in understory and brush, and increases in stand density (Wright 1990, 

Covington and Moore 1994). 

Two terms—fire regime and condition class—are used to describe natural fire processes and current 

departure from historic conditions. Fire regime is a description of natural fire return intervals associated with 

vegetation cover types (a further description of fire regime can be found in the glossary in Chapter 6). 

Condition class is a description of vegetation conditions based on the change from natural fire regime, 

including effects of fire suppression (fuel loading and encroachment) and species invasion. There are three 

condition class categories: 

 FRCC 1: Within historical range for fire return interval and vegetation attributes 

 FRCC 2: Moderately altered from historical range 

 FRCC 3: Substantially altered from historical range and vegetation attributes 

1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH BLM LAND USE PLANS 

The proposed FMP is not in conformance with the Diamond Mountain RMP and Book Cliffs RMP. However, 

the proposed action would conform with the Vernal FO RMP Draft EIS (January 2005). The Decision Record 

for this FMP EA would not be signed, and implementation of the proposed action would not occur until after 

the RMP Record of Decision is signed. 

1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER PLANS 

This document was prepared in adherence to relevant BLM NEPA and CEQ guidance for the completion of 

an EA. CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) detail the process of preparing 

NEPA documents, while the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA 43 USC 1711) 

regulates the BLM’s planning process. As required by FLPMA and BLM policy, resource management planning 

must take into account the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 

In addition to meeting the goals, objectives and intent of BLM planning guidance, other applicable fire 

management goals, policy statements and specific fire management decisions addressed by the proposed 

action include: 

 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995) and Review and Update of the Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy (2001) 

 A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-

year Comprehensive Strategy 

In consideration of CEQ and BLM guidance and fire management requirements, the Proposed Action has 

been developed to also be in compliance with other applicable environmental laws, policies, and Executive 

Orders (EOs). These authorities include (but are not limited to) the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, Clean 

Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA), 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Utah’s laws for air pollution, Utah BLM’s Standards and Guidelines 

for Healthy Rangelands, Native American Trust Resource Policies, EO 11514 (Protection and Enhancement 

of Environmental Quality), EO 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment), EO 11988 

(Management of Floodplains), EO 11990 (Management of Riparian and Wetlands), EO 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), EO 12898 (Consideration of Environmental Justice Issues), EO 13112 (Management of 

Invasive Species), and EO 13186 (Management of Migratory Birds). Specific land management and wildland fire 

management policies are shown in Appendix B. 
November 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Vernal 1-5 

The Proposed Action would be consistent with adjacent federal land agency, State of Utah and affiliated 

Native American tribal planning. These other planning efforts include the State of Utah Natural Hazard 

Mitigation Plan (Utah Department of Public Safety 2004) and ongoing local government planning. If 

inconsistencies are identified, the BLM would consider adjustments to fire and/or fuel treatments during 

project-specific planning through coordination with adjacent entities. Resources managed by other federal, 

state, and tribal agencies were also taken into consideration during the development of resource protection 

measures (RPMs) within the Proposed Action. 

The proposed action would be consistent with the Vernal Field Office’s Normal Fire Year Rehabilitation Plan 

(NFYRP) completd in 2003 (BLM 2003c). The NFYRP directs site-specific Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation (ESR) actions following wildfires. 

1.7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 

The proposed FMP would not conflict with other resource goals and objectives in the existing LUPs. 

However, the potential for impacts on resources in raises issues that are addressed by this EA. Appendix A

presents the issues that were identified. These issues influenced development of the Proposed Action. 

Resources that are either not present within the planning areas or would not be affected by the Proposed 

Action are identified in Appendix A and are not included for analysis in this document. They include air 

quality, environmental justice, farmlands (prime or unique), wastes (hazardous or solid), visual resources, 

geology, mineral resources, paleontology, and lands and access. This section presents a summary of 

potentially affected resource issues. 

1.7.1 ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR ANALYSIS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

 Impacts on the values that the ACECs were designated to address. 

Cultural Resources 

 Impacts on cultural sites. 

Floodplains 

 Impacts on the natural and beneficial use of floodplains. 

Invasive, Non-Native Species 

 Potential for increased noxious weed infestation from unplanned fire. 

Native American Religious Concerns 

 Impacts of fire on traditional cultural property (TCP) and areas of traditional cultural importance. 

Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Plant Species 

 Impacts on listed and candidate plant species from suppression. 

Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Animal Species 

 Impacts on listed and candidate animal species from unplanned actions. 
1-6 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Vernal November 2005 

Water Quality 

 Impacts on water quality. 

Wetlands and Riparian Zones 

 Impacts on riparian areas from suppression and fuels management. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

 Impacts on outstanding remarkable values, tentative classification. 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

Impacts on naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation in the 

WSAs 

Livestock Grazing 

 Impacts on allotment use. 

Woodlands and Forestry 

 Potential for vegetation conversion. 

Vegetation, including Special Status Plant Species 

 Impacts on vegetation, including special status species (SSS), from fire. 

Fish and Wildlife including Special Status Species 

 Impacts on fish and wildlife species, including SSS, and potential/occupied habitat. 

 Impacts on crucial seasonal habitat. 

Soils 

 Impacts on soils. 

Recreation 

 Impacts on developed recreation sites and facilities. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

Fire and fuels management considerations form the basis for the Proposed Action. Therefore, fire and 

fuels management impacts are considered and addressed in this EA. The objective of the FMP is to 

provide management direction for this resource, in consideration of other resources. As such there is no 

separate section in Chapter 3 or Chapter 4 for this resource. 

Socioeconomics 

 Impacts on socioeconomics. 
November 2005 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Vernal 1-7 

Wild Horses and Burros 

 Impacts on herd management area. 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Impacts from fire management actions to the naturalness, opportunity for solitude and primitive 

recreation, and any supplemental values. 

November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-1 

CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes and compares the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative and addresses 

alternatives considered but dismissed. The Proposed Action complies with federal wildland fire management 

policy. It emphasizes protection of life and resources through wildland fire and fuels management and 

incorporates current scientific principles regarding benefits of wildland fire in the ecosystem while 

implementing cost-effective fire management techniques. 

The No Action Alternative represents current fire management direction as directed in the Vernal Field 

Office Fire Management Activity Plan (BLM 1998a). It, too, prioritizes protection of life and resources, but 

contains fewer fuels management goals and opportunities for wildfire to benefit ecosystems. 

The Vernal planning area boundary is the same for the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. 

However, the Vernal planning area is divided into 28 FMUs in the Proposed Action and 23 polygons in the 

No Action Alternative. The boundaries of the polygons are similar in some instances, but not directly 

comparable. The definition of a polygon is not clearly defined in the No Action Alternative, but is linked to 

risk, values, and hazards within the Vernal planning area. In the Proposed Action, FMUs are delineated based 

on management objectives and constraints, topographic features, access, values to be protected, political 

boundaries, fuel types, FRCC, and other distinguishing characteristics. Both alternatives use the following 

categories to define where and to what degree both planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned (wildland fire) 

are appropriate. 

 Category A: Fire is not desired at all. 

 Category B: Unplanned fire is not desired, but prescribed fire and/or non-fire fuel treatments may be 

used to achieve resource objectives. Mitigation would likely be required to protect resources. 

 Category C: Fire is desired. Constraints are present to protect values at risk. Prescribed fire and non-fire 

fuel treatments may also be used to achieve resource objectives. In the Proposed Action Alternative, 

wildland fire use may be allowed. 

 Category D: Fire is desired. Wildland fire, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments may be used to 

achieve desired objectives. In the Proposed Action Alternative, wildland fire use may be allowed. 

Appendix C presents a detailed definition of the categories. Greater detail regarding the alternatives is 

presented below.

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION 

Twenty-eight FMUs that make up the Vernal planning area for the Proposed Action and fire management 

objectives for BLM-administered land are presented in Figure 2.1. Overall goals are discussed in Section 

2.2.1 and fire management actions are presented in Section 2.2.3.
2-2 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

Figure 2.1: Fire Management Categories and Fire Management Units for the Proposed Action 

on BLM-Administered Land 
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-3 

2.2.1 OVERALL GOALS 

The Proposed Action emphasizes strategic fire management planning that integrates resource management 

goals, objectives, and concerns with fire management activities. Overall criteria for development of the 

Proposed Action are as follows: 

 Provide for firefighter and public safety. 

 Work collaboratively with communities-at-risk within the WUI to develop plans for risk reduction. 

 Allow fire to function in its ecological role, when appropriate for the site and situation, to help protect, 

maintain, and enhance public resources. 

 Create an integrated approach to fire and resource management across landscape and agency 

boundaries. This approach would be designed to meet the desired outcomes of LUPs and RMPs. 

 Provide a program that fosters interagency interaction, cooperation, and effectiveness for all fire 

management activities. 

 Fire management actions would take into consideration costs, ecosystem or resource benefits, and values to 

be protected. 

2.2.2 DESIRED WILDLAND FIRE CONDITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The general Desired Wildland Fire Conditions (DWFC) is to have ecosystems that are at a low risk of losing 

ecosystem components following wildfire and that function within their historical range. In terms of FRCC, 

the DWFC outside the WUI is to trend to a lower FRCC using the least intrusive method possible. In other 

words, the DWFC is to move lands in FRCC 3 to FRCC 2 and lands in FRCC 2 to FRCC 1 through fire and 

non-fire treatments where wildland fire use is the preferred method of treatment, when feasible. Inside the 

WUI, the general DWFC is to have less potential for values to be threatened by wildland fire, usually through 

some modification of fuels. 

In all fire management decisions, strategies and actions, firefighter and public safety would be the first and 

highest priority. The full range of management strategies and actions would be used to protect firefighter and 

public safety. This priority overrides all other strategies and actions. Further, the full range of fire 

management actions, consistent and integrated with other Land Use Plan decisions, would be used to help 

achieve ecosystem sustainability, including its interrelated ecological, economic and social components. 

FIRE REGIME

Fire Regime refers to the historical fire frequency (called fire return interval) and the severity with which 

fire occurred. Vegetation types in the west developed under these fire regimes. 

Fire Regime I low-severity fires with a frequency of 0-35 years. 

Fire Regime II stand replacement fires with a frequency of 0-35 years. 

Fire Regime III mixed-severity fires with a frequency of 35 to 100 years. 

Fire Regime IV stand replacement fires with a frequency of 35-100 years. 

Fire Regime V stand replacement or mixed-severity fires with a frequency of 200+ years. 
2-4 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

The following are general strategies and actions for all facets of the wildland fire management program, 

including suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation, prevention, and community protection: 

• The appropriate management response would be provided to all wildland fires, emphasizing 

firefighter and public safety and considering suppression costs, benefits and values to be protected. 

The appropriate management response would be consistent with resource objectives, would be 

based on ecological and social costs, and benefits of the fire. The circumstances under which the fire 

occurs and the likely consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural 

resources and values to be protected, would dictate the appropriate management response to the 

fire. 

• Wildland fire would be used to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, would 

be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 

• To reduce risks and to restore ecosystems, the following fuels management tools would be allowed 

throughout the Vernal Planning Area: wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and mechanical, chemical, 

seeding, and biological actions. As conditions allow, the BLM would employ the least intrusive 

method over more intrusive methods. For example, wildland fire use is the preferred method of 

treatment. Where wildland fire use is not feasible, prescribed burning would be the preferred 

method. Where prescribed burning is not feasible, non-fire fuel treatments would become the 

preferred method of treatment. 

• Work with partners in the WUI in wildland firefighting, hazardous fuels reduction, cooperative fire 

prevention education and technical assistance. Unauthorized wildland fire ignitions would be 

prevented through coordination with partners and affected groups and individuals. The full range of 

prevention and mitigation activities would be used: personal contacts, mass media, education 

programs and signage. 

• The following Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) actions (following wildfire 

suppression) and restoration for planned actions may be utilized to reduce potential for soil erosion 

and invasive species spread: seeding or planting native and/or non-native species; applying approved 

herbicides; implementing soil stabilization measures (e.g., stabilization structures, mulches); 

protecting cultural resources; repairing or replacing facilities; fencing, herding or removing livestock 

and/or horses; and resting allotments. Specific actions could include brush/tree chopping; contour 

tree felling; silt catchments; waddles, straw or fabric silt traps; mulching; drill seeding; aerial seeding; 

aerial seeding followed by mechanical seed covering (chaining, harrowing or other mechanical 

means); planting seedlings; fence construction or rebuilding; road/trail maintenance or closures; cattle 

guards; road culvert installation or cleaning; water bars; sign installation and maintenance; herbicidal 

or mechanical weed treatments; weather station installation and maintenance; repairing or rebuilding 

of minor facilities (cross fencing, wildlife structures, recreational facilities). All ESR actions would be 

conducted following BLM’s ESR Handbook. 

• Monitoring actions would be undertaken to determine results from fire management decisions and 

actions. 

2.2.2.1 DWFC and Management Actions by Vegetation Group 

The DWFC are ecosystems that are at low risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire. Outside 

of the WUI, the DWFC is based on the historic conditions (as supported by science and generally agreed 

upon by BLM resource specialists) with the assumption that those conditions are achievable, sustainable and 

desirable. Inside the WUI, the DWFC is based on reducing fire risk to communities. 

FRCC is a description of vegetation conditions based on the change from natural fire regime and includes 

effects of fire suppression (fuel loading and encroachment) and invasive species. FRCC 1 is within its 
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-5 

historical range for fire regime and vegetation attributes. FRCC 2 is moderately altered from its historical 

range for fire regime and vegetation attributes and FRCC 3 is substantially altered from its historical range 

and vegetation attributes. 

The DWFC is described by major vegetation group in the table below, based on GAP Analysis (Edwards et 

al. 1998), information in Fire Effects Information System (2004), other publications as noted and input from 

an interdisciplinary team that included expertise in range ecology, botany, wildlife, fisheries, hydrology and 

fire ecology. This table also describes actions that are needed and authorized to meet the DWFC. Table 2.1

specifically addresses actions that result in progress toward achieving DWFC. The actions are described in 

terms of wildland fire, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments, and post-fire response (including ESR). 

Table 2.1 DWFC by Major Vegetation Group and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

Major Vegetation Group 

(% in Planning Area) DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

Salt Desert Scrub 

(29 %) 

The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is native, open salt desert scrub 

vegetation with little to no invasive species cover. Fire would be mostly excluded 

from these vegetation types. Due to the historical lack of surface fuels, the 

historical fire return interval is extremely infrequent (FEIS 2004). 

• Due to the historical lack of fire and current potential for cheatgrass 

invasion, do not allow wildland fire to burn into salt desert scrub 

vegetation types. Wildland fire is not desired due to high potential for 

cheatgrass invasion following wildfire and loss of native salt desert scrub 

communities. 

• Treat salt desert scrub types using a combination of mechanical, 

chemical, seeding and biological treatments to reduce cheatgrass cover 

and restore native communities. Prescribed fire may be used in 

conjunction with seeding when part of a cheatgrass control objective 

(Pellant 2002). Due to the high incidence of cheatgrass in this vegetation 

type, consider seeding following any surface-disturbing activity. 

• Following wildland fire, aggressively seed to reduce potential for 

cheatgrass and other noxious weed invasion. 

Pinyon and Juniper 

Woodland 

(18 %) 

Where pinyon and juniper occurred historically, the DWFC both outside and 

inside the WUI, is open stands of pinyon and juniper with native grass and shrub 

understory (Miller and Wigand 1994, FEIS 2004). Where pinyon and juniper did 

not occur historically, the DWFC is the native shrub, grass and forest 

communities that the pinyon and juniper have invaded. The historical role of fire 

(estimated 15–50 year fire return interval) prevented encroachment of pinyon 

and juniper into other vegetation communities (Heyerdahl et al. 2004, Miller and 

Tausch 2001, Bradley et al. 1992, Romme et al. 2002). Most pinyon and juniper 

encroachment has occurred in the past 100 years (Miller and Wigand 1994). 

Follow treatments with seeding in stands that lack native understory vegetation 

(FEIS 2004). Avoid treatments in old-growth (i.e., pre-settlement stands) pinyon 

and juniper. Historical occurrence of pinyon and juniper is difficult to map, but 

pre-settlement trees are generally located in shallow, rocky soils and tend to 

have a unique growth form characterized by rounded, spreading canopies; large 

basal branches; large irregular trunks; and furrowed fibrous bark (Miller and Rose 

1999). Historic fire return intervals in these protected sites are greater than 100 

years (Romme et al. 2002). 

• When possible, allow wildland fire to play its natural role that mimics 

the historical fire-return interval and severity in stands that have some 

cover of native understory vegetation. Due to the high risk of losing key 

ecosystem components in stands with extremely depauperate native 

understory, avoid wildland fires in these areas. Prescribed fires should 

be applied to pinyon and juniper communities when native surface fuels 

will carry fire and when there is low risk of invasive species. 
2-6 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

Major Vegetation Group 

(% in Planning Area) DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

• Prescribed fire should be used to approximate historical fire return 

intervals and promote recovery of the pre-settlement vegetation cover 

types. Remove most young (<100 years old) pinyon and juniper trees 

through fire or mechanical treatments (Brockway et al. 2002). In the 

WUI, construct fuel breaks between BLM and private land or other 

values at risk. 

• Following wildfire in areas lacking native understory, aggressively seed to 

reduce invasive species establishment and to restore native 

communities. 

Sagebrush 

(35 %) 

The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is healthy sagebrush defined as 

diverse age classes with an understory of native grasses and forbs (Paige and 

Ritter 1999). Research suggests that stand-replacement fires burned every 7–110 

years depending on the particular sagebrush species and its associated habitat 

(Miller 2002, Brown 2000, FEIS 2004). Fire management actions in sagebrush 

must be carefully balanced between invasive species concerns, wildlife habitat and 

the need to restore fire. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity in lands that have a low 

potential for cheatgrass invasion. Areas with low potential for cheatgrass 

invasion include higher elevation sites and/or sites that have very low 

incidence of cheatgrass pre-fire. 

• Treat dense sagebrush (>30%) (Winward 1991) with fire, mechanical, 

seeding or chemical treatments to reduce sagebrush canopy cover and 

improve native grass and forb density and cover; an additional objective 

in treating sagebrush is to remove encroaching pinyon and juniper trees 

(Miller and Tausch 2001). In the WUI, construct fuel breaks between 

BLM and private land (or other values at risk) in dense stands of 

sagebrush. 

• Following wildfire in lands lacking native understory vegetation, 

aggressively seed to promote native understory grasses and forbs and 

reduce invasion of cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Consider including 

sagebrush in seeding mixes or planting sagebrush seedlings in high-value 

wildlife areas following large, high-severity wildfires when natural seed 

sources would be lacking. 

Mountain Shrub 

(11 %) 

The DWFC outside of the WUI is stands with patches of differing age classes. In 

the WUI, the DWFC is greatly reduced vegetation density or a conversion to 

less-flammable vegetation, between BLM and private lands or other values at risk. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity. 

• Treat large expanses of even-aged, dense, homogenous stands to result 

in patches of diverse age classes [see Rondeau (2001) for patch size 

guidance]. To achieve greater habitat diversity and decreased potential 

for large-scale high-severity fire, reduce invasion of pinyon and juniper 

and reduce the average age of stands through fire, mechanical or 

biological (i.e., grazing goats) treatments. In the WUI, consider 

aggressive vegetation manipulation to create fire breaks in highly 

flammable shrub types (e.g., Gambel’s oak) when there are values at risk. 

• Since most of these species sprout following wildfire, consider seeding 

only to reduce potential for invasive weeds. 

Mixed Conifer 

(5 %) 

The DWFC outside the WUI is landscapes with a mosaic of age classes (Arno 

2000). In the WUI, the DWFC is reduced canopy density and reduced ladder 

fuels between BLM and private lands and other values at risk. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-7 

Major Vegetation Group 

(% in Planning Area) DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

historical fire-return interval and severity in stands with low to 

moderate fuel loading. In dense stands with high fuel loading, consider 

mechanical treatments prior to re-introducing fire. 

• Treat areas to result in a landscape of diverse age classes while retaining 

patches of large old trees. In the WUI, remove ladder fuels and create 

shaded fuel breaks between BLM and private land when values are at 

risk. 

• Consider tree planting following wildland fire to restore or rehabilitate 

the forest resource to promote forest regeneration. 

Ponderosa Pine 

(<1 %) 

The DWFC, both outside and in the WUI, is open stands with a native grass and 

forb understory. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, which mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity. Restore fire (natural or 

prescribed fire) to stands with open to moderately-dense canopies and 

with native understory. 

• Consider mechanical treatments in dense stands until they reach a lower 

FRCC before restoring fire. Reduce juniper encroachment through fire 

(preferred when fuels conditions allow) or mechanical treatments. In the 

WUI, remove ladder fuels and create fuel breaks between BLM and 

private land and other values at risk. 

• Following wildfires, consider seeding to reduce invasive weeds and 

planting ponderosa pine seedlings for forest restoration and 

rehabilitation. 

Riparian Wetland 

(<1 %) 

The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, are riparian and wetland areas 

with the appropriate composition of native species (e.g., reduction of tamarisk 

and other invasive species). 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role, mimicking the 

historical fire-return interval and intensity. Allow low to moderate 

severity fire to burn into riparian and wetland areas when natural 

ignitions are managed as wildland fire use. 

• Restore native riparian and wetland species through fire and mechanical 

treatments. Reduce flammable invasive species along riparian corridors 

(e.g., tamarisk) through mechanical, chemical, biological and fire 

treatments. For prescribed fire, allow low intensity fire to back into 

riparian and wetland areas through ignition outside of these areas. 

Mechanical treatment as the initial treatment would be emphasized 

where there is a moderate to high potential for riparian and wetland to 

be burned to a high severity. 

• Consider active restoration options when native riparian and wetland 

communities are unlikely to recover with passive restoration (due to 

invasive species, stream bank erosion, etc). 

Aspen 

(<1 %) 

The DWFC, both outside and inside the WUI, is healthy clones with diverse age 

classes represented and ample regeneration. 

• When possible, allow fire to play its natural role that mimics the 

historical fire-return interval and severity since aspen readily sprouts 

following fire. 

• Treat aspen stands with fire or mechanical treatments to reduce 

encroaching junipers and conifers and to stimulate sprouting. If treated 

aspen stands are small, consider excluding big game and livestock until 

the regeneration can withstand grazing. In the WUI, consider increasing 

aspen cover if possible to create a shaded fuel break between private 

land (and other high value areas) and the more flammable conifer trees 

on BLM land. 
2-8 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

Major Vegetation Group 

(% in Planning Area) DWFC and Actions Needed to Meet DWFC 

• Following wildfire, most aspen stands would need little stabilization, 

except soil stabilization on steep slopes. However, burned areas may 

need to be fenced to exclude wildlife and livestock until the 

regeneration can withstand grazing. 

GAP data was developed for use at the statewide and regional level, and has limitations when used at smaller 

scales. A limitation of using GAP data to describe actual vegetation conditions is that it only maps the existing 

vegetation, not the reference condition or potential vegetation. Across Utah, major vegetation community 

type changes have occurred in grasslands, salt desert scrub, sagebrush and pinyon and juniper woodland (FEIS 

2004, Kay 2003, Kay 2002). GAP data does not portray these vegetation community changes; it only portrays 

existing vegetation as a snapshot in time. In order to accurately map FRCC, there must be a detailed 

knowledge of historical vegetation composition and structure, and disturbance. Unfortunately, that detailed 

information is lacking across much of the state. It is assumed, due to the prevalence of invasive species, longterm losses of native vegetation, repeat photography, known missed fire return intervals and persistent 

drought, that most of Utah’s BLM lands are characterized as FRCC 2 and FRCC 3. Section 3.3 discusses 

FRCC in further detail. 

One major vegetation group not characterized by GAP vegetation community types is cheatgrass. Although 

cheatgrass areas in Utah are not mapped, it is accepted that cheatgrass covers large areas of BLM lands in 

Utah (Menakis et al. 2003). The cheatgrass vegetation type mostly occurs in lower elevations (<6,500 feet). 

The major vegetation types that have been displaced by cheatgrass are salt desert scrub, sagebrush and 

grasslands. Where cheatgrass has invaded, the DWFC is to control cheatgrass and take actions to restore 

the native vegetation community that has been invaded. Fires in cheatgrass-invaded areas or areas with high 

potential for invasion should be aggressively suppressed and aggressively rehabilitated following wildfire. 

Wildland fire use would not be appropriate in cheatgrass-invaded sites or in areas with high potential for 

invasion because of the lack of ability to properly rehabilitate. Costs associated with seeding are not funded 

by the BLM following wildland fire use. 

2.2.3 FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Five fire management actions are present in the Proposed Action. The first two, wildland fire suppression and 

wildland fire use, are considered unplanned and do not undergo site-specific NEPA analysis due to unknown 

location, size, and timing. The others,(prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, and Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation are considered planned actions and undergo site-specific NEPA review and analysis prior 

to implementation. Immediate actions (e.g., emergencies) surrounding wildland fire suppression are exempt 

from CEQ’s regulatory provisions for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1506.11). In the event of such 

emergencies, the BLM must consult with CEQ following direction in H-1790 and DOI Departmental Manual 

516 (covering NEPA procedures). Proposed fire management actions are summarized below. Appendix D 

presents fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments acreage goals and 

objectives for each FMU. 

Wildland Fire Suppression 

Fire suppression goals stated in the Proposed Action are designed to protect resource values at risk while 

allowing wildland fire to function in its ecological role when appropriate for the site and situation, while still 

protecting resource values at risk. Priorities for aggressive suppression response include providing for public 

and firefighter safety, preventing wildland fires from spreading to private land, and protecting cultural 

resources, riparian areas or other sensitive resources and improvements on BLM lands. Minimizing cost must 

be considered for any type of response. For some FMUs, a suppression objective defines the number of acres 

of wildfire that must be contained per fire event. Once the pre-defined decadal burn target has been reached 
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-9 

for each vegetative type from unplanned ignitions, a review of objectives and strategies would be initiated to 

develop new suppression criteria on wildland fires within that FMU. See Appendix D for greater detail.

Considerations for suppression objectives with target acres for FMUs are as follows: 

 Fire intensity level 

 Acreage of public land 

 Level of use by the public 

 Proximity to private residences, communities, and private inholdings 

 Wilderness values 

 Historic fire regimes 

 Unique biological, cultural, historical, or archeological resources 

To meet suppression objectives, appropriate management response (AMR) is applied (BLM 2003b). An AMR is 

any specific fire suppression action, or combination of actions, suitable to meet FMU objectives (BLM 2003b). 

The AMR, included as part of the Proposed Action, may include one or more of the following actions:

 Monitor from a Distance: Fire situations where inactive fire behavior and low threats require only periodic 

monitoring. 

 Monitor On-Site: Fire situations that require the physical placement of monitors on the fire site to track the 

fire’s spread, intensity, and/or characteristics. 

 Confinement: Actions taken when fires are not likely to have resource benefits, but threats from the fire do 

not require costly deployment of large numbers of suppression resources. 

 Monitor Plus Contingency: Fires are managed for resource benefits, but contingency actions are prepared to 

ensure adequate preparation for possible undesirable developments. 

 Monitor Plus Mitigation: Fires are managed for resource benefit, yet pose real, but not necessarily immediate, 

threats. These fires are monitored, but plans are developed and implemented to delay, direct, check fire 

spread or contain fire, and to ensure public safety. 

 Initial Attack: Initially, suppress wildland fires if it is consistent with protecting people or resource values at 

risk. 

 Suppress Large Fires: A combination of tactics such as direct attack, indirect attack, and confinement by natural 

barriers are utilized to accomplish protection objectives as directed in a wildland fire situation analysis 

(WFSA). 

 Control and Extinguish: Actions are taken when the selected WFSA indicates a control strategy using direct 

attack. Sufficient resources are assigned to achieve control of the fire minimizing acres burned. 

Following wildland fire suppression, areas may undergo emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) as 

appropriate. ESR activities may include obliteration of firelines, erosion control, and seeding implemented as an 

RPM. ESR is only implemented after a wildland fire suppression event. ESR would be designed and implemented 

using an interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach, utilizing resource and fire staff to develop site-specific ESR plans. 

The Vernal Field Office completed a Normal Fire Year Rehabilitation Plan in 2003 (BLM 2003c) and would follow 

direction in that document for future site-specific fire rehabilitation projects. 

Wildland Fire Use 

Management of naturally ignited wildfires to accomplish resource management goals would be determined on 

an occurrence-by-occurrence basis for each FMU where wildland fire use has been identified for potential 

use. Consideration of the current fire situation, risks to values, determination of probable fire cause, 
2-10 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

availability of resources, and estimation of the potential for fire spread would drive the decision of whether 

to manage an ignition for wildland fire use or suppress the fire. If a fire was determined to be suitable for 

management as a wildland fire use incident, the ignition would be managed in accordance with the 

procedures and requirements outlined in the Wildland Fire Use Implementation Procedures Reference Guide 

(June 2005). See Appendix D for greater detail.

Prescribed Fire 

Prescribed fire would be implemented to achieve DWFC objectives. Prescribed fire would be considered for 

an FMU if it could benefit ecosystems and minimize undesirable wildland fire effects through fuels reduction. 

Suitability of specific areas for introduction of prescribed fires would be determined through a NEPA review 

prior to implementation. 

The prescribed burn season for the Vernal Field Office typically occurs between September 1 and October 

30, although prescribed burning during other times is possible. Hand pile burning would usually occur in the 

winter months (November through February). The fire management staff would initiate prescribed fire 

projects and burn plans with input from resource specialists. Prescribed burn bosses would be required to 

evaluate and assess results and effectiveness of the burn. See Appendix D for greater detail. 

Prescribed fire may be used for any of the following purposes: 

 Fuels reduction around federally listed communities-at-risk from wildfire 

 Conversion of FRCC 3 lands to FRCC 2 or FRCC 1 lands 

 Conversion of FRCC 2 to FRCC 1 lands 

 Maintenance of FRCC 1 lands 

Non-fire Fuel Treatments 

Non-fire fuel treatments (mechanical, biological, seeding and chemical) may be considered as needed by a 

site-specific plan. For the Vernal Field Office, chemical and biological treatments are relatively uncommon, 

and would occur on no more than 5,000 acres over ten years. This is much less than 1% of the planning area, 

therefore impacts from these non-fire fuel treatments won’t be analyzed in this FMP EA. Non-fire fuel 

treatments include hand thinning, hand piling, brush crunching, mowing, disking, and bullhog thinning. Seeding 

is also often used as a fuel treatment, or in association with fuel treatments. Many FMUs have acreage targets 

for non-fire fuel treatments. While the remaining FMUs may not have target acreages, future treatment plans 

would be prepared to implement those actions. Similar to prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments are 

considered planned actions and the suitability of specific areas for their introduction would be determined 

through a NEPA review prior to implementation. 

Non-fire fuel treatments can be used for the same purposes as prescribed fire and may or may not be used in 

conjunction with prescribed fire. Individual projects would be developed to achieve DWFC and to reduce 

invasive weed species as stated in the draft Vernal RMP (BLM 2005). Seeding actions often follow wildland 

fire suppression (these are considered ESR actions, described above), and sometimes follow prescribed fire 

and non-fire fuel treatments (mechanical, biological, and chemical). Seeding would be implemented to stabilize 

soils, improve establishment of grass, forb, and shrub communities, and prevent establishment of non-native 

invasive species. Seeding may be used before or after non-fire fuels reduction treatments for restoration of 

appropriate vegetation. See Appendix D for greater detail. 

Resource Protection Measures 

The Proposed Action potentially could adversely impact other resources. To prevent such impacts, resource 

protection measures (RPMs) have been incorporated into the Proposed Action as presented in Appendix E. 
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-11 

2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The current Vernal Field Office Fire Management Activity Plan (BLM 1998a) comprises the No Action 

Alternative. The plan analyzes risks, hazards, and values and includes an operational plan that outlines 

protection measures for resources. The management measures included in the FMP stress wildland fire 

prevention planning, suppression and some prescribed fire. Figure 2.2 illustrates fire management objectives 

for the No Action Alternative on BLM-administered land. 

Although the No Action Alternative has three of the same criteria as the Proposed Action (protection of life, 

protection of resources, and cost efficiency), it does not provide direction for wildland fire use to restore 

ecosystems or direction for non-fire fuel treatments as called for by the 2003 National Fire Plan and Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act. In addition, this existing plan does not incorporate use of the latest scientific 

information, particularly related to DWFC, FRCC, and rehabilitation and stabilization measures, nor does it 

include the entire range of resource protection measures as described in the Proposed Action. 

The existing FMP allows fire to play a role in the ecosystem on a smaller scale than the Proposed Action. 

The No Action Alternative recognizes the role of fire in ecosystems, but promotes more aggressive fire 

suppression and doesn’t allow wildland fire use. 

The goals, objectives, and target acres for fire management direction in the No Action Alternative are 

summarized in Table 2.2. The No Action Alternative was written in a different format and with different 

organization of content than the Proposed Action, so direct comparisons are not possible. For example, the 

No Action Alternative has 23 polygons and analyzes risk assessment; the Proposed Action has 28 FMUs and 

focuses on DWFC. However, where Vernal planning area-wide elements common to both alternatives are 

evident (e.g., the role and applicability of wildland fire in consideration of other resources, as well as other 

fire and non-fire fuel treatment methods), they are compared. 

TABLE 2.2: SUMMARY OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE WITH A COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED 

ACTION

Proposed Action No Action Alternative 

Goals and 

Objectives 

Common to 

Both 

Alternatives 

Firefighter and public safety are the highest priority in every fire management activity. 

Provide a program that fosters interagency interaction, cooperation, and effectiveness for all fire 

management activities. 

Protect high-value resources from fire. 

Identify appropriate management response goals, objectives, and constraints. 

Provide a program that fosters interagency interaction, cooperation, and effectiveness for all fire 

management activities. 

Goals and 

Objectives 

Work collaboratively with communities-at-risk within 

wildland urban influence to develop plans for risk 

reduction. 

Allow fire to function in its ecological role, when 

appropriate, to help protect, maintain, and enhance 

public resources. 

Create an integrated approach to fire and resource 

management across the landscape and agency 

boundaries. This approach would be designed to meet 

the desired outcomes of land use plans. 

Focus fire prevention activities, cost efficiently in 

the priority areas of the field office. 

Minimize losses by effective implementation of 

the wildfire prevention plan actions. 
2-12 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

Proposed Action No Action Alternative 

Organization of 

Alternatives 

Planning area is divided into 28 fire management units 

(FMUs). FMUs are based on management objectives 

and constraints, topographic features, access, values to 

be protected, political boundaries, fuel types, fire 

regime condition class, and other distinguishing 

characteristics. 

Each FMU has been divided into one of the following 

four categories. Approximate amount of total acres in 

the planning area for each category is indicated in 

parenthesis. 

Category A: Fire is not desired. (722,710 acres) 

Category B: Unplanned fire is not desired, but 

prescribed fire and/or non-fire fuel treatments 

may be used to achieve resource objectives. 

(358,023 acres) 

Category C: Fire is desired. Constraints are 

identified on a case-by-case basis, and mitigation 

efforts are directed toward reducing the impact 

on values at risk. Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel 

treatments may also be used to achieve resource 

objectives. (602,584 acres) 

Category D: Fire is desired. Unplanned wildfire, 

planned prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel 

treatments may be used to achieve desired 

objectives. (52,929 acres) 

Planning area is divided into 14 polygons. 

Polygons are based on types of activities and 

uses. Units have specific objectives and 

suppression constraints. 

Each polygon has been divided into one of the 

following four categories. Approximate amount 

of total acres in the planning area for each 

category is indicated in parenthesis. 

Category A: Fire is not desired. (723,291 

acres) 

Category B: Unplanned fire is not desired, 

but prescribed fire and/or non-fire fuel 

treatments may be used to achieve 

resource objectives. (361,319 acres) 

Category C: Fire is desired. Constraints are 

identified on a case by case basis, and 

mitigation efforts are directed toward 

reducing the impact on values at risk. 

Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments 

may also be used to achieve resource 

objectives. (651,636 acres) 

Category D: None 

Wildland Fire 

Suppression 

Contain fire at 

these acres or 

less in these 

vegetation 

types 

Vegetation Types

Acres per 

incident/per 

decade

Mountain sagebrush 575/43,500 

Pinyon and juniper woodland 2,550/65,400 

Douglas fir-Aspen 250/8,100 

Mountain browse 200/20,000 

Cottonwood 2/100 

Greasewood 75/1,600 

Willow/herbaceous none 

stated/none 

stated 

Salt desert shrub 30/150 

Cheatgrass 10/50 

Ponderosa 15/100 

Wyoming big sagebrush 720/5,350 

Four-wing sagebrush 25/none stated 

Vegetation Types

Acres per 

incident/per 

decade

Mountain sagebrush 1,350/25,600 

Pinyon and juniper 

woodland 

1,825/50,000 

Douglas fir-Aspen 250/8,000 

Mountain browse 200/3,000 

Cottonwood 2/100 

Greasewood 50/100 

Willow/herbaceous 50/none stated 

Salt desert shrub 10/50 

Cheatgrass 10/50 

Ponderosa none stated/none 

stated 
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-13 

Proposed Action No Action Alternative 

Non-veg. goals 875/34,000 

TOTAL SUPPRESSION 

ACREAGE PER DECADE:

178,350

Wyoming big sagebrush none 

stated/none 

stated 

Four-wing sagebrush 25/none stated 

Non-veg. goals none stated/none 

stated

TOTAL 

SUPPRESSION 

ACREAGE PER 

DECADE: 

86,900

Wildland Fire 

Use As appropriate No acres stated 

Prescribed Fire 146,470 acres (10-year goal) 26,675 acres (unspecified amount of time) 

Non-fire Fuel 

Treatments 53,000 acres (10-year goal) No acres stated 
2-14 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 2.2: FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND POLYGONS FOR THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LAND
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 2-15 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

Two additional fire management alternatives—the historical fire alternative and the non-fire treatment 

alternative—were considered, but eliminated from formal analysis because they either did not meet policy 

guidelines or they were not ecologically or fiscally practical. The two dismissed alternatives are described 

below. 

2.4.1 HISTORICAL FIRE ALTERNATIVE 

The historical fire alternative was considered but eliminated from formal analysis because it would not be 

ecologically or fiscally feasible. This alternative could be considered the Historical Fire Alternative as it would 

set treatment targets that mimic acres historically burned while considering the restoration of natural fire 

regime. These acres were determined from simple vegetation and fire return interval analysis (Table 2.3). 

The primary distinction between this alternative and the Proposed Action are the differences in fuel 

treatment acreages and differences in treatment types to achieve DWFC; this alternative would include 

larger treatment acreages than the Proposed Action, and only fire treatments would be employed. The BLM 

manages scattered parcels of land in many areas; allowing fires to burn in these multiple-ownership areas 

would increase risk to private and state lands. 

The premise on which the development of this alternative was based is that restoration of natural fire regime 

is desirable and attainable. This premise is faulty in that, as a result of past management and the extent of 

anthropogenic ecosystem alteration, natural conditions no longer occur in the Vernal planning area. While it 

is known that there has been significant vegetation alterations associated with historic human use, the extent 

or the extent or severity of most of these alterations remains uncertain. As a result of ecosystem change, 

passive restoration techniques, such as restoring naturally occurring fires to the land, would not have the 

same benefit to ecosystems as in the past. For example, large portions of Utah are affected by the invasion of 

non-native weedy species. Without active restoration techniques (such as seeding), fires dramatically increase 

the risk of establishment of invasive species. Establishment of invasive species often results in the permanent 

loss of historical ecosystem structure and function. 

Finally, this alternative is unlikely to be adequately funded. Despite increases in fire management funding over 

the past five years, current and expected budgets for implementing fire management actions do not provide 

the necessary resources for accomplishing the identified treatment acres. 

Table 2.3: Calculations to Estimate Historic Acreage Burned in Wildfires 

Vegetation Type Fire Return Interval BLM Acres Annual Burned Acres 

Sagebrush 35 589,094 16,831 

Salt Desert Shrub 150 419,521 2,796 

Mountain Shrub 50 193,990 3,880 

TOTAL 1,202,605 23,507 
2-16 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal November 2005 

2.4.2 NON-FIRE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 

Another alternative considered would have prioritized non-fire fuel treatments above other types of 

treatments. However, this alternative did not meet the purpose and need of the amendment and was 

therefore eliminated from further analysis. The Federal Wildland Fire Policy directs that fire be restored as a 

natural part of the ecosystem. 
November 2005 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives/Vernal 3-1 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter includes a description of the environment and resources with potential to be affected by the 

alternatives described in Chapter 2 (with additional descriptions found in Appendices C, D, E and I). It 

provides the environmental resource baseline information for comparing potential impacts from the 

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative, which are analyzed in Chapter 4. Environmental resource 

information on the general effects not solely attributable to management actions that fire has on each 

resource is presented in Appendix H. 

Resources that were identified and carried forward for analysis and those dismissed from further analysis are 

addressed in Appendix A. 

3.2 GENERAL SETTING 

The Vernal planning area is located within portions of the Rocky Mountain and Colorado Plateau 

physiographic provinces of the western United States. Elevations in the Vernal planning area range from 4,800 

to over 12,200 feet above mean sea level. Most of the Vernal planning area is located between 5,000 to 8,000 

feet above sea level. 

Climatic zones throughout the region can be classified under two climate types—steppe and undifferentiated 

highlands. Each has distinct weather patterns, temperatures and precipitation patterns (Pope and Brough 

1996). Elevation, topography, location with respect to storm paths over the region and proximity to 

mountain ranges help create the varied climate types (Garwood 1996). Precipitation varies from an average 

of less than 10 inches per year to more than 30 inches per year. 

The Vernal planning area is comprised of approximately 1.7 million acres of BLM-administered lands. This 

represents approximately three percent of all lands in Utah and eight percent of BLM-administered land in 

Utah. 

3.3 CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES 

BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS 

3.3.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

Figure 3.1 identifies the seven ACECs in the Vernal planning area; Table 3.1 lists the approximate acreage. 

BLM regulations (43 CFR Part 1610) define an ACEC as an area where “special management attention is 

required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and 

wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.” 

Vernal FO RMP Draft EIS (January 2005). The Decision Record for this FMP EA would not be signed, and 

implementation of the proposed action would not occur until after the RMP Record of Decision is signed. 
3-2 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 3.1: AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-3 

TABLE 3.1: AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Name Approx. Acreage Relevant and Important Values 

Browns Park 52,721 Endangered Species, Cultural and Historic, Scenic, 

Riparian 

Lears Canyon 1,375 Relict Vegetation 

Lower Green River 8,470 Endangered Species, Scenic 

Nine Mile Canyon 44,181 Cultural, Endangered Species 

Pariette Wetlands 10,437 Unique Biological, Riparian, Endangered Species 

Red Creek 24,475 Erosion, Watershed 

Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork Complex 

24,285 Cultural and Paleontological, Relict Vegetation 

TOTAL ACREAGE 165,944 

3.3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include archaeological, historic (older than 50 years of age), prehistoric and architectural 

sites where human habitation or use has occurred, and that are significant for scientific research or public 

preservation and interpretation. These resources include Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) and religious 

sites that are important to Native American and other cultural groups. A number of legislative acts and EOs 

provide procedures and guidelines for federal agencies that determine affects of their projects on cultural 

resources, including, but not limited to, NHPA, as amended; American Religious Freedom Act; 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act; and EO 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites). 

Section 106 of NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) require federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. According to these regulations, a historic 

property is defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places...”, 36 CFR 800.14. This definition also 

encompasses artifacts, records, and remains related to such properties. Compliance with Section 106 of 

NHPA would be completed on a project-specific basis before planned actions are implemented. 

Identification and context for cultural resources are included in the LUP referenced at the beginning of this 

section, and are incorporated herein by reference. The following updates the discussions and provides a 

general overview of the wide range of prehistoric and historic sites that occur on BLM-managed land 

throughout Utah.

The diverse physiography and ecosystems found in this area is reflected in the diverse prehistoric cultural 

history of the region, which includes cultural influences from the northern Colorado Plateau, Eastern Great 

Basin, and the northern Plains. Within the lands administered by the Vernal planning area, one may encounter 

a significant and varied record of human adaptation represented by cultural resources that include prehistoric 

and historic archaeological sites and landscapes. These cultural resources should be viewed as non-renewable 

resources that represent a significant record of human adaptation of both prehistoric and historic cultures 

that have been and continue to be of interest and importance to a wide spectrum of people. 

Various explorers, scholars, government institutions, and private cultural resource-consulting firms have 

carried out anthropological and archaeological investigation within the Uinta Basin and the surrounding 

regions (1826 to present). The quality and quantity of research carried out by these different entities, has, to 

date, proven to be highly variable. Previous research projects have ranged from small surveys of a limited 

geographical area, to large linear projects spanning the entire Uinta Basin. 
3-4 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

While there are numerous inventories of cultural resources in the Vernal planning area, there are data gaps 

in the database that have increased the overall difficulty in the management of these resources. These 

limitations include large areas that lack cultural resource inventory, gaps in the database pertaining to 

particular sites types, and research related data limitations. Despite the many cultural resource inventories 

that have been conducted on the Vernal planning area, the total percentage of the area that has been 

inventoried is relatively small (cursory review suggest that less than 20 percent of the Vernal planning area 

has been subject to intensive cultural resource inventory). As a consequence, there are still large areas for 

which there is no current information regarding the numbers, types, and distribution of cultural resources. 

Approximately 5,000 cultural resource sites have been documented within the Vernal planning area. 

Prehistoric cultural resource sites are generally defined as those composed of or containing features and/or 

artifacts that are affiliated with cultural groups who occupied the area prior to 1800. Historic cultural 

resource sites are defined as those composed of or containing features and/or artifacts that post-date 1800 

but are at least 50 years old. To be considered a site, either prehistoric or historic, a site must specifically 

contain the remains of past human activity that are at least 50 years old and should consist of one or more of 

the following: 

 At least 10 artifacts of a single class (e.g., 10 sherds) within a 10-meter diameter area, except when all 

pieces appear to originate from a single source (e.g., one ceramic pot, one glass bottle); 

 At least 15 artifacts which include at least two classes of artifacts (e.g., sherds, nails, glass) within a 100-

meter diameter area; 

 One or more archaeological features in temporal association with any number of artifacts; or 

 Two or more temporally associated archaeological features without artifacts. 

Isolated cultural material (artifacts or features) are defined as those with fewer than 10 artifacts within a 10-

meter diameter area or greater than 10 artifacts within the same area if all artifacts appear to originate from 

a single source, and/or one archaeological feature without associated artifacts. 

There are three ACECs in the Vernal planning area that include cultural resources as a preservation intent or 

value. These are the Brown’s Park ACEC Complex (B2), Nine Mile Canyon (C4), and Red Mountain Dry 

Fork ACEC Complex (C8 and B1). The Brown’s Park Complex encompasses 55,700 acres and includes the 

John Jarvie National Historic District. The historic wooden homes in this historic district have a high risk 

from fire effects. Sites at risk from fire effects in the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC (50,600 acres) include 

prehistoric habitation sites, lithic scatters, food storage sites, and rock art. The third ACEC in the Vernal 

planning area that concerns cultural resources is the Red Mountain Dry Fork ACEC Complex (25,800 acres). 

Cultural resources in this ACEC include a very high density and high-risk set of prehistoric archaeological 

sites. 

There are five historic properties listed on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in the Vernal 

planning area. These listings include the John Jarvie National Historic District located in Brown’s Park, 

Cockleburr Wash Petroglyphs near Jensen, Little Brush Creek Petroglyph Panel near Vernal, McConkie 

Ranch Petroglyphs near Dry Fork, Dr. John Parson Cabin Complex in Brown’s Park, and the east portion of 

Nine Mile Canyon. 

Prehistoric Resources 

Thousands of archaeological sites representing more than 8,000 years of human occupation have been 

recorded on BLM-managed land in the Vernal planning area. The primary known prehistoric cultural resource 

site types include rock art, burials, open camps and villages, platform sites, rock shelters and caves, 

architectural sites, artifact scatters, resource procurement sites, ceremonial sites, isolated features, trails, and 

landscapes. This list represents broad categories of both common and less common cultural resource sites 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-5 

know to be in the Vernal planning area. The majority of the prehistoric sites tend to concentrate near seeps 

and springs in mountain ranges and along perennial streams, such as Dry Fork, Ashley Creek, Spring Creek, 

Bitter Creek, and Upper Willow Creek drainages. River corridors are also known to have high cultural 

resource site densities and often include sites deemed to be at high risk from fire effects. For example, the 

Green, White, and Whiterocks River corridors and Brush Creek and Willow Creek drainages are known to 

contain high densities of cultural resource sites. Other areas are in the North Uinta area, especially in the 

upland/bench areas adjacent to the White and Green Rivers. The Upper Bookcliffs and the Myton Bench 

areas, as well Nine Mile Canyon and Five Mile Canyon, contain high densities of cultural resource sites. 

Historic Resources 

Historic resources in the Vernal planning area pertain primarily to Spanish, Mexican, and Euro-American 

activities since 1776. They include ghost towns, historic ranches, and numerous historic trails and wagon 

trails. Some historic trails, such as the 1776 Dominguez and Escalante Trail and the Old Spanish Trail, date to 

the period of Spanish/Mexican exploration. Resources pertaining to mining and Euro-American settlement 

date from 1867, and numerous “ghost towns” (i.e., abandoned settlements) occur throughout the region. 

Many resources, such as the National Register-listed the John Jarvie Historic District in Brown’s Park, are 

considered historically significant and are accessible to the public. Roads and structures constructed by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps are also present. The primary known historic cultural resource site types 

known to be located in the Vernal planning area include historic inscriptions (including “Aspen-glyphs” and 

those inscribed on ponderosa pines), burials/cemeteries, camps, architectural sites, artifact scatters, irrigation 

systems/canals, mining sites, oil and gas industry sites, transportation sites, and landscapes. 

3.3.3 FLOODPLAINS 

Floodplains are defined as the relatively flat portion of a river valley, adjacent to the river channel, which is 

comprised primarily of sediments deposited by the river during high-flow (flood stage) events. Floodplains 

play an important role in basin hydrology and ecosystem health. Floodplain geomorphology exerts influence 

of stream peak flow lag time (time between peak precipitation and peak runoff) and serves as temporary 

storage for sediment eroded from the watershed (Ritter et al. 1995). Floodplains are also often associated 

with wetlands and riparian areas (discussed in the wetlands and riparian zones section of this chapter). 

The recurrence of various flood stages (river elevations) are defined as 10-year, 100-year, and 500-year 

floods where, for example, a 100-year flood has a one percent statistical chance of occurring in any given 

year. The National Flood Insurance Program, overseen by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has 

mapped 100-year floodplain areas throughout the country, including Uintah County, located in the Vernal 

planning area. Vernal Field Office personnel have also mapped 100-year floodplain areas in Daggett and 

Duchesne Counties. Figure 3.2 presents a map of the Vernal planning area with rivers, streams, and 

associated 100-year floodplains identified with the Vernal planning area FMUs. 

On May 24, 1977, EO 11988 was issued to reduce “adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains” and “direct or indirect support of floodplain development” associated with 

federal actions (42 FR 26971, 3 CFR, 1977). Requirements of EO 11988 include reducing the risk of flood 

loss; minimizing the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare; and restoring and preserving the 

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. The EO also requires consideration of alternatives to 

avoid diverse effects and incompatible development in floodplains. Federal actions proposed in floodplains 

areas must conform to EO 11988. 
3-6 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 3.2: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-7 

3.3.4 INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE SPECIES 

Invasive and non-native species, sometimes referred to as weeds, are an increasing problem on BLMadministered lands. These plants were introduced either accidentally (such as cheatgrass in contaminated 

crop seed or livestock forage) or intentionally (such as tamarisk for wind-breaks and streambank 

stabilization). They may readily establish in highly disturbed areas, particularly burned areas. The spread of 

invasive non-native species poses a hazard to vegetation communities on BLM rangelands because they are 

aggressive, broadly adaptive, and lack the natural predators found in their native habitat. They can also 

displace native plants as they compete for space, sunlight, water, and nutrients and can cause drastic changes 

in the composition, structure, and productivity of vegetation communities. 

Cheatgrass 

In the Vernal planning area, cheatgrass is the primary management issue in the salt desert shrub, sagebrush, 

pinyon and juniper woodland types, and in the riparian vegetation type (along with tamarisk). Non-native 

invasives such as cheatgrass can alter fire regimes and cause fire re-occurrence to increase when they outcompete more fire-resistant native vegetation. They also provide flammable fuels between the interspaces 

among shrubs that allow fire to carry in an unnatural manner (McAuliffe 1995; Brown 2000). 

Introduced from Eurasia in the late 1800s, cheatgrass is an opportunistic winter annual that filled the void left 

vacant by the reduction of herbaceous vegetation by livestock grazing at the turn of the century (Pellant 

2002). It germinates between autumn and spring when temperatures and soil moisture are suitable. 

Cheatgrass, as a winter annual, can begin growth in early spring and does not have to wait for temperatures 

to warm. Other reasons for its success are that its seed never goes dormant; it produces a large number of 

seeds per plant that remain viable for five years; and because of its long awns, it is fairly resistant to grazing. 

Cheatgrass may be present in relatively undisturbed plant communities, but usually becomes dominant on 

disturbed sites (Fielding and Brusven 2000). Although it does occur, cheatgrass has been less successful in 

dominating sites that are above 7,000 feet because there is more soil moisture available to native perennial 

grasses. 

The process of shrub loss and conversion to annual grasslands is a key management problem that affects 

nearly every use of public rangelands. The lack of shrub cover makes for poor-quality wildlife habitat, so 

annual grasslands have diminished plant and animal diversity. Cheatgrass is also inferior livestock forage. 

The criteria for establishing when cheatgrass becomes an invasive concern or a fire concern are not readily 

assigned. Limbach (2002) suggests five percent cover as an invasive concern and 15 to 20 percent cover as a 

fire/fuels concern (both percentages relative to associated understory species). Degraded sites are most 

susceptible to annual grass invasion after fire. An abundance of cheatgrass in the understory enhances the 

likelihood of fire spread and conversion of sagebrush steppe or salt desert shrub to annual grassland 

(Howard 1999). 

Tamarisk 

Tamarisk has become well-established along river and stream channels in WUI zones and represents a 

serious fire hazard that puts the resources at risk of high-heat, rapid-spread fire. It out-competes many native 

species and, because of its extensive root system, is difficult to eradicate once established. This species 

invades senescent cottonwood riparian sites that have dried out as a result of infrequent flooding. Tamarisk 

has been listed as a noxious weed in Uintah County. 
3-8 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

Knapweed 

There are several species of knapweed (Centaurea spp), however the four that are a problem in Utah are 

squarrose knapweed (C. squarrosa), Russian knapweed (C. repens), diffuse knapweed (C. diffusa), and spotted 

knapweed (C. maculosa). On the Vernal District, it is primarily Russian knapweed. All four are classified as 

shade-intolerant and readily establish in burned areas that have been opened up to sunlight. All produce 

prolific seed and spread rapidly; squarrose knapweed was detected in Utah in 1954 and is now estimated to 

infest 140,000 acres in 1996 (BLM 1998b). There is evidence that some (if not all) have alleopathic 

characteristics, i.e., they release chemicals that inhibit the growth of surrounding vegetation (Whitson et al. 

1991), reducing competition and flammability of the site. This results in an altered soil chemistry, which may 

further exacerbate the problem of returning native species to the site. All four are listed as official noxious 

weeds of Utah, with the sap of spotted and Russian knapweeds known to be carcinogenic to humans. 

Like cheatgrass, it is expected that knapweed populations would continue to increase and that desirable 

native communities would decrease due to disturbance; e.g., knapweed can spread by off-road travel with an 

estimated 2,000 seeds sticking to one wheel if run over. Because they are found in the 8- to 12-inch 

precipitation zone, this infestation would likely occur in the grassland, sagebrush, and pinyon and juniper 

woodland zones. 

Musk Thistle 

Musk thistle is spreading into sagebrush and pinyon and juniper woodland types. Following fire, musk thistle 

produce abundant seed. Fire creates conditions that are favorable to the establishment of musk thistle (i.e. 

open canopy, reduced competition, areas of bare soil), making it likely to spread if seeds are present. 

Houndstongue 

In Utah, houndstongue may be found in sagebrush, pinyon and juniper woodland, cottonwood, mountain 

shrub, aspen, and ponderosa pine communities. Fire creates conditions that are favorable for establishment 

of houndstongue (i.e. open canopy, reduced competition, areas of bare soil), so if houndstongue seeds are 

present and competition minimal, it may be favored in the postfire community. Houndstongue plants may 

also survive fire, since nutrient reserves in the taproot acquired during the 1st year are sufficient for normal 

seed production the following year, even if the plants are completely defoliated early in the spring. 

Black Henbane 

Black henbane is toxic to humans and animals when ingested. Plants sprout when the seed are exposed to 

sunlight and is mostly found in disturbed areas. Like most invasive, non-natives, fire creates favorable 

conditions for the proliferation and spread of this plant. 

3.3.5 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS 

The Utah BLM is in the process of consulting with 23 tribal groups who have expressed an interest in places 

of traditional religious or cultural importance located on all or part of BLM lands within the State of Utah, 

including the Vernal planning area. This consultation is being carried out to provide an opportunity for tribes 

to identify any places of traditional religious or cultural importance relevant to the proposed FMP 

amendment. Many Native American belief systems require that the identity and location of traditional 

religious and cultural properties not be divulged. BLM has a commitment to keep specific information 

regarding such resources confidential to the fullest extent allowed by law. 

Within the context of NHPA, a traditional cultural property (TCP) is a property that may be eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP due to its association with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community. It 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-9 

should be noted that eligibility is also dependent upon these practices or beliefs having been passed down 

through the generations and that they are important in maintaining the cultural identity and integrity of that 

group. Native American TCPs frequently have religious significance, and they are not usually recognizable to 

an outsider through archeological or historical investigations. The existence and locations of TCPs may often 

only be identified through consultation with members of the groups who ascribe value to those places. 

Hunting or gathering plants for food or medicinal use may be a value ascribed to these locations. 

3.3.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

The special status plant and animal species analysis has been broken out into two parts: ESA-related species 

and BLM sensitive species. 

ESA-related species include those listed as endangered and threatened under the ESA of 1973, as amended, 

some of which have designated or proposed critical habitat, as well as candidate species (Appendix F). 

Threatened and endangered species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Candidate species are not under the jurisdiction of the USFWS; however because they are given recognition 

as candidates for federal listing on the ESA, they are discussed under the ESA-related heading. 

BLM sensitive species include BLM sensitive plant species, some of which may be managed through 

conservation agreements in which BLM participates (Appendix G). 

ESA-Related Species 

Seven endangered, six threatened, and four candidate (one of which has been petitioned for listing) species 

are known to occur on or adjacent to the Vernal planning area. These 17 federally listed species can be 

grouped as follows: eight plants, three birds, two mammals, and four fishes. These species are listed in 

Appendix F, along with their scientific name, federal status, associated vegetation community/habitat type, 

and field office(s) having jurisdiction over potentially suitable habitat. 

Five of the 17 federally protected species (one bird and four fish species) have designated critical habitat on 

BLM-administered lands in Utah. These designations and this proposal are presented in Table 3.2. 

TABLE 3.2: FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

Species Critical Habitat General Location 

Mexican spotted owl Designated Southern and eastern Utah in nine counties 

Humpback chub Designated Eastern Utah in seven counties 

Bonytail Designated Eastern Utah 

Colorado pikeminnow Designated Eastern Utah in seven counties 

Razorback sucker Designated Eastern Utah 

It should be noted that the black-footed ferret, although considered to be extirpated from much of the state, 

is found within the Vernal planning area. An experimental, non-essential population [ESA, Section 10(j)] of 

the ferret has been established with a designated use area comprised of two counties (Duchesne and Uintah) 

within the Vernal planning area. BLM management authorities consider the ferret to have a status within the 

designated use area that is equivalent to the federal listing status of “proposed.” If individual ferrets were to 

venture outside of the designated use area, they would be considered endangered and the appropriate 

management regulations would apply. 
3-10 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Thirteen wildlife species of concern, 11 sensitive plant species, and five conservation agreement species are 

known to occur on or adjacent to the Vernal planning area. These 29 BLM sensitive species can be grouped 

as follows: 11 flowering plants, 11 birds, 2 mammals, 4 fish, and 1 reptile. These species are listed in 

Appendix G, along with their scientific name, federal status, associated vegetation community/habitat type, 

and field office(s) having jurisdiction over potentially suitable habitat. 

Species Habitat 

Habitats associated with each SSS and their distribution are widely variable. Some species are found 

throughout the Vernal planning area while others are endemic to a single location. As noted above, Utah Gap 

Analysis Program (GAP) was used to identify cover types pertaining to this project. GAP provides an 

indicator of vegetation coverage and habitat types at the large scale, but is not particularly accurate on the 

ground for site-specific projects. Consequently, it is possible that the expanse (acreage or boundary) of a 

cover type could be inaccurate, and that cover types, and species associated with these cover types, may not 

actually be present at the project-specific level. 

Cover types identified include salt desert shrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, sagebrush, mountain shrub 

(also called mountain browse), mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, riparian and wetland (also called riparian), and 

aspen. These vegetation cover types and their prevalence on BLM-administered lands throughout the Vernal 

planning area are identified in Section 3.3.13 (Vegetation). The remaining vegetation type within the Vernal 

planning area is grassland. Because it is not comprised of burnable vegetation, the water cover type was not 

previously listed. However, because water is a valuable habitat and has the potential to be impacted by the 

proposed project, it is included in this section and the Fisheries and Wildlife section, as a habitat type. 

The following is a list of SSS (split into ESA-related and BLM sensitive species) generally associated with each 

of the 10 vegetation communities/habitat types. It should be noted that special status plant species are not 

necessarily associated with vegetation community types but are more closely associated with substrate type. 

Therefore, plant species listed in the vegetation community associations below do not infer an actual 

association, but rather indicate the vegetation community surrounding each plant species. Appendix F and 

Appendix G present associated substrates for each plant species. 

Salt Desert Shrub 

ESA-related: Shrubby reed-mustard, clay reed-mustard, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, horseshoe milk-vetch, 

Graham’s beardtongue, White River beardtongue. 

BLM Sensitive: Park rockcress, Hamilton milk-vetch, Flowers penstemon, Gibbens penstemon, Goodrich 

penstemon, mountain plover. 

Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 

ESA-related: Barneby ridge-cress, shrubby reed-mustard, Graham’s beardtongue, White River beardtongue, 

Mexican spotted owl. 

BLM Sensitive: Park rockcress, Hamilton milk-vetch, Ownbey thistle, Untermann daisy, rock hymenoxys, 

stemless penstemon, Gibbens penstemon, Goodrich penstemon, Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Sagebrush 

ESA-related: Horseshoe milk-vetch, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, black-footed ferret. 

BLM Sensitive: Ownbey thistle, Untermann daisy, Huber’s pepperweed, stemless penstemon, ferruginous 

hawk, greater sage grouse, mountain plover, white-tailed prairie dog, smooth greensnake. 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-11 

Grassland 

ESA-related: Black-footed ferret. 

BLM Sensitive: Grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, mountain plover. 

Mountain Shrub 

ESA-related: Shrubby reed-mustard. 

BLM Sensitive: Untermann daisy, rock hymenoxys, Huber’s pepperweed, Lewis’s woodpecker, Townsend’s 

big-eared bat. 

Mixed Conifer 

ESA-related: Bald eagle, Canada lynx. 

BLM Sensitive: Untermann daisy, Huber’s pepperweed, northern goshawk, Lewis’s woodpecker, three-toed 

woodpecker, Townsend’s big-eared bat. 

Ponderosa Pine 

ESA-related: None. 

BLM Sensitive: Rock hymenoxys, Huber’s pepperweed, Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Riparian/Wetland 

ESA-related: Ute ladies’-tresses, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, western yellow-billed cuckoo. 

BLM Sensitive: Ownbey thistle, Alcove bog-orchid, northern goshawk, bobolink, Lewis’s woodpecker, 

American white pelican, smooth greensnake. 

Aspen 

ESA-related: None. 

BLM Sensitive: Three-toed woodpecker. 

Water 

ESA-related: Humpback chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker. 

BLM Sensitive: Colorado River cutthroat trout, roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker. 

3.3.7 WATER QUALITY 

Surface Water 

Watersheds, aquifers, rivers and stream are ecologically dynamic interfaces of atmosphere, soils, and water. 

Healthy watersheds capture precipitation and runoff, store water in the soil (or bedrock) profile, and release 

it slowly back into the landscape surface waters. Most of the water supply to these watersheds comes from 

snowmelt during the spring and early summer months and precipitation from high-intensity convective 

storms throughout the spring, summer, and fall. There are also many ephemeral drainages throughout the 

watershed that flow intermittently during the year. 

The major watershed management unit identified in the Vernal planning area is the Uinta Basin Unit (UDEQ 

2005a). Major river and watersheds systems located in the Vernal planning area include the Green, Uinta, 

Strawberry, Duchesne, and White Rivers. Surface water within the planning area is used for domestic, 
3-12 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

recreational, aesthetic, agricultural, stock-watering, and industrial purposes. They also are habitat for aquatic 

and water-oriented wildlife and fish. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and CWA of 1977 and subsequent amendments/revisions 

are the predominant federal legislations that direct management of water quality on BLM-administered lands. 

CWA mandates restoration and/or maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our 

nation's waters, while Section 303 primarily dictates further compliance to state and local water quality 

standards. BLM must also comply with Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) water quality 

standards. 

Under Section 303(d) of CWA, UDEQ is directed to list all waters that do not meet water quality standards 

or have impaired beneficial uses (e.g., drinking water, recreation, etc.). Waterbodies in which water quality is 

impaired are referred to as “303(d)-listed streams” or “impaired waters.” The sources of these impairments 

come predominantly from agriculture (e.g., grazing, irrigation); natural sources (e.g., bedrock); on-the-ground 

hydrological modification (e.g., resource extraction and road construction); and point-source discharges. 

When a stream is listed as impaired, the allowable total maximum daily load (TMDL) of a pollutant, such total 

dissolved solids, is required to be calculated for the stream. TMDLs apply to both point and non-point 

sources. The UDEQ is in the process of developing TMDLs for various waterbodies throughout Utah. 

Ten waterbodies within the Vernal planning area have been identified by the UDEQ Division of Water 

Quality as 303(d)-listed streams (UDEQ 2004), totaling approximately 346 miles of streams, rivers, 

reservoirs, or lakes. Figure 3.3 presents the locations of 303(d)-listed streams identified within the Vernal 

planning area. TMDLs have been completed for 303(d)-listed sections of the Ashley Creek (pending), Browne 

Lake, and the Uinta River watershed (UDEQ 2005b). 

Several watersheds in the Vernal planning area also contain protected surface water sources used for 

municipal water supply. The Ashley Spring (stream) source supplies drinking water for the Ashley Valley 

Water District and Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Red Fleet Reservoir and Starvation Reservoir 

also supply water for Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Flaming Gorge Reservoir supplies water for 

the town of Dutch John. The Upper Buck source supplies water to the Greendale Water Company. The 

Whiterock River supplies water to Tridell Lapoint Water District (Johnson 2005). These surface water 

supply sources are particularly vulnerable to changes in upstream water quality. 

The Edith Aspen Spring located northeast of Dutch John supplies drinking water to the Questar Gas Clay 

Basin camp and is a protected source area. The effects of fire, however, are not likely to impact spring water 

sources due to the protected (underground) nature of the water. 

As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, the Red Creek watershed located in the Green River 

drainage has been designated as an ACEC (BLM 2005). This area is a regionally significant critical watershed 

and has Class I fisheries values. 

Groundwater 

Primary recharge areas generally occur along mountain fronts where basin-fill materials erode from mountain 

bedrock (Baskin et al. 2002). Groundwater accumulates in these areas and flows downgradient. Further away 

from the mountain fronts, groundwater discharge areas occur where groundwater collects (e.g., to form 

playas) or flows to surface waterbodies. 

Groundwater recharge areas could be particularly vulnerable to surface sources of pollution because 

groundwater movement is typically pulled downward by gravity and primary recharge areas may not have 

protective, fine-grained layers (such as typically found in basin valleys) that serve to filter out the pollutants. 

In addition, groundwater could be sensitive to total dissolved solids in aquifer media (soil or bedrock) types. 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-13 

FIGURE 3.3: 303(D)-LISTED WATERBODIES IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
3-14 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

Groundwater is part of the developed water supply for numerous municipalities in the Vernal planning area 

and supplies private water wells used for drinking water and irrigation. The location of water wells and 

underground water diversion rights can be obtained from the Utah Division of Water Rights at 

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov. 

3.3.8 WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES 

A riparian area is generally defined as the area alongside perennial or ephemeral stream that is influenced by 

the presence of shallow groundwater. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Register 1982) and 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as those areas that 

are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 

which, under normal circumstance do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions. BLM Manual 1737 (BLM 1992), Wetlands and Riparian Area Management, includes 

marshes, shallow swamps, lakeshores, bogs, muskegs, wet meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas as wetlands. 

Riparian and aquatic areas comprise only a small portion of the lands managed by the BLM; however, their 

ecological significance is far greater than their limited physical scope as these systems form some of the most 

dynamic and ecologically rich portions of the landscape (Elmore and Beschta 1987). 

Wetlands and riparian areas play a significant role in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation’s water. Wildlife use wetlands and riparian areas disproportionately more 

than any other type of habitat. In addition, wetlands and riparian areas are highly prized for their economic 

values and other uses such as livestock production and recreation (BLM 1994). Under natural conditions, 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems have a high degree of structural complexity, reflective of past disturbances 

such as floods, fire, ice floes, wind storms, grazing, disease, and insect outbreaks (Gregory et al. 1991). 

If a wetlands and riparian area is not in properly functioning condition PFC, it is placed into one of three 

categories: 

 Functional-at-Risk: Wetlands and riparian areas that are in functional condition but have an existing soil, 

water, or vegetation attribute that makes them susceptible to degradation. 

 Non-functional: Wetlands and riparian areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, 

or woody debris to dissipate energies associated with flow events, and thus are not reducing erosion, 

improving water quality etc. 

 Unknown: Wetlands and riparian areas for which there is a lack of sufficient information to make any form 

of determination (BLM 2003e). 

The Vernal FMP and Draft RMP identified the following riparian/wetland areas as having important values 

within the Vernal planning area: 

Bitter Creek Pariette Wetlands 

Bitter Creek Marsh Red Creek 

Brush Creek Sweetwater Creek 

Goslin Mountain's wet and semi-wet meadows White River 

Evacuation Creek Willow Creek 

Green River Meadow Creek 

Numerous other ephemeral and perennial 

streams and drainages 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-15 

Preliminary riparian inventory revealed 295 miles and 3,674 acres of riparian areas currently in PFC, 133 

miles and 1452 acres functioning at risk, and 79 miles and 1,213 acres not in properly functioning condition 

(BLM 2005). Functioning condition and the natural processes that affect functionality have been impaired in 

many areas through human disturbances and alterations and the infestation of non-native species. Humans 

have altered stream aquatic and riparian environments by direct modifications (channelization, wood 

removal, diversion, dam-building, irrigation de-watering) and indirect impacts (from timber harvest, mining, 

grazing, and road building). These activities have altered channels by changing the rate at which sediment, 

water, and wood enter and are moved through streams. Anthropogenic activities have also affected the 

incidence, frequency, and magnitude of the natural disturbance events described above (McIntosh et al. 1991; 

Wissmar et al. 1994). 

Invasive species such as tamarisk, tall whitetop, and Russian olive have become well established in the riparian 

communities and are slowly replacing the native vegetation across much of Utah. This increase in 

tamarisk/Russian olive has altered the intensity and size of unplanned fires due to the increased fuel loads in 

the cottonwood understory, providing ladder fuels to the large cottonwood trees. 

3.3.9 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

The WSRA (16 USC 1271-1287) established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribed 

methods and standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. The 

purpose of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System is to preserve the free-flowing state of rivers that 

have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values. 

Rivers in the system are classified as wild river areas, scenic river area, or recreational river areas. WSRA 

established a method for providing federal protection for certain of our country's remaining free-flowing 

rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations (NPS and USDI 1982). It also established management requirements to management decisions to 

protect both the eligible river, or river segments, and the land immediately surrounding them. 

No rivers in Utah are included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act (WSRA) directs federal agencies to consider potential wild and scenic rivers in their land and 

water planning processes. The WSRA provides that suitable rivers or river segments be administered in such 

a way as to protect and enhance the values that made it eligible for the National System, but not to limit 

other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values (Interagency 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council 2004). 

Inventories in the Vernal Field Office have identified the rivers or river segments in Table 3.3 as eligible for 

designation. Protective management is in place until the eligible river or river segment is determined, during 

the study phase, to be suitable or unsuitable. Suitability will be determined in the Record of Decision for the 

Vernal FO RMP/EIS. Once suitability is determined, only segments found to be suitable will be managed to 

protect the free-flow, outstandingly remarkable values, and recommended classification until Congressional 

action is taken. 
3-16 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

TABLE 3.3: ELIGIBLE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS

Segment 

Name Segment Description 

Outstanding 

Remarkable 

Values 

Tentative 

Classification 

BLM 

Shoreline 

Miles 

Total 

Miles 

Argyle 

Creek 

Headwaters to Carbon County 

line 

Scenic Recreational 4.0 22.0 

Bitter 

Creek 

Utah state line to where it enters 

private property 

Fish, wildlife/habitat, 

cultural, historic, 

recreational 

Scenic 7.0 22.0 

Evacuation 

Creek 

Utah state line to confluence with 

White River 

Historic Recreational 7.0 21.0 

Lower 

Green 

River 

Between public land boundary 

south of Ouray and the Carbon 

County line 

Recreational, fish Scenic 27.0 30.0 

Middle 

Green 

River 

Between Dinosaur National 

Monument and public land 

boundary north of Ouray 

Fish Recreational 20.0 36.0 

Nine Mile 

Creek (A) 

Segment within Duchesne County 

between Carbon County line and 

confluence with Gate Canyon 

Scenic, cultural Recreational 7.0 13.0 

Nine Mile 

Creek (B) 

The segment within Duchesne 

County between Gate Canyon 

and the Green River 

Scenic, cultural Scenic 0.0 6.0 

Upper 

Green 

River 

Between Little Hole and Utah 

state line 

Scenic, recreational, 

fish, wildlife/habitat, 

cultural 

Scenic 12.0 22.0 

White 

River (A) 

The segment between Colorado 

state line and its confluence with 

Asphalt Wash 

Scenic, fish, 

wildlife/habitat 

recreational, historic 

Scenic 8.0 24.0 

White 

River (B) 

The segment between Asphalt 

Wash to where the river leaves 

Section 18, T10S. R23 E. SLBM 

Scenic, fish, 

wildlife/habitat 

recreational, historic 

Wild 10.0 10.0 

White 

River (C) 

The segment from where the 

river leaves Section 18, T10S. R23 

E. SLBM to Indian Trust Land 

boundary 

Scenic, fish, 

wildlife/habitat 

recreational, historic 

Scenic 10.0 10.0 

3.3.10 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 78 Stat. 890) established the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and established guidelines for the designation and management of wilderness. 

Wilderness, as defined in the Wilderness Act, is an area where, in contrast with those areas where man and 

his works dominate the landscape, the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, and where 

man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean an area of 

undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or 

human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) 

generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-17 

of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. 

Wilderness areas can only be designated by Congress and are managed under the Wilderness Act. A WSA is 

an administrative designation designed to allow areas to be studied and considered by Congress for possible 

designation as wilderness. WSAs are managed to prevent impairment of their suitability for congressional 

designation as wilderness. 

By policy, management of WSAs is generally less restrictive than wilderness areas, but activities, including fire 

management actions that would impair wilderness suitability are prohibited. Section 603 of FLPMA requires 

the BLM to protect the wilderness character of each WSA until Congress makes its decision, regardless of its 

recommendation. 

There are approximately 54,042 acres designated for WSAs in the Vernal planning area. Figure 3.4 and 

Table 3.4 show the location and size (respectively) of WSAs in the Vernal planning area. 

TABLE 3.4: WILDERNESS STUDY AREA ACREAGE

Name of Wilderness Study Area Acreage 

Book Cliffs Instant Study Area 399 

Bull Canyon 598 

Daniels Canyon 2,516 

Diamond Breaks 3,926 

West Cold Springs 3,283 

Winter Ridge 43,320 

TOTAL ACREAGE 54,042 

3.3.11 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Allotments 

Livestock grazing is permitted on approximately 68 percent (1,670,877 acres) of BLM-administered lands in 

the Vernal planning area. For administrative purposes, the Vernal planning area is divided into 146 allotments. 

Figure 3.5 presents livestock grazing allotment locations in the Vernal planning area. 

Grazing allotments are geographically unique and range in size from 74,350 public acres to small isolated 

parcels of public land of less than one acre. Sizing affects how the allotments are managed. Allotments may be 

joined with private, state, other federal lands or a combination thereof, in addition to BLM-administered 

lands. Allotments may be permitted to one (individual allotment) or more (common allotment) operators. 

More than one permit may be issued to a particular individual or company. 

Grazing allotments typically contain improvements constructed by the permittee or by the BLM. These 

improvements include water troughs, guzzlers, rain water catch basins and other water storage structures, 

fences, corrals, and other similar structures necessary for the successful use of the allotment. 
3-18 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 3.4: WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-19 

FIGURE 3.5: LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
3-20 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

Grazing Systems 

Seasons of use vary on each allotment throughout the Vernal planning area from a few-week season to a 

year-long season. Each grazing system may include periodic rest depending upon the specific management 

concerns and needs for that allotment. The season of use for each allotment is described in the operator’s 

grazing permit. Season-long use entails grazing one pasture from spring or early summer to late summer or 

fall. Some movement of livestock use may occur within the pasture (e.g., from canyon to canyon). Deferred 

rotation is a technique that uses the entire allotment by rotating pasture use (e.g., livestock start in a 

different pasture each year). Rest-rotation of pastures is a technique that involves grazing during certain 

periods and resting during other periods, with some pastures rested for the entire grazing season. Grazing 

systems are designed based on the requirements of key forage species in the allotment, the resources of 

concern on the allotment and the needs of the livestock producer and their livestock. 

Rangeland Health Standards 

Allotments are periodically assessed for meeting multiple use objectives and all allotments are currently being 

assessed for meeting Utah’s rangeland health standards. This effort is to be completed by the year 2009. 

Periodic allotment assessments may indicate that changes in the season of use or grazing system are 

necessary to meet rangeland health standards. If these assessments indicate that changes in livestock 

management are needed to meet standards or other multiple use objectives after consultation with the 

permittee, changes to the terms and conditions of the permit would be made through agreement or by 

decision. 

3.3.12 WOODLANDS AND FORESTRY 

Most existing wood product use is for firewood, Christmas tree and pine nut gathering, with a minor 

component for lumber and associated products. 

Table 3.5 shows the occurrence of forest types (the forest types correspond to the compressed GAP 

classes described in Section 3.3.13), acreages for the Vernal planning area, and primary uses of the forests. 

The predominant forest type in the Vernal planning area is the pinyon and juniper woodland category. This is 

the most extensive forest type in Utah, exceeding in acreage all other forests combined (Lanner 1984). 

Efforts have been made to encourage the non-commercial thinning of pinyon and juniper woodland for 

firewood use in the past. The mixed conifer is comprised of fir, pine and spruce species. 

TABLE 3.5: FOREST TYPES, ACRES, AND PRIMARY USES IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA

Vegetation Type 

Approx. 

Acreage Uses 

Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 318,207 Firewood, specialty lumber, pine nuts, biomass 

Mixed Conifer/Aspen 87,603 

Mixed conifer is used for firewood, Christmas trees, pulp, 

lumber, log home construction, and fence posts. Aspen is used 

for packing material (dunnage), pallets, erosion blanket, swamp 

cooler filters, matches, specialty lumber, fuel, fence posts, and 

pulp. 

Old-growth forests are generally defined as being older than 150 years old. The primary forest type identified 

within the Vernal planning area as likely to have old-growth areas is the pinyon and juniper woodland. 

Harvesting or other activities affecting old-growth forests are generally restricted. 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-21 

3.3.13 VEGETATION 

Vegetation in the Vernal planning area is grouped from the GAP analysis into vegetation groups with similar 

fire ecology (see Figure 3.6). 

Fire Regime Condition Class 

Vegetation response (and recovery) following disturbance (fire) over time is referred to as succession. The 

stages of vegetation types or communities are referred to as seral stages, with the end result referred to as 

climax. The presence of non-natives (and loss of native species) can affect succession. For example, 

cheatgrass changes the natural fire regime and may perpetuate through time and appear as climax. This 

altered (shortened) fire return interval can be as little as five years and may allow the species to expand 

dramatically their range and coverage after fires. 

FRCC is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of departure from reference condition 

vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes. Assessing FRCC can help guide management objectives and set 

priorities for treatments. FRCC was assigned to vegetation on public lands within the state through review of 

vegetation types identified by GAP (Edwards et. al. 1998), and elevation ranges. The definitions for FRCC are 

presented in Table 3.6. Table 3.7 presents vegetation acres and associated Fire Regimes and Condition 

Classes in the Vernal planning area.

TABLE 3.6: GENERAL FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS DESCRIPTION

FRCC Description 

1 Within the natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation characteristics; fuels composition; fire 

frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. 

2 Moderate departure from the natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation characteristics; fuels 

composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. 

3 High departure from the natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation characteristics; fuels 

composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. 

TABLE 3.7: VEGETATION TYPE ACRES IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA

Vegetation Type Approx. Acreage of BLMAdministered Land 

Percent 

of Lands 

Fire 

Regime 

Fire Regime 

Condition 

Class 

Sagebrush 589,094 35% II, III 2 (59%) 

3 (41%) 

Salt desert shrub 419,521 29% V 3 (100%) 

Pinyon and juniper woodland 318,207 18% II or V(old 

growth) 

2 (98%) 

3 (2%) 

Mountain shrub 193,990 11% I, II, and IV 2 (100%) 

Mixed conifer 86,474 5% III and IV 3 (100%) 

Riparian 5,454 0.3% IV 2 (9%) 

3 (81%) 

Aspen 1,129 <0.1% IV 3 (100%) 

Ponderosa pine 961 <0.1% I 3 (100%) 

TOTAL ACREAGE 1,614,830 
3-22 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 3.6: VEGETATION TYPES ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LAND IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-23 

Sagebrush 

Unlike the salt desert shrub type, which grows as mixed stands in poor soils, big sagebrush grows in nonsaline, well-drained valleys and slopes and mostly forms monotypic stands. It is generally found above the 

valley bottoms, immediately below the pinyon and juniper woodland type. 

Since sagebrush develops in seral stages, many of the acres of native, perennial grasslands and areas may be 

considered early seral sagebrush communities. In addition, some areas classified as pinyon-juniper may 

actually have been sagebrush historically (pinyon-juniper have encroached into shrublands). At the scale of 

mapping for this EA, many areas identified as annual and perennial grasslands or pinyon-juniper woodlands 

may contain inclusions of remnant sagebrush steppe communities. 

Healthy sagebrush is a patchwork mosaic of seral communities that range from recovering perennial grassshrublands following natural fire, to old growth, decadent sagebrush steppe with high canopy cover and 

reduced herbaceous understory (Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee 2002). The three main 

subspecies of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) found along with a dwarf sagebrush species (Artemisia nova) 

in the Vernal planning area are as follows: 

 Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) is the most common shrub in the 

intermountain basins (Knight 1994). It grows in pinyon and juniper woodland and below on plains and 

foot-hills at elevations of 5,000 feet to 7,000 feet. Associated grasses are often scarce in this big 

sagebrush type. 

 Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata) grows with Wyoming big sagebrush but is confined to 

valley bottoms in deep, well-drained sandy to loamy soils at 4,000 to 7,300 feet in elevation. Basin big 

sagebrush grows taller (up to six feet) and blooms later than Wyoming big sagebrush. 

 Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) grows in pinyon and juniper woodland and above, 

on foot-hills, and mountain sides at elevations of 5,100 to 10,200 feet in the 14- to 20-inch precipitation 

zones, with cooler soils and more resilient, intact native communities than low elevation sagebrush 

(especially the upper end). They are more susceptible to juniper encroachment, mainly as a result of fire 

suppression, depending on the soil. 

On the drier sites, much of the sagebrush communities have degraded with extensive conversion to 

cheatgrass-dominated understories. 

Salt Desert Shrub 

This vegetation type is perhaps the most arid vegetation type in the Intermountain West (Wood and 

Brotherson 1986). Salt desert shrub occurs in valleys at the lowest elevation. This vegetation type grows in 

areas characterized by accumulations of salt in poorly developed soils. This vegetation type includes salttolerant, succulent shrubs like greasewood, ephedra, shadscale, four-wing saltbush, and threadleaf rubber 

rabbitbrush. Common grasses include inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Indian 

ricegrass. Forbs are numerous but seldom are any one species abundant (Goodrich and Neese 1986). 

Biological crusts are usually present and cover most of the interspaces between shrubs in intact, native 

species-dominated salt-desert shrub types. Salt desert shrub generally has low productivity, naturally sparse 

understory vegetation and light fuels. 

In the past 40 years, large expanses of salt desert shrub have been overtaken by invasive annual grasslands 

and annual forbs. Currently, cheatgrass has invaded all of the salt desert type found on the Vernal planning 

area and approximately much of this vegetation type now provides sufficient fuel loading to support large, 

fast-moving fires. Where cheatgrass has invaded, native salt desert shrub communities have been 

permanently lost or are at high risk of loss. 
3-24 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 

Trees that are less than 33 feet in height characterize this vegetation type. The open conifer woodlands form 

savannah-like landscapes with moderately open to very open canopies (25 to 59 percent canopy cover). The 

overstory includes Colorado pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) as a common 

associate. Typically, the understory consists of shrub species like big sagebrush and native bunchgrasses like 

bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum). Many areas of pinyon-juniper woodlands are characterized by 

closed woodlands (greater than 60 percent canopy cover) and due to competition for sunlight, water, and 

nutrients, the understory is drastically reduced. Also, juniper litter may further inhibit understory growth. 

On lower edges of the woodland zone, Utah juniper is frequently the only tree species with a mixture of the 

two in the middle and pinyon with little or no juniper in the upper elevations. Utah juniper is the more xeric 

of the two, often serving as nurse trees for pinyon in well-developed woodlands. 

Junipers are considered climax species for a number of pinyon and juniper, sagebrush steppe, and shrub 

steppe habitats (sagebrush improves soil fertility and creates a microclimate underneath that favors the 

establishment of young juniper trees). An increase in sagebrush cover following livestock grazing has created 

a more favorable environment for juniper invasion (Knight 1994). Consequently, Utah juniper increases with 

grazing and has spread from thin substrates along ridges and mountain slopes to deeper valley soils. On thin 

substrates where it is not seral, reclamation efforts have been partially successful. Many areas where juniper 

encroachment has occurred have also been invaded by cheatgrass in the understory, which raises concerns of 

further cheatgrass expansion following fire.

Mountain Shrub 

This vegetation type consists of a variety of shrubs: Gambel oak, maple, mountain mahogany, and mixed 

mountain shrub (a highly diverse community made up in part of chokecherry, serviceberry, currant, 

snowberry, elderberry, bitterbrush, mountain big sagebrush, nine-bark, ceanothus, and others). This 

vegetation type is found above the pinyon-juniper zone and below the conifer zone. It is found at moderately 

high elevations (7,000 to 8,500 feet) and on north and east slopes that tend to be cooler and moister than 

south and west aspects (the exception is mountain mahogany and oak, which occur on south aspects). 

Mixed Conifer 

This vegetation type, typically occurring at elevations above 7,000 feet, consists of major forest community 

types of mixed conifer, which may include Douglas-fir, white fir, Englemann spruce and sub-alpine fir. This 

type occupies less than one percent of BLM-managed lands on the Vernal District. As a result of fire 

suppression and grazing, species like Douglas-fir (which has thick bark like ponderosa pine) have invaded 

lower elevation communities. 

Because there are numerous community types associated with this vegetation type, condition and trends 

vary. In those conifer types associated with aspen, the trend is towards a greater representation of climax 

vegetation, with a corresponding loss of early seral stage aspen. In other conifer types that lack the aspen 

component, the increasing density of shade tolerant species can place greater stress on larger older trees, 

mostly due to between-tree competition for water. Increased stress results in a greater susceptibility to 

insect and disease attack (Keyes et al. 2003). In many sites, the stocking index is many times greater than presettlement times, resulting in an increased likelihood of stand-replacing fire. 

Riparian 

Riparian vegetation is typically comprised of narrow stringer communities along both sides of rivers and 

streams. Native vegetation in Vernal’s riparian areas may be dominated by Fremont cottonwoods with 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-25 

understories of shrubs (e.g., sandbar willow) and herbaceous species. Fremont cottonwood communities are 

characterized by a late seral stage (e.g., all mature to late-mature trees) with little or no representation of 

younger age-classes and are not typically fire-adapted. The life history and ecology of cottonwoods are 

intimately tied with flooding, erosion, and deposition on the flood plains. Cottonwoods release seed 

corresponding with the flood season because the seeds only germinate and establish on freshly deposited, 

moist alluvium (point bars). This frequently creates bands of trees that provide a living record of flooding 

patterns and channel migration with younger age classes near the water’s edge (green-line) and older trees 

occurring some distance from the channel in the flood plain (Knight 1994). 

Due to altered stream flows that exist in the native cottonwood communities, the trend is toward a greater 

representation of climax vegetation, with a lack of recruitment by younger age classes as well as possible 

mortality to older individuals. In others, many of the native riparian communities have been converted to 

exotic tamarisk and Russian olive and/or noxious weeds. 

Aspen 

Aspen-dominated types can be climax or seral to conifer communities and are found at elevations between 

6,500 feet and 10,500 feet. Aspen occurring as pure stands are considered climax and are considered seral 

when in association with various conifers such as Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine, white fir, sub-alpine fir, 

and Douglas-fir. Although conifer invasion is a natural pattern in seral aspen stands, fire suppression has 

resulted in an increased representation and dominance by conifer in aspen stands, thus reducing the extent of 

aspen-dominated stands (Mueggler 1989). Aspen is a fire-dependent species and because aspen is a fastgrowing and short-lived species, in the absence of fire the aboveground stems tend to become decadent and 

diseased. 

Ponderosa Pine 

Ponderosa pine occupies the warmest, driest forest sites away from cold air drainages. Because ponderosa 

pine tolerates a broader range of environmental conditions than most of its associates, this type has no 

particular community type, but rather the understory constitutes whatever community is growing nearby. It 

can occur as a climax type at lower elevations or seral with some other type like Douglas-fir at higher 

elevations. 

3.3.14 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

For the purpose of this document, general fisheries and wildlife refers to species and groups of similar species 

that do not have federal status (as defined in BLM Manual 6840, including ESA-related species) and are not 

considered BLM sensitive species. However, these species may have other federal and/or state protection 

(e.g., under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Utah State Code) and are of concern to management 

authorities, Native American tribes, the general public, or groups (e.g., birders, hunters, etc.) with particular 

interest in a species or group of species. 

General fisheries and wildlife groups considered in this document include fisheries, non-game (raptors, 

migratory birds, small mammals, carnivores and predators, and amphibians and reptiles) and big game (mule 

deer, Rocky Mountain elk, moose, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and bison). ESA-related and 

BLM sensitive species are discussed earlier in this chapter. Scientific names and habitat associations for each 

of the species within the Vernal planning area mentioned in this section are presented in Table 3.8. 
3-26 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

TABLE 3.8: HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS FOR GENERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES

Common Name Species Habitat*

Fisheries 

Rainbow trout Oncorhyncus mykiss W

Brown trout Salmo trutta W

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis W

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush W

Birds 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis SDS, S, PJ, S, G, 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis SDS, PJ, S, G, MS, MC, A

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles MC, A

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos SDS, PJ, G, MS, MC, RW, A, W

American kestrel Falco sparverius SDS, G, MC, PP, RW, A

Osprey Pandion haliaetus RW, W

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus G, RW

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura SDS, PJ, S, G, MS, MC, PP, RW, A, W

Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis MS, PP, RW

Abert’s towhee Pipilo abertii RW

American avocet Recurvirostra americana RW

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SDS

Lucy’s warbler Vermivora lucidae SDS, RW

Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus S

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos RW, W

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus RW

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginae PJ, MS

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior PJ, MS

Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii RW

Black rosy finch Leucosticte atrata G

Long-billed curlew Numenius phaeopus G

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus S, G

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri SDS, S

Black swift Cypseloides niger RW

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus RW

Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus RW

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus RW

Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens PJ, MS

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus MC

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli SDS, S

Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii SDS, RW

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus MC, PP, RW, A

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor MC, PP, RW, A

Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus MC, PP, RW, A

Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli MC, PP, RW, A

Mammals 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-27 

Common Name Species Habitat* 

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans MC, PP, RW, A

Ringtail Bassariscus astutus MC, PP, RW, A

Black bear Ursus americanus MS, MC, PP, RW, A

Mountain lion Felis concolor PJ, MS, MC, PP 

Coyote Canis latrans SDS, PJ, S, G, MS, MC, A

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus S, MS

Rocky Mountain elk Cervus elaphus G, MS, MC, A

Moose Alces alces G, MS, MC, RW, A

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis S, G, MS

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana SDS, S, G 

Bison Bos bison G, MS, MC, PP, A

*Habitat Codes: SDS = salt desert shrub, PJ = pinyon and juniper woodland, S = sagebrush, G = grassland, MS = mountain shrub, MC 

= mixed conifer, PP = ponderosa pine, RW = riparian/wetland, A = aspen and W = water 

Fisheries 

Important native fish species found in the Vernal planning area that are not ESA-related or BLM sensitive 

species include rainbow, brown, brook, and lake trout. Native fish demonstrate a wide variety of life 

histories, including resident populations inhabiting small headwater streams with shorter migratory ranges, 

populations using larger streams and main rivers, populations in lake habitats, and populations spawning in 

rivers or streams. 

The quality of aquatic habitats varies widely across the state. Generally, aquatic habitats have declined since 

settlement of the region began in the 1850s. Disturbances contributing to decline of habitat have included 

logging, grazing, mining, recreation, water diversion for irrigation and domestic supply purposes, other 

surface disturbing activities, and introduction of non-native species, as well as wildland fire, insect infestation, 

disease, wind, floods, landslides, avalanches, and other surface-disturbing activities. These disturbances have 

resulted in loss of riparian vegetation and subsequent changes in vegetation species composition. 

Non-game Species 

For the purposes of this document, non-game species are identified as raptors, migratory birds, small 

mammals, carnivores and predators, and amphibians and reptiles. 

Raptors: Raptors (birds of prey) found in and adjacent to the Vernal planning area include several species of 

hawks (e.g., ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, and northern goshawk), eagles (e.g., golden eagle), falcons 

(including the American kestrel), owls, ospreys, northern harriers, and turkey vultures. These species inhabit 

various ecosystems and consume a wide range of prey. 

During the breeding season, raptors are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Behavior during and following 

disturbance could result in nest abandonment or reduced productivity. Accordingly, raptors are provided 

with protection designed to prevent disturbance under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and Eagle 

Protection Act of 1962 (as amended). In addition, the Utah field office of the USFWS has issued guidelines for 

establishment of disturbance-free buffer zones around raptor nests, and the identification of mitigation 

techniques available for use when management or development activities conflict with the buffer zones. In 

Utah, the largest buffer zone suggested for any raptor nest is one mile (Romin and Muck 2002). 

Migratory Birds: Migratory birds travel from one region to another, usually twice a year, spring and fall, for 

breeding or feeding purposes. Generally, they nest in temperate North America and over-winter in portions 

of Mexico and Latin America. Migratory birds represent a diversity of species, including shorebirds, 
3-28 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

waterfowl, passerines (perching birds), and raptors, and may nest in any or all of the vegetation types within 

the Vernal planning area. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has prepared the Partners in Flight Avian Conservation 

Strategy (Parrish et al. 2002), a document evaluating the status of 231 bird species, many of which are 

migratory, that breed in Utah. Twenty-four bird species have been prioritized for management and 

protection, and occur mostly within four habitat types that have been designated by UDWR as priority 

habitats. These habitats include salt desert shrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, sagebrush, and 

riparian/wetland (Parrish et al. 2002). The 24 priority bird species include the Lewis’ woodpecker, Abert’s 

towhee, American avocet, mountain plover, Lucy’s warbler, sage grouse, American white pelican, bobolink, 

Virginia’s warbler, gray vireo, Bell’s vireo, black rosy finch, long-billed curlew, sharp-tailed grouse, Brewer’s 

sparrow, black swift, black-necked stilt, broad-tailed hummingbird, ferruginous hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

black-throated gray warbler, three-toed woodpecker, sage sparrow, and Gambel’s quail. 

Some migratory birds are cavity nesters and may be found in forested habitat of varying elevation throughout 

the state. Cavity-nesting birds include several species of woodpecker. Woodpeckers are considered primary 

cavity nesters because they typically excavate their own nest cavities. Secondary cavity nesters are often 

incapable of excavating their own nest cavities and, therefore, rely upon existing cavities that have been 

previously established by woodpeckers. Secondary cavity nesters include species such as the American 

kestrel, flammulated owl, tree swallow, and black-capped and mountain chickadees. While cavities may be 

excavated in live trees, standing dead trees (e.g., snags) are typically preferred by primary cavity nesters and 

may be easier for secondary cavity nesters to access. Trees in the mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, aspen, and 

riparian/wetland habitat types each contain important nesting resources for cavity-nesting species. 

Small Mammals: Small mammals include species groups such as bats, squirrels, mice, and rabbits. Because 

these groups fill a variety of niches, small mammals are found in most habitat types within the Vernal planning 

area. Although the term “cavity nester” typically refers to bird species, it may include small mammals that use 

cavities for dennings. Small cavity-nesting mammals include silver-haired bat and ringtail. 

Carnivores and Predators: These species are generally large, long-lived, solitary species. Although they are 

considered here to be non-game species, a variety of carnivores are managed by UDWR. More plentiful 

carnivores are often hunted for food, sport, or as a management technique to allow prey species to thrive. 

Utah predators include black bear, mountain lion, and coyote. Although the black bear and mountain lion 

tend to remain more secluded in the mountain shrub and mixed conifer communities of mountains and 

foothills, the coyote may venture into urban and agricultural areas as a means of finding vulnerable prey. In 

general, where there is a prey source, there are predators. And because predators consume birds and small 

mammals and often travel over large distances, they may be found anywhere within the Vernal planning area. 

Amphibians and Reptiles: Because the majority of Utah’s wildlife habitats are arid or semi-arid and small 

percentage of habitats are associated with water, reptiles are more prominent than amphibians. Reptiles are 

found throughout the Vernal planning area and may occur in any habitat type. Amphibians are found in and 

adjacent to wetlands, rivers and streams, mountain lakes, runoff pools in rock formations, and both 

ephemeral and permanent livestock watering ponds. 

Big Game Species 

Big game species include large, hunted animals such as mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk and pronghorn. Given 

the economic importance of big game, this group is typically managed more closely than other wildlife 

groups. Accordingly, UDWR has identified critical seasonal use ranges within the Vernal planning area for 

mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, moose, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and bison. 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-29 

Mule Deer: Mule deer occupy most ecosystems, but are characteristically found in shrublands with rough, 

broken terrain and abundant browse and cover. Mule deer winter diets consist primarily of browse in the 

form of sagebrush, bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, and other shrubs, as well as a small amount of grasses 

and trees (e.g., pinyon or juniper). During the other three seasons, there is much wider distribution of 

nutritional resources. Mule deer summer use habitat primarily consists of mixed conifer, aspen, riparian and 

wetland, and grassland, while winter habitat primarily consists of low-elevation sagebrush and mountain shrub 

habitats on south-facing slopes. 

Rocky Mountain Elk: The Rocky Mountain elk is a generalist, feeding on forbs and grasses during the spring 

and summer and grasses and shrubs throughout the fall and winter. These feeding relationships are variable 

and depend largely on location. Various habitats include winter ranges, calving areas and summer ranges. 

Calving areas are used from mid-May through June. They are typically located at higher elevations than 

wintering grounds; consist of grassland, mountain shrub, mixed conifer, and aspen; and occur near cover, 

forage, and water resources (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). 

Moose: The moose in Utah is typically associated with riparian and wetland and mountain shrub habitats. It 

feeds on leafy plants, as well as trees and shrubs including aspen, birch, and willow. Before 1918, moose did 

not readily occur in Utah. Since that time, moose populations have increased and they are found throughout 

the northern portions of Utah, in places closely associated with mixed conifer, aspen, mountain shrub, 

riparian and wetland, and grassland habitats (Zeveloff and Collette 1988). 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep: Bighorn sheep inhabit remote, mountain, and desert locations, and are 

often found on cliffs and rocky slopes in rugged canyons. They are most closely associated with sagebrush, 

grassland, and mountain shrub habitats (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982). Bighorn sheep are active during the 

daytime and feed on grasses, trees, and shrubs, depending upon availability, succulence, and nutrient content. 

The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep can be found in several mountain ranges in central and northern Utah 

(UDWR 2004a). 

Pronghorn: The pronghorn is typically associated with salt desert shrub, sagebrush, and grassland habitats 

throughout its entire range (UDWR 2004b). It is most active during the daytime and consumes sagebrush, 

thistle, cacti, grasses and forbs (UDWR 2004b). There are 24 pronghorn management units within the state. 

Pronghorn population levels are subject to drought, and most units have suffered a substantial population 

decline during the current six-year drought. Pronghorn populations are expected to rebound as the drought 

subsides. 

3.3.15 SOILS 

Soils in the Vernal planning area have developed from bedrock, volcanic activity, rocks and minerals 

deposited by rivers and glacial activity, windblown silt and sand. They are derived primarily from the 

sedimentary, metamorphic quartzite and volcanic rocks of the Uinta Mountains, Diamond Mountain Plateau, 

Avintaquin Mountains, East Tavaputs Plateau, Roan Cliffs, and Book Cliffs, which form the boundaries of the 

Uinta Basin and Browns Park. Soil source materials or substrates found in the Vernal planning area fall into 

the soil types such as alluvium, calcareous, clay, conglomerate, duff, granitic, gravelly loam, gypsiferous, 

igneous, limestone, loam, quartzite, sandstone, sandy and shale. 

Soils in the Vernal planning area are composed of a wide variety of soil types and characteristics. Certain soil 

types have chemical and physical characteristics that may favor certain vegetation types and combined with 

climatic influences, can provide habitats for various plant species. Certain soil types also have chemical 

features that limit restoration and make reclamation difficult, these include sodium, soluble salts, carbonates, 

and gypsum. Physical soil characteristics that may limit reclamation include sandy soils, clayey soils, large 

coarse fragments (e.g., stones and boulders), shallow depth to parent material, and low organic matter 
3-30 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

content. A shallow depth to groundwater limits reclamation of hydric soils. Soils with these features are 

referred to as limiting soils. 

The presence of biological crusts in arid and semi-arid lands influences the soil environment by reducing soil 

erosion (from both wind and water), fixing atmospheric nitrogen, retaining soil moisture and providing living 

organic surface mulch. This crust consists of a variety of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, 

microfungi and other bacteria (Belnap and Lange 2003). A crust’s development is strongly influenced by soil 

texture, soil chemistry, and successional colonization by crustal organisms. In some ecosystems, such as 

those characterized by highly erosive marine sediments and little vegetative cover, physical crusts such as 

vesicular chemical crusts and desert pavement can also provide protection from wind erosion. 

The Natural Resource Conservation Service has conducted three soil surveys throughout the Vernal planning 

area, with second and third order delineation. The Uintah Area survey includes parts of Daggett, Grand, and 

Uintah Counties. Portions of Daggett County are also included in the Henrys Fork Area soil survey. The 

Duchesne County part of the Vernal planning area is covered in the Duchesne Area soil survey. Information 

on soil features and use ratings for the Uintah Area and Henrys Fork Area surveys are available in digital 

format (http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov). The Duchesne Area survey is not yet available in digital format but 

is expected to be available in 2005. 

Erosion and Run-off 

Soils may be eroded by water or wind. Water erosion is influenced by the intensity and durations of 

precipitation, soil texture, soil organic matter, permeability, topography, and vegetative (or artificial) cover. 

Areas with soils on steep slopes with low infiltration rates and minimal vegetative cover have the highest 

erosion hazard. Wind erosion also has the potential to move large volumes of soil and primarily a function of 

wind velocity and grain size (Ritter et al. 1995). 

Erosion may decrease soil productivity, expose plant roots, impede revegetation efforts and increase salinity 

downstream. Many soils throughout the Vernal planning area have features that make reclamation and 

revegetation difficult. These limiting features involve salinity, sodium content, clayey and sandy textures, 

drought conditions, alkalinity, low organic matter content, shallow depth to bedrock, stones and cobbles, 

propagule-rich soil and high wind-erosion potential. Certain geological formations, such as the Mancos shale, 

tend to form soils that are highly erosive. The hazard for soil erosion by water and wind is rated at the 

county level soil surveys conducted by the National Resource Conservation Services 

(http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov). 

Soil Quality and Health 

The capacity of a soil to sustain plant and animal productivity is related to its inherent physical, biological, and 

chemical properties as well as its current health or condition. Three key attributes of soil and rangeland 

health have been identified that may assist in assessing the status or health of an area: site stability, hydrologic 

function, and biotic integrity. Site stability relates to the ability of the soil to resist erosion (and loss of 

nutrients) by wind and water. Hydrologic function is the capacity of the site to capture, store and safely 

release water from rainfall and snowmelt. Biotic integrity is the capacity of a site to support both functional 

and structural plant, animal and soil biological communities within the range of variability for that site (BLM 

2000). 

Effects of soil health and erosion are often associated with wetlands and riparian areas and water quality. 

These resources are discussed in the Section 3.3.7 (water quality). 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-31 

3.3.16 RECREATION 

Recreation is one of the major resource uses within the Vernal planning area. The term “recreation” includes 

a variety of activities that affect and are affected by resources and other resource uses. The Vernal planning 

area offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities, especially for dispersed use requiring undeveloped 

open space. These include wildlife viewing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, off-highway use, 

fishing, bicycling, photography, camping, orienteering, river running, rock climbing, mountain biking, and 

sightseeing. 

Recreational use is counted as visitor use and is measured in visitor days. A visitor day represents one 

person doing an activity for all or part of one day. For example, if one person spent one night camping on 

public lands, it is counted as two visitor days. More than seven million visitor days occurred on Utah public 

lands in 2002 (BLM 2003f). 

Recreation resources include recreation sites and dispersed public lands, wildlife resources, visual resources, 

waterways, lakes, and other resources (physical, historical, etc.), each of which provides different recreational 

opportunities. 

In areas where recreation resources receive heavy use, developed recreation sites are often constructed to 

aid in managing impacts. Consequently, developed recreation sites are primarily located near high-use 

recreation attractions. 

These developed recreation areas may include such permanent features as: 

 Picnic tables 

 Drinking water facilities 

 Vault toilets/shower facilities 

 Shade structures 

 Parking lots with traffic flow controls such as striping, islands, boulders, and rope fences 

 Water drainage systems 

 Signage; including maps, brochures, speed limits, recreation safety, wildlife and noxious weed information 

 Bulletin boards and visitor registration/fee stations 

 Traffic counters 

Recreation sites and areas present within the Vernal planning area are shown in Table 3.9. 

TABLE 3.9: RECREATION SITES IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA

Site Name Recreation Features 

Brown’s Park/Green River, Bridge Hollow 

Campground, Indian Crossing 

Camping, interpretive/ranger station, equestrian facility, boat ramp, 

fishing, wildlife viewing, scenic byway 

Fantasy Canyon Hiking, pictograph observation 

Pariette Wetland Hiking, fishing, wildlife observation 

White River Boating, fishing, scenic views 

Dry Fork Canyon Picnicking, mountain biking, pictograph observation 

Drive Through the Ages Scenic byway, wildlife viewing 

John Jarvie Ranch Historic site, interpretive self-guided tour, camping, fishing, river 

access 

Pelican Lake Boating 

Book Cliffs Recreation Management Area Hunting, wildlife viewing, geologic points of interest, off-highway 
3-32 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

Site Name Recreation Features 

vehicles, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding. 

The growth in the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on public land has substantially increased over the past 

few years. In 1999 alone, sales of all terrain vehicles in Utah jumped more than 30 percent. The Utah BLM 

takes a balanced approach to managing OHV use, placing priority on protecting public land resources, while 

providing diverse opportunities for the responsible use of OHVs (BLM 2001).

During the RMP process, OHV areas are designated as open, limited, or closed. An open designation allows 

intensive OHV use where there are no compelling resource protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety 

issues. An area designated as limited restricts OHV use to meet specific resource management objectives. 

Limitations may occur on number or type of vehicles, time and season of use, or specific roads. An area is 

designated as closed to protect resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce user conflicts. 

More than 575,000 OHV visitor days occurred on BLM lands in 2002 (BLM 2003f). Within the Vernal 

planning area there are approximately 787,859 acres open to OHV use, 887,275 acres that are limited, and 

50,388 acres that are closed (BLM 2005). 

3.3.17 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Region of Influence 

The Vernal planning area, which encompasses Dagget, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, represents the region 

of influence (ROI) for social and economic activities pertaining to the Vernal FMP. The ROI is defined as the 

geographical area in which the principal direct and indirect socioeconomic effects of the Proposed Action and 

the alternatives for the Vernal planning area are likely to occur. 

Population and Employment 

Baseline data for the Vernal ROI includes population and demographic data as well as current business and 

economic statistical information for the state obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the 

Census, based on 2000 census data. Additional information was obtained from population, employment, 

earnings, and personal income trends-derived data compiled from the Sonoran Institute database prepared 

for the BLM (Sonoran Institute 2005). These data are available in the project file and are summarized below. 

The ROI counties collectively had a total population in 2000 of 40,516. The primary population centers 

include the towns of Roosevelt and Duchesne in Duchesne County, Vernal and Naples in Uintah County, and 

Dutch John in Daggett County. Vernal is the largest town in the ROI, with a population of approximately 

7,900 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). The ROI is predominantly rural, however, and the majority of residents in 

each ROI county lives on farms, ranches, or on unincorporated county land. State, federal, and Indian 

reservation lands make up the majority of the land area of the ROI. These lands account for 72 percent of 

the total area of Duchesne County, 81 percent of the total lands in Uintah County, and 89 percent of the 

land in Daggett County. Private lands adjoining public land can be particularly vulnerable to wildland fire. 

While farming and agriculture-related employment comprises only about 10 percent of the total employment 

in the ROI, most of these activities are associated with livestock grazing. Notably, Daggett County’s economy 

is based primarily on the raising of livestock, hay, and alfalfa, with livestock accounting for the county’s largest 

source of cash receipts (BLM 2005). Livestock also accounts for the largest source of cash receipts in 

Duchesne County. Livestock grazing relies heavily on federal grazing allotments. The Vernal Field Office 

currently administers grazing on 146 allotments within the tri-county ROI. These allotments encompass 
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-33 

approximately 1,691,116 acres of BLM land and an additional 545,887 acres of private, state, tribal, and other 

federal lands (BLM 2005). 

According to the Utah Department of Workforce Services (2004), the development of oil and gas resources 

is a predominant contributor to the economy of Uintah County and to a lesser extent in Duchesne County 

(government is the leading employment sector in Duchesne County). There is very little reliance on forestry 

or forestry products in the ROI. Other economic uses of public lands in the ROI include rights-of-way for 

utility corridors, roads, and pipelines. 

3.3.18 WILD HORSES AND BURROS 

In 1971, Congress passed legislation to protect, manage, and control wild horses and burros on the public 

lands (Wild Horse 1971). The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act declared these animals to be “living 

symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West.” The Vernal planning area contains three herd 

management areas (HMA) and herd areas (HA). Current HMA/HA boundaries are shown in Figure 3.7. The 

appropriate management level for each HMA is presented in Table 3.10. 

TABLE 3.10: HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS AND APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT LEVELS FOR THE 

VERNAL PLANNING AREA 

Herd Management Appropriate Management Level Current Estimated Population 

Area (HMA)/Herd Area 

(HA) and BLM Acres 

Horses Burros Horses Burros 

Bonanza (HMA) 

(125,029 acres)

100 0 0 0 

Hill Creek (HMA) 

(54,245 acres)

195 0 240 0 

Winter Ridge (HA) 

(38,916 acres)

0 0 100 0 

TOTAL ACREAGE 295 0 340 0 

*The Vernal Field Office is in the process of updating herd management areas/herd areas. 
3-34 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 3.7: HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS AND HERD AREAS IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
November 2005 Chapter 3: Affected Environment/Vernal 3-35 

3.3.19 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Wilderness characteristics are defined as features of the land associated with the concept of wilderness (see 

Section 3.3.10, Wilderness Study Areas, for the definition of wilderness) that may be considered in land use 

planning when BLM determines that those characteristics are reasonably present, of sufficient value 

(condition, uniqueness, relevance, importance) and need (trend, risk), and are practical to manage (USDI 

2003). 

 Lands with wilderness characteristics may be managed to protect and/or preserve some or all of those 

characteristics. This may include protecting certain lands in their natural condition and/or providing 

opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined types of recreation (USDI 2003). 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Within the Vernal planning area, approximately 163,561 acres have wilderness characteristics. Table 3.11

lists non-WSAs with wilderness characteristics and acreage. The 10 areas that have been identified as having 

wilderness characteristics within the Vernal planning area are shown on Figure 3.8 (BLM 1999). The 1999 

BLM Utah Wilderness Inventory and the 1999 BLM Utah Wilderness Inventory Revision Documents for the 

Vernal Field Office provide detailed descriptions of all of the wilderness character areas. 

Non-WSA Lands Likely to Have Wilderness Characteristics 

The public has submitted information to the Utah BLM suggesting that areas not previously identified in the 

Vernal planning area have wilderness characteristics. The BLM evaluated and assessed the information and 

determined that 10 areas, totaling 142,531 acres may have wilderness characteristics. These areas are shown 

on Figure 3.8 and are listed in Table 3.12. 

TABLE 3.11: NON-WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 3.12: NON-WILDERNESS STUDY 

AREAS LIKELY TO HAVE WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Name Approx. Acreage Name Approx. Acreage 

Book Cliffs Instant Study Area 399 Bitter Creek 32,820 

Bull Canyon 2483 Bitter Creek/Rat Hole 11,140 

Cold Spring Mountain 12,582 Bourdette Draw 16,806 

Cripple Cowboy 12,574 Desolation Canyon 11,330 

Daniels Canyon 3984 Diamond Mountain 26,807 

Desolation Canyon 87,929 Lower Bitter Creek 11,550 

Diamond Breaks 5,344 Lower Flaming Gorge 17,835 

Lower Bitter Creek 13,890 Moonshine Draw 690 

Moonshine Draw 3,837 Sweet Water 6,456 

White River 19,923 White River 7,098 

TOTAL ACREAGE 163,561 TOTAL ACREAGE 142,531 
3-36 Chapter 3: Affected Environment /Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 3.8: NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS AND NON-WSA LANDS 

LIKELY TO HAVE WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS IN THE VERNAL PLANNING AREA
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-1 

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter discloses the predicted direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives described in 

Chapter 2 and Appendices D and E. 

This chapter is organized with discussions of direct and indirect impacts on each resource under both the 

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. The analyses of impacts of fire management actions on each 

resource are discussed in a short and long-term context. The cumulative effects section of this chapter 

(Section 4.4) analyzes the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions along with the effects of 

the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. 

To provide additional context in the analysis of impacts from fire management actions associated with both 

alternatives, a general description of fire’s effects on each resource is presented as Appendix H. These 

effects are present in the environment regardless of what alternative is selected. The alternative selected 

would increase or decrease these effects and that difference forms the basis of the analysis of impacts. 

Locations, geographic extent, and intensity of future FMP actions and wildfire events are not known. 

Therefore, the effects analysis is focused on impacts across the entire Vernal planning area and not on 

particular sites or FMUs. Additional environmental analyses for site-specific proposals would occur prior to 

implementation of management actions. The following assumptions were used in the effects analysis: 

 The fire management actions that were analyzed for potential impacts on resources of concern are: (1) 

wildland fire suppression and related ESR actions, (2) wildland fire use, (3) prescribed fire, and (4) nonfire fuel treatments. 

 Short term is defined as less than five years, and long-term is defined as fifteen+ years. 

 The No Action Alternative’s primary fire suppression objective is full suppression. 

 If the Proposed Action were implemented, a measurable reduction in occurrence, severity, or size of 

wildfires would not be expected in the short term. The difference in impacts between the alternatives 

would be primarily in the long term. 

 Wildland fire use is not included in the No Action Alternative. 

 Prescribed burning is typically accomplished to benefit resources in the long term. 

 Planned actions are implemented only in areas with a low risk of noxious weed infestation or when the 

action includes a component (e.g., seeding) to reduce the risk of infestation. 

 Fuel treatments in the No Action Alternative would be less than in the Proposed Action. 

 Chemical and biological treatments would occur on less than 5,000 acres over 10 years. Because these 

treatments would occur on such a small area, impacts from these treatments would occur in site-specific 

analysis and won’t be covered in this EA. 

 Seeding actions often follow wildland fire suppression (these are considered ESR actions), and sometimes 

occur in with prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments (mechanical, biological and chemical). Seeding 

actions would be implemented to stabilize soils, improve establishment of native grass, forb and shrub 

communities, and prevent establishment of non-native invasive species. 
4-2 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

4.2 PROPOSED ACTION 

4.2.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

The seven ACECs in the Vernal planning area include the Browns Park, Lears Canyon, Lower Green River, 

Nine Mile, Pariette Wetland, Red Creek, and Red Mountain-Dry Fork Complex ACECs. As shown in Figure 

4.1, approximately 50 percent of ACEC lands are found within Category C FMUs. Approximately 22 percent 

of ACEC lands are found within Category A FMUs, 24 percent in Category B FMUs, and four percent in 

Category D FMUs. In all categories, management activities would be carried out in a manner that would 

minimize impacts to the values each ACEC was designated to protect. ACECs in the planning area have been 

designated to protect the following relevant and important values: cultural and historic resources, botanical 

resources including relict vegetation and riparian areas, fish and wildlife resources including endangered 

species, scenic areas, paleontologic resources, erodible areas, and watersheds. 

Short-term Impacts 

To minimize the impairment of values associated with all ACECs, RPMs have been built into the Proposed 

Action. These protection measures apply to resources (e.g., soil, vegetation, water, fish and wildlife, 

paleontology, and cultural resources) associated with ACECs. By following these measures, impacts to 

ACEC values would be reduced. 

Short-term impacts on ACEC components could include disturbance to sensitive soils and watersheds, 

disturbance or loss of vegetation (including riparian areas or relict vegetation), damage to paleontologic 

resources, destruction of artifacts or integrity of cultural sites and resources, impairment of visual resources, 

and degradation or loss of habitat for fish and wildlife species (including threatened and endangered species). 

These impacts would be minimized by following management guidelines and implementing post-fire 

rehabilitation, and could be less adverse than impacts from allowing fires to burn naturally and harm historic, 

scenic, or cultural values of ACECs. Impacts to these physical resources are discussed in their respective 

sections including cultural resources, vegetation, wetlands and riparian zones, threatened and endangered 

species, and soils. 

The AMR during a wildland fire would be applied to reduce potential impacts to the ACEC values, and could 

include procedures such as limiting the use of mechanical suppression activities, recommending smaller fire 

camps, or removing tracks and traces of fire suppression actions. ACECs found in Category A and B FMUs 

would be more likely to incur short-term impacts from suppression activities than ACECs found in Category 

C and D FMUs. These greater suppression efforts could affect ACEC components such as vegetation, habitat, 

and air quality. ESR actions (including seeding) would be implemented to stabilize areas that have been 

burned to minimize the threat of invasive and noxious weed establishment after wildfire and suppression 

activities. Suppression and ESR actions would consider ACEC values, and impacts would be avoided when 

possible (i.e., actions pose no threat to human health or safety, or other higher-priority resources). 

Therefore, they would not likely impact or impair those values that ACECs were designated to protect. 

Prior to approval, all planned activities would undergo a site-specific environmental evaluation to determine 

potential impacts on ACEC values and impacts to those values would typically be avoided. Prescribed fire 

and non-fire fuel treatments would be implemented. These treatments would help maintain the naturalness 

of the ACECs by lowering FRCC to one that would be more consistent with a natural fire regime. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-3 

FIGURE 4.1: AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES 

FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
4-4 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Long-term Impacts

The Proposed Action would result in modification of the current vegetation condition to a DWFC that 

would more closely reflect historic conditions. Long-term impacts associated with the proposed action is a 

decreased risk of severe wildland fire. Together, removal of hazardous fuels and a reduced risk of severe 

wildland fire would benefit ACECs by providing long term protection to relevant and important values 

including cultural resources, relic vegetation, and riparian resources. However, it is possible that some 

relevant and important values, such as cultural sites or artifacts, could be inadvertently and permanently lost 

by some fire management actions. Since it is not possible to restore those resources, the designation of an 

ACEC could be permanently affected. This would be unlikely however, since resource protection measures, 

and laws and regulations typically protect such values that are at risk of being permanently destroyed (i.e., 

cultural or paleontological resources). 

4.2.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Short-term Impacts 

Direct effects of fire suppression efforts including ESR actions, prescribed fire, and non-fire treatments could 

impact the thousands of cultural resource sites on BLM-administered lands within the Vernal planning area. 

Cultural resources include archaeological, historic, and architectural sites that are important for scientific 

research, preservation, and interpretation. RPMs incorporated into the Proposed Action, such as pretreatment surveys and subsequent avoidance as well as the Utah State Protocol Agreement 3-7-01, should 

minimize these effects. Because not all cultural resources are easily detectable or avoidable, the potential for 

impacts on cultural resources, particularly historic properties, does exist throughout the Vernal planning 

area. 

Often, cultural resources are at greater risk of impacts from fire suppression activities than from the wildland 

fire itself. Suppression efforts (e.g., establishment of firelines, helicopter bases, safety zones, and fire camps), 

may be ground-disturbing and could destroy artifacts and the integrity of cultural resource sites. Water, foam 

detergents, and fire retardants could damage artifacts and features by causing swelling and subsequent 

contraction. Other potential short-term impacts would include rapid cooling and subsequent damage (e.g., 

breakage, spalling, corrosion, staining, rusting) of archaeological materials. Discoloration or warping of 

metallic surfaces could also occur. Rock art is particularly sensitive to retardants. For all wildland fires or 

prescribed fires, post-fire vandalism and artifact collection could occur. 

In contrast to the current wildland fire management direction, the Proposed Action would decrease the 

impact on cultural resources through its emphasis on resource protection. These protections are 

incorporated into the Proposed Action through RPMs. Minimal differences in fire severity would be expected 

between the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. However, the Proposed Action will allow more 

wildfire through wildland fire use acres. Historic-aged resources would be more susceptible to impacts from 

wildland fire relative to prehistoric-aged resources (SHPO 2005) under the Proposed Action. Consultation 

with a cultural resource specialist during suppression and ESR activities in areas containing sensitive cultural 

resources should help to minimize impacts. 

ESR actions and other planned actions with the potential to affect cultural resources are subject to the 

requirements of Section 106 of NHPA, as amended (36 CFR 800, consultation with the Utah State Historic 

Preservation Officer). Areas potentially affected by surface disturbance would be subject to a cultural 

resource inventory, including a review for traditional cultural properties. Inventories would lower the 

potential for impacts on cultural resources by identifying the location of those sites and allowing for their 

avoidance. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-5 

Wildland fire use has the potential to have impacts on cultural resources. Impacts are minimized through the 

utilization of wildland fire use in areas where important cultural or historic resources are not present or 

have a small potential to be impacted and where lower temperatures and durations of fire are expected. 

Following RPMs for wildland fire use would greatly reduce the potential for impacts to cultural resources. 

Prescribed fire and non-fire fuels reduction treatments can directly impact cultural resources, depending 

upon their location and type. Ground-disturbing treatments (e.g., brush crunching) are more likely to impact 

cultural resources than are chemical treatments. The potential for proposed prescribed fire, non-fire fuel 

treatments, and seeding actions to impact cultural resources would be considered during all phases of 

planning and implementation on a project-by-project basis. The most commonly selected method for the 

management of cultural resources located in an area of potential effect is complete avoidance of known 

resources. Because of the effectiveness of site-specific planning, the potential for impacts on cultural 

resources is considered negligible to minor for prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments. 

Long-term Impacts 

The continued trend toward a decrease in fuel loads would decrease severe fires. This would decrease the 

level of suppression required on an average wildland fire. A decrease in the impact on cultural resources 

from ground-disturbing, non-fire fuel treatments, or suppression activities would be realized in the long term. 

Heat and duration-related impacts would be similarly reduced over time. 

Prescribed fires typically burn at a lower temperature and duration than large wildfire events, therefore the 

potential impacts would typically have less long-term impacts than those from an unmanaged wildland fire 

event. This advantage would continue as more vegetation is brought to a FRCC that supports the 

reintroduction of fire as a natural process. The long-term impact under the Proposed Action would be the 

protection of cultural resources that would be more susceptible to damage or destruction under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.2.3 FLOODPLAINS 

Effects of fire management activities on floodplain resources are also closely associated with effects to soil, 

water, and wetlands and riparian resources as discussed below and in their respective resource sections. 

Short-term Impacts 

RPMs have been built into the Proposed Action to protect floodplain resources. These measures would be 

implemented during wildland fire suppression activities and ESR, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and nonfire fuel treatments and would limit and minimize potential impacts, such as loss of stream channel stability 

and increased erosion due to vegetation loss. 

Figure 4.2 presents the location of mapped floodplains located in the Vernal planning area with FMUs 

categorized by relative desirability of wildland fire (Categories A through D). Under the Proposed Action, 

several FMUs where fire has been determined to desirable (Categories C and D) contain floodplain areas 

(including those associated with the Willow Creek and Bitter Creek drainages in the southeast corner of the 

Vernal planning area and the Matt Warner and Calder Reservoirs in the northeast corner of the Vernal 

planning area). Impacts to floodplain resources in these areas would be mitigated through use of AMRs, 

resource protections measures, and conformance to existing guidelines (EO 11988). 

Long-term Impacts 

The Proposed Action would allow more flexibility than the No Action Alternative in wildland fire response 

and in implementing planned actions that would protect and enhance floodplains. Over time, as fire returns 
4-6 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

to a more natural pattern, there would be fewer indirect impacts from large, severe wildfires including 

sedimentation of streams and reservoirs from wind and water erosion. 

A trend towards fewer severe wildfires would increase soil stability and would enhance overall bank and 

channel stability and PFC of the watershed. Floodplains would have fewer disturbances from severe wildfires, 

which would allow greater stability and increased functionality of floodplains, including decreasing the impact 

of flashfloods. 

4.2.4 INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE SPECIES 

Short-term Impacts 

Invasive and noxious weed populations often increase after wildfires as seeds germinate following the flush of 

nutrients and lack of competition. Aggressive seeding, rehabilitation, monitoring, and weed treatment after 

wildfire events would help minimize the impact from weed invasion after a wildfire. Because wildland fire use 

would only occur in areas where a low potential for noxious and invasive weed occurrence and spread 

exists, impacts on the spread of noxious and invasive weeds would be minimal. 

Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would be planned to aid in removal of noxious and invasive weeds. In 

some cases where weeds have been identified as an issue, seeding would occur with planned fire and non-fire 

fuel treatments. Under the Proposed Action, the spread of invasive and noxious weeds using these types of 

actions would be minimal and/or chemical treatments would follow planned fire and non-fire fuel treatments. 

Long-term Impacts 

The appropriate application of wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments along with 

aggressive ESR treatments following undesired wildfires would lower the potential for post-fire weed 

establishment and infestations. Reduction of severe wildland fires over time would result in less potential for 

vegetation conversion to noxious weeds or exotic annual grasses.
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-7 

FIGURE 4.2: HUNDRED-YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE 

PROPOSED ACTION
4-8 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

4.2.5 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS 

Short-term Impacts 

Often, the facets of a landscape valued in Native American religious beliefs and practices are at greater risk of 

impacts from fire suppression activities than from the wildland fire itself. Suppression efforts (e.g., 

establishment of firelines, helicopter bases, safety zones, and fire camps), may be ground-disturbing and could 

impact the integrity of sites and vegetation used by Native Americans in their current religious practices and 

places of traditional cultural importance. 

In contrast to the current management direction, the Proposed Action would have less aggressive wildland 

fire suppression. A resultant decrease in the potential to impact Native American religious concerns through 

ground-disturbing and other suppression activities would be realized. The decrease in suppression efforts 

may lead to a short-term increase in fire size and would result in a larger area of potential vegetation use 

areas and religious sites exposed to wildfires and associated impacts. Many areas used traditionally for 

hunting would be expected to be revegetated following a wildfire event. In localities where food, medicinal, 

or raw plant materials are gathered, the threat of invasive species occupying those areas would be a concern. 

ESR actions would reduce potential for these impacts. 

Wildland fire use would be used only in areas where negative impacts to resources are minimized. Grounddisturbing actions (including seeding) are not associated with wildland fire use, thereby eliminating the 

potential for associated impacts. 

Impacts from prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be minor because these actions are planned, 

and appropriate Native American consultation would occur to minimize potential impacts. Potential impacts 

to Native American religious concerns are considered during all phases of planning and implementation on a 

project-by-project basis, thereby minimizing the potential for impacts. 

Long-term Impacts 

The trend toward a decrease in fuel loads would decrease the number of large, severe fires. This would 

decrease the level of suppression required on an average wildfire. A decrease in the need to suppress fires to 

protect resources would reduce impacts to Native American religious concerns from ground-disturbing and 

other suppression activities. Potential for heat and duration-related impacts would be similarly reduced over 

time. 

Wildland fire use may result in landscape level burns and associated impacts. However, those impacts would 

emulate impacts from natural processes that have been interacting with Native American historic religious 

experiences and sites. As vegetation trends toward a lower FRCC and toward DWFC, opportunities may 

exist to expand wildland fire use. 

Consultation with Native American tribes would be conducted when planning treatments minimizing 

potential for long-term impacts. Wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments may result in 

long-term beneficial effects for places of traditional cultural importance by returning native vegetation to a 

condition more historically representative. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-9 

4.2.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Short-term Impacts 

ESA-related Species 

In accordance with Section 7(a) 2 of the ESA of 1973, as amended, the Utah BLM State Office engaged in 

formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. This process involved preparing a BA that included impact 

analyses and subsequent determinations for all federally listed and proposed species, and considered potential 

project-related effects (direct and indirect) to each species and their habitat (including those areas designated 

as critical habitat) from the fire management actions presented in the Vernal Proposed Action. The 

Proposed Action would follow the RPMs identified in Appendix E. In addition, the Biological Opinion (BO) 

identified terms and conditions that would reduce impacts to ESA-related species (see Appendix I). 

Allowable effects determinations within the biological assessment include May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect (NLAA); May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA); and Not Contribute to Federal Listing (NCL). 

Each determination was based on a combined analysis of potential effects from the LUP EA Proposed Action 

and the five FMP EA Proposed Actions (Salt Lake, Vernal, Moab, Southern Utah Support Center, and 

Richfield). For any species with designated or proposed critical habitat, determination of effects to that 

habitat was combined with determination of effects to the species. In this EA, only the determinations for 

each species that are known to occur within, or has potential to occur within, the Vernal planning area will 

be presented. Determinations take into consideration potential short-term, long-term, and cumulative 

impacts from wildland fire suppression (including ESR), wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel 

treatments. 

Eleven species were given a determination of LAA and four species were given a determination of NCL. No 

species within the Vernal planning area were given a determination of NLAA. The 11 species given a 

determination of LAA include the black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, shrubby 

reed-mustard, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Ute ladies’-tresses, humpback chub, bonytail chub, Colorado 

pikeminnow, and razorback sucker. Designated critical habitats have been finalized (and effects to them 

analyzed) for the Mexican spotted owl, humpback chub, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback 

sucker. The four species that were given a determination of NCL include the following candidate or 

petitioned species: the western yellow-billed cuckoo, horseshoe milk-vetch, Graham’s beardtongue, and 

White River beardtongue. Only one species, Clay reed-mustard, was given a determination of NLAA. For 

detailed discussion on the effects determinations for each ESA-related species and the two BLM sensitive 

species that were included in the BA, refer to the BA and BO associated with this project. 

Additional consultation with the USFWS would be required for all implementation-level fire management 

activities if they would occur within suitable or potentially suitable habitat for federally listed species. The 

Alternative Consultation Agreement to Implement Section 7 Counterpart Regulations could be employed for 

consultation on projects that support the National Fire Plan. 

BLM Sensitive Species 

In addition to RPMs designed to protect ESA-related species and their habitat, RPMs to protect BLM 

sensitive species have been designed and built into the Proposed Action. 

General Short-term Effects on ESA-related and BLM Sensitive Species 

Some of the goals of the Proposed Action are to restore historical habitats and native plant species, and to 

enhance, maintain, and protect ecological resources. These goals would be accomplished through 

implementation of ESR, fuels reduction, allowing fire to play its ecological role, and seeding activities. The 
4-10 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

potential for short-term adverse impacts would be offset by long-term beneficial effects of rehabilitation 

activities (built into the Proposed Action for soil disturbing activities), protected ecological resources 

(remaining after a suppression event), and reduction of fuels (following implementation of wildland fire use, 

prescribed fire, or a non-fire fuel treatment). The subsequent, gradual return to a more natural fire regime 

would result in long-term beneficial effects to species and habitat. 

Despite varied life histories and habitat requirements of each SSS, some potential short-term effects can be 

generalized based on the types of fire management activities being proposed and general ecological principles. 

The items presented below include potential residual (general) impacts that could occur following 

implementation of the Proposed Action (including RPMs and BO Terms and Conditions). RPMs and BO 

Terms and Conditions are typically designed to minimize effects (particularly from pre-planned fire 

management activities such as prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments) and prevent them from becoming 

long-term. 

Wildland fire suppression has the highest potential for negative effects on SSS because of the emergency 

nature of suppression actions that sometimes require quick response without detailed, site-specific data or 

analysis. In some cases, RPMs may not necessarily be fully implemented due to risks to firefighter or public 

safety. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire could have similar short-term effects as wildland fire 

suppression. However, because of the application of RPMs and the more planned nature of these actions, 

short-term effects from wildland fire use and prescribed fire would be reduced compared to wildfire 

suppression. Similar effects could also occur from non-fire fuel treatments, but because these actions follow 

precise and predictable application methods, impacts would be further reduced compared to wildland fire 

use and prescribed fire. 

Short-term impacts from the proposed action include the following: 

 Visual or auditory disturbance or displacement of individuals (affecting foraging, roosting, and/or 

reproductive behavior) from vehicles, heavy equipment, firefighters, and low-flying aircraft. 

 Mortality or injury of adults, young, or eggs from smoke inhalation during burning operations, or from 

vehicles or equipment. 

 Mortality of adults, young, or larvae of aquatic species from using occupied water sources. 

 Nest/den abandonment or mortality of young or eggs. 

 Injury or mortality due to inadvertent strikes during aerial drops of fire retardant. 

 Illness or mortality due to inadvertent chemical contamination of terrestrial or aquatic species’ habitats 

during aerial applications of fire retardant. 

 Heat stress or mortality to special status plants. 

 Crushing of special status plants, resulting in damage or mortality, from human foot traffic or use of 

vehicles or heavy equipment. 

 Damage seedbanks of special status plants from severe fire or mechanical disruption. 

 Removal of key habitat components for nesting, denning, foraging, roosting, or cover due to equipment 

use or operational tactics, including the following: 

 Snag removal for safety reasons. 

 Tree and shrub removal and associated soil disturbance during fireline construction (or other fire 

support construction) and fuel treatments. 

 Decreased water quantity for aquatic species from dewatering during low flow periods. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-11 

 Damage or loss of riparian or upland vegetation or downed woody debris, and increased surface run-off 

resulting in the following: 

 Decreased channel stability and alteration of channel morphology. 

 Increased erosion, sediment, and ash levels within and adjacent to the stream channel. 

 Increased water temperatures. 

 Degraded water quality (based on nutrient levels, temperature, and sediment levels). 

 Reduced riparian habitat, in-stream habitat cover, and woody debris that is typically necessary for 

properly functioning riparian areas and aquatic habitat. 

 Altered water velocities and substrate composition. 

 Altered composition and decreased abundance of aquatic and terrestrial food sources. 

 Increased risk of predation from removal of cover. 

 Changes in foraging habitats and/or food and prey quality and quantity. 

 Spread of disease or non-native, predatory species within previously uninfected water sources. 

 Soil erosion of special status plant habitat. 

 An increase in invasive plant species that could out-compete special status plant species. 

Short-term Effects on ESA-related and BLM Sensitive Species Habitat 

SSS are known to have suitable habitat and are known to occur within all vegetation types within the Vernal 

planning area. Habitat for these species would be vulnerable to any of the impacts discussed in Section 4.2.3 

(Vegetation). Although fire management activities would vary among vegetation communities, they could 

affect species and species habitat to varying degrees within all of the vegetation/habitat types. Three of the 

habitat types within the Vernal planning area (pinyon and juniper woodland, mountain shrub, and sagebrush) 

would be proposed for more acres of wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments than all 

other habitat types combined. 

The majority of acres designated as Category C or D lands are comprised of mountain shrub, pinyon and 

juniper woodland, or sagebrush habitat. Therefore, species found in each of these habitats would be more 

likely to incur impacts from larger fires (resulting from less aggressive wildland fire suppression and wildland 

fire use), be they adverse or beneficial, than species found in the remaining habitat types. Because species 

occurrence records do not account for areas that have not been surveyed, unknown individuals or 

populations of a particular species may exist within any of these vegetation communities. RPMs and BO 

Terms and Conditions that would address unknown populations and areas of potentially suitable habitat have 

been incorporated into the Proposed Action. 

Changes in vegetation structure and composition can alter the quality and quantity of various habitats for 

federally protected species that occupy them. For impacts analyses to SSS, the baseline for each species is not 

a condition of “no wildland fires,” but rather the current condition of the vegetation communities in which 

the species live and the current risk of severe wildland fire (as described in Section 3.3.13). That current 

condition, in turn, provides the basis for analysis of the Proposed Action. The list of habitat associations in 

Chapter 3 of this EA links the SSS that may be affected by the Proposed Action with each vegetation 

community. 

In the following discussion, please refer to the list of specific effects, above, related to the specific actions that 

would occur. 
4-12 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Salt Desert Shrub: Species found within salt desert shrub habitat would be less likely than those found in 

some other habitats to incur short-term impacts from wildland fire (including wildfire, wildland fire use, and 

prescribed fire) since these actions are not targeted for salt desert shrub. Habitats would benefit from 

aggressive ESR actions following wildfire. Impacts from fuel treatments would be reduced through sitespecific consideration of impacts to SSS. Additionally, this habitat is not particularly targeted for planned 

vegetation treatments. 

Pinyon and Juniper Woodland, Sagebrush, Grassland: Species found within these habitats would be more 

likely than those found in some other habitats to incur short-term project-related impacts because this 

habitat is relatively far removed from its natural fire regime. These habitats would be targeted for vegetation 

treatments resulting in habitat modifications. Short-term impacts from habitat modification could result in 

species mortality, temporary displacement, or habitat destruction. 

Mountain Shrub, Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Aspen: Species found within these habitats could incur 

short-term project-related impacts from fire management actions designed to maintain or lower the current 

FRCC. Short-term impacts to mountain shrub-dependent species could include mortality, temporary 

displacement, and habitat destruction. 

Riparian and Wetland, and Water: Direct effects from wildland fire suppression could include the 

following: introduction of fire retardant, aviation fuel, or lubricants into streams and wetlands; erosion of 

exposed soils from fireline construction on steep slopes adjacent to streams; damaged riparian vegetation 

and soils (resulting in erosion) from the use of heavy equipment; and reduced natural stream flow during 

drafting and pumping. These impacts would adversely impact water quality of various fisheries throughout the 

Vernal planning area. The collective short-term impacts of increased sedimentation (from erosion) could 

have watershed-wide effects including changes in temperature, turbidity, and water chemistry. However, 

RPMs and BO Terms and Conditions that were developed for riparian and wetland habitat and specific SSS 

would minimize the potential for short-term adverse impacts to aquatic species and their habitat. 

Additionally, because RPMs would limit acres of prescribed fire and would impose constraints on non-fire 

fuel treatments in and adjacent to riparian and wetland and water habitats, short-term adverse impacts from 

these fire management activities would be minimized or eliminated. 

Long-term Impacts 

General Long-term Effects on ESA-related and BLM Sensitive Species 

With suppression being implemented only where unplanned wildfire is not desired, and wildland fire use, 

prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments being used to minimize fuel loading, vegetation communities, and 

wildlife habitats would transition over time to more closely reflect conditions associated with a habitat’s 

natural fire regime. This would create a more balanced (diverse) and stable ecosystem that would have a 

reduced threat of severe wildland fire. Mortality or long-term displacement of species would likely be 

avoided because wildland fire use and prescribed fire would not consist of large fires, relative to uncontrolled 

wildfires. If management activities were implemented repeatedly within the same treatment area (e.g., 

mechanical treatment followed by prescribed fire followed by chemical treatment), populations could be 

displaced over the long-term. However, to the extent that suitable habitat were available nearby, these 

impacts would be offset by the beneficial reinstatement of habitat conditions consistent with a natural fire 

regime. 

Federally protected species and their designated critical habitat could benefit from wildland fire suppression 

actions that would prevent the loss of designated critical habitat or suitable habitat from severe wildland 

fires. Federally protected species and their designated critical habitat could experience positive effects from 

post-fire ESR efforts. Long-term adverse impacts on federally protected species and their designated critical 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-13 

habitat could occur from inadvertent mortality of individuals or long-term changes (alteration, removal, 

damage, or fragmentation) to suitable habitat components. 

For many species, long-term negative effects would be greater from wildland fire itself, rather than from 

wildland fire suppression operations. For situations where extensive or aggressive fire suppression would be 

appropriate, or when species or habitat components would have a long recovery rate, long-term negative 

effects could occur. For example, short-term effects could become long-term effects when a species has 

relatively few individuals, is extremely localized, is specialized in its habitat, or has a slow reproductive rate. 

Furthermore, direct mortality of individuals in small or endemic populations or alteration of potentially 

suitable habitat could cause long-term negative effects. Because wildland fire management actions are typically 

localized, even under extreme conditions, actions would generally not affect wide-ranging species in the long 

term, unless they have a low reproductive rate. 

Long-term impacts on key habitat components that could affect the ability of a federally protected species to 

continue occupying a site, could include the following: 

 Damage, removal, or fragmentation of nesting, roosting, foraging, dispersal, or cover habitats for 

terrestrial wildlife (particularly in pinyon and juniper woodland, mixed forest, or sagebrush habitats). 

 Long-term changes in water quality or quantity; removal of riparian or upland vegetation, or downed 

woody debris; increased surface run-off; or introductions of disease or non-native, predatory species (in 

reference to fish and other aquatic species and their habitats). 

 Extensive or severe damage to seedbanks, substrates, vegetative composition, or structure of habitats for 

plant species. 

 Long-term changes in prey populations when key habitat components are slow to recover. 

 An increase in invasive plant species that could out-compete federally protected plant species or alter 

sensitive (or non-fire adapted) habitats of terrestrial wildlife species following fire suppression. RPMs or 

ESR activities would typically mitigate this potential effect to prevent it from becoming a long-term 

impact. 

Site-specific planning would typically prevent mortality of individual species during prescribed fire and non-fire 

fuel treatment activities. Additionally, identification of areas suitable for wildland fire use would prevent 

mortality of individual species. These actions would minimize or prevent alteration of, damage to, removal of, 

or fragmentation of key habitat components within designated critical habitat or suitable habitats for SSS. 

Thus, negative long-term effects to species or suitable habitat would generally be avoided or limited in scope 

and/or intensity. 

Conversely, if key habitat components were targeted for permanent change in structure or composition by 

fire management or resource objectives (e.g., restoration of altered habitats or historical fire regimes), longterm effects could be negative or beneficial for a species, depending on its particular habitat needs. Long-term 

effects could occur from wildland fire use, prescribed fire, or non-fire fuel treatment. For example, shortterm effects could become long-term effects when a species has relatively few individuals, is extremely 

localized, is specialized in its habitat, or has a slow reproductive rate. Furthermore, direct mortality of 

individuals in small or endemic populations or alteration of potentially suitable habitat could cause long-term 

negative effects. Because wildland fire use and prescribed fires are typically localized compared to overall 

habitat availability, this activity would generally not affect wide-ranging species in the long term, unless they 

have a low reproductive rate. 

Long-term impacts on key habitat components from wildland fire use and prescribed fire are the same as 

those listed above for wildland fire suppression. Long-term beneficial effects to species could result from the 

following: 
4-14 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

 Decreased risk for large, severe fire events through fuels reduction and the gradual transition to a more 

natural fire regime. 

 Restoration of habitats that have been altered by invasion of non-native species, or long-term exclusion 

of fire (in fire-adapted vegetation communities). 

Long-term beneficial effects could potentially benefit species’ reproduction, numbers, or distribution, 

facilitating the return of a species to its historic range (in some cases). 

Long-term Effects on ESA-related and BLM Sensitive Species Habitat 

Salt Desert Shrub, Pinyon and Juniper Woodland, Grassland, Mixed Conifer, Riparian and Wetland :

Long-term impacts would include a beneficial stabilization of the ecosystem, with a decreased risk of severe 

fire. 

Sagebrush: Long-term impacts would include expanded acreage of both high and low elevation sagebrush 

(from removal of pinyon and juniper woodland and pinyon and juniper encroachment) and an overall 

transition to a lower FRCC within both low- and high-elevation sagebrush habitats. Because this transition 

would indicate a lower risk for severe wildfire, these impacts would be beneficial to species associated with 

sagebrush habitats. 

Mountain Shrub: Long-term impacts to mountain shrub habitat and its associated species would be 

beneficial. Wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments would begin to restore a more 

diverse mountain shrub ecosystem, trending it toward a lower FRCC with lower risk for severe wildfire and 

the removal of both pinyon and juniper woodland and Douglas fir encroachment. 

Ponderosa Pine: Since long-term effects would eventually produce a more stable ecosystem with a lower 

FRCC, maintenance of habitat size and a lower risk of severe wildland fire (e.g. limiting pinyon and juniper 

woodland encroachment), would result. These impacts would be beneficial to ponderosa pine habitats and 

the species associated with them. 

Aspen: Fire management actions would serve to lower the existing FRCC and, subsequently, reduce the risk 

of a severe wildland fire. Additionally, fire management actions within mixed conifer habitat could increase 

the aspen component. Collectively, fire management actions within mixed conifer and aspen habitats could 

increase overall aspen habitat throughout the Vernal planning area. These impacts would be beneficial to 

some SSS and the aspen habitats with which they are associated. 

Water: Long-term impacts to water and aquatic inhabitants would be beneficial. With a reduced risk for 

severe wildland fire in upstream and adjacent habitats, the ecosystems would be less likely to incur such 

large-scale adverse impacts from fire as to decimate any entire aquatic populations. 

4.2.7 WATER QUALITY 

Short-term Impacts 

Surface Water 

Under the Proposed Action, the potential increase in wildland fire acres (including wildland fire use) and use 

of prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments could increase runoff, erosion, and stream temperatures. 

Possible increases in erosion and runoff would increase nutrient concentration and turbidity. 

Water quality impacts associated with prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatmetns actions would be 

evaluated through an environmental planning and review process that would minimize impacts related to 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-15 

increases in surface runoff, soil loss, and sediment input to surface waters. Often these impacts are shortterm and conditions return to pre-fire levels once vegetation is re-established. 

Figure 4.3 presents the location of 303(d)-listed waterbodies located in the Vernal planning area relative to 

FMUs. Waterbodies are categorized by relative desirability of wildland fire in the FMU (Categories A through 

D). Most of the impaired 303(d)-listed waters in the Vernal planning area are not located on BLMadministered land. Those that are located on BLM-administered land are primarily located in FMUs where 

wildland fire is generally not considered desirable (Categories A and B). The Proposed Action would have 

minimal impacts on impaired waters through implementation following regulations for restoring or 

maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] waterbodies. Proposed RPMs would 

restrict activities in the vicinity of sensitive areas such as impaired waterbodies (i.e. 303(d)-listed) and 

municipal watersheds in order to reduce further degradation of surface water conditions. 

Groundwater 

Minor impacts on groundwater quality due to the Proposed Action are possible due to altered water 

absorption patterns from a decrease in vegetation cover following wildfire or fuel treatments and from soil 

compaction due to mechanical equipment. Additionally, infiltration could temporarily decrease after a fire 

due to the formation of a hydrophobic soil layer. Altered water infiltration rates could also temporarily 

increase or decrease the chemical levels (i.e., dissolved solids) in the shallow aquifer (Gee et al. 1992, Allison 

et al. 1994). The impact to groundwater would be dependent on the depth to groundwater below ground 

surface and the type of sediments or bedrock it passes through. The change in the infiltration capacity of the 

soil would be dependent on the fire severity, soil type, and vegetation’s ability to reoccupy a site following 

fire. 

Long-term Impacts 

Surface Water 

Wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments would result in 

smaller and less severe wildland fire over the long term. These would have fewer impacts on stream flows 

and nutrient and sediment loads. A trend towards fewer severe wildfires would increase soil stability and 

would enhance overall stream bank and channel stability and PFC of the watershed. Some areas would see a 

more sustainable supply of woody debris or stream bank vegetation, both of which would also increase bank 

stability. 

Planned fire actions and eventual restoration of natural fire regimes, under the Proposed Action, would 

improve water resources by reducing the risk of high severity wildfire and promoting native vegetation types. 

The Proposed Action would also reduce erosion potential in the long term by fostering a healthy, native 

understory. The Proposed Action would allow more flexibility in implementing and timing planned actions 

that would protect water resources. 

Groundwater 

Wildland fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments would result in 

smaller and less severe wildland fire over the long term. A trend towards fewer large, severe wildfires (that 

otherwise may cause damage to soil resources and possible resultant impacts to groundwater) would occur. 

This is related to a reduction in the alteration of infiltration rates and would be realized through more 

vegetation surface cover and root zone presence and less fire-caused hydrophobicity. 
4-16 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.3: 303(D)-LISTED WATERBODIES AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE 

PROPOSED 

ACTION
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-17 

4.2.8 WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES 

Short-term Impacts 

The Proposed Action includes RPMs that would help protect riparian and wetland resources. However, the 

potential exists for wildland fire suppression to impact wetlands and riparian zones. 

Riparian areas are found throughout the Vernal planning area and in all suppression categories (A, B, C, and 

D). Under the Proposed Action, burning in riparian areas and wetlands would generally be avoided; however, 

low-intensity fires could be allowed to burn. Short-term impacts of suppression activities could include 

vegetation damage or destruction. This reduction in or loss of streamside vegetation could increase stream 

temperature and degrade aquatic habitat. These potential impacts to riparian areas would be minimized 

through an AMR at the time of ignition and throughout the fire event and by implementation of any needed 

post-fire ESR actions. 

Vegetation disturbance associated with prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be evaluated 

through site-specific that would consider impacts related to riparian and wetland functioning. Often, these 

impacts are short-term, and conditions return to pre-fire levels once vegetation is re-established. Efforts 

would be made to protect vegetation and restore native species after a disturbance. 

Long-term Impacts 

Under the Proposed Action, riparian area and wetland conditions would improve through removal of 

undesirable vegetation, thereby lessening the chances of high-severity wildland fire, and promoting the 

growth and natural succession of native vegetation types. 

Over time, wildland fires would be smaller and less severe, resulting in fewer impacts to vegetation and 

sediment loads. A trend towards fewer severe wildland fires would increase soil stability, enhance bank and 

channel stability, and promote PFC of the watershed. It would also reduce any impacts that may occur from 

fire suppression. 

By fostering a healthy, native understory, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would improve riparian 

resources and reduce erosion potential in the long term. 

4.2.9 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

Short-term Impacts 

Though minimized by following management guidelines, short-term impacts on eligible river segments 

resulting from management response to wildland fire efforts may include ground disturbances associated with 

suppression and control efforts (e.g., hand lines and spike camps). Short-term and limited impacts for 

wildland fire suppression could include disturbance to soils, surfaces and groundwater, watershed functions, 

vegetation conditions and habitats for SSS and fish and wildlife. Impacts would be minimized by post-fire 

rehabilitation efforts. 

The AMR during a wildland fire would consider impacts to or impairment of the values inherent to each of 

the river segments; the AMR may include limiting the use of mechanical suppression activities, recommending 

smaller fire camps, and removing tracks and traces of fire suppression actions. Due to the increased emphasis 

on suppression, those river segments within Category A or B FMUs would likely see more short-term 

impacts from suppression activities than those lands in Category C or D FMUs. A burned or modified 

landscape and limited visibility may be aesthetically displeasing to recreationists, but these impacts on the 
4-18 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

quality of visitor experience would be limited to the duration and area of the fire and likely would not affect 

overall use and appreciation of the unique values present within other portions of these designations. 

ESR activities would stabilize wildfire areas, minimize the threat of invasive and noxious weed species 

becoming established, and preserve the natural and unique values inherent to them. ESR efforts may be 

noticeable after fire events as the areas become revegetated. Suppression and ESR efforts would be designed, 

when possible, to avoid impairment of outstandingly remarkable values. Suppression efforts and ESR actions 

would not typically impact or impair a segment’s suitability for designation as wild or scenic. 

All planned management activities, including prescribed fires and non-fire fuel treatments, would undergo a 

site-specific planning to determine potential impacts to wild and scenic river suitability, thereby limiting 

impacts. Additionally, RPMs would minimize the impairment of values under the Proposed Action. 

Long-term Impacts 

The Proposed Action would result in modification of the current condition to a DWFC that would be more 

historically representative of the natural vegetation cover. Long-term impacts associated with use of an AMR 

to wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatments are the decreased risk of 

large severe wildfire events. With removal of hazardous fuels, trends toward preserving the characteristics 

and values that make these designations special would result. 

By implementing the proposed fire management goals of reducing hazardous fuels to restore natural 

ecosystems and allowing fire to function in its natural ecological role, the natural conditions and array of 

supplemental values contained within these management areas would be enhanced and preserved. Likewise, 

visitor experience and opportunities may be enhanced by restoration of the historical natural condition. 

4.2.10 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

As shown in Figure 4.4, all WSA lands are found within Category D FMUs. The Book Cliffs Instant Study 

Area is in a Category C designation. Management activities would be designed to minimize impacts on 

wilderness suitability of WSAs. 

Short-term Impacts

Under the Proposed Action, there would be a less aggressive suppression response to wildland fires. Though 

minimized by following WSA management guidelines and implementing RPMs associated with the Proposed 

Action, short-term impacts on WSAs resulting from management response to wildland fire suppression 

efforts could include ground disturbances associated with suppression and control efforts (e.g., hand lines, 

spike camps, and ESR activities). 

WSAs are within Category C and D FMUs and would likely see less short-term impacts from suppression 

activities. However, the effects of wildland fire itself may be more widespread. ESR would be implemented to 

stabilize areas minimizing the threat of invasive and noxious weeds while preserving the natural and unique 

values inherent to each WSA. Application of wildland fire use would increase the potential for more 

widespread impacts from fire, while eliminating ground-disturbing impacts associated with suppression. 

All planned management activities, including prescribed fires, would undergo a site-specific environmental 

evaluation to determine potential impacts to the resource prior to being approved. Methods used to 

implement these fire management actions would be required to minimize impacts to the resource being 

protected. Prescribed fire would help maintain the naturalness of WSAs by allowing wildfire to play a more 

natural role in the ecosystem. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-19 

FIGURE 4.4: WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE PROPOSED 

ACTION
4-20 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Seeding within WSAs would not impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. Because native species 

would be used for seeding and restoration, the naturalness of the area would be preserved and enhanced. 

Opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation could be restricted (e.g. from access and 

direct use) or impaired during fire management activities. However, these impacts on the quality of visitor 

experience would be limited to the treated area or duration of the treatment, would not likely affect overall 

use. 

Long-term Impacts 

The Proposed Action would result in modification of the current vegetation condition to a DWFC that 

would more closely reflect historic vegetation conditions. Long-term impacts associated with the use of the 

AMR for wildland fire suppression, the use of wildland fire, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments 

would result in a decreased risk of severe wildland fire. A trend away from severe fire would result from 

removal of hazardous fuels over time. Together, removal of hazardous fuels and a reduced risk of severe 

wildland fire would benefit WSAs by preserving opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

By implementing proposed fire management goals (e.g., reducing hazardous fuels to restore natural 

ecosystems and allowing fire to function in its natural ecological role), values contained within these 

management areas would be enhanced and preserved. Likewise, visitor experience and opportunities would 

be enhanced by restoration of a more natural ecological condition. 

4.2.11 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Short-term Impacts 

The primary purpose of fire management actions on rangelands within the Vernal planning area is to reduce 

fuels, reduce undesirable vegetation species, and improve native vegetation. The Proposed Action would 

result in increased production, nutrient quality and diversity, and palatability of herbaceous plants. Fire breaks 

up large tracts of sagebrush and pinyon and juniper woodland dominated landscapes and establishes a mosaic 

of vegetation types and age classes. Creation of openings and more nutritious, palatable forage would attract 

livestock concentration and result in minor to moderate shifts in livestock utilization and distribution 

patterns. 

Proposed Action goals and the AMR would potentially result in more acres of vegetation being burned than 

in the No Action Alternative. Aggressive suppression would be used in areas susceptible to cheatgrass 

invasion and expansion, giving the Proposed Action the flexibility to limit impacts associated with invasive 

species. Impacts from invasive species could also be lessened by implementing ESR actions designed to 

control invasive species following wildfires. 

Another impact on grazing after a wildland fire is the temporary loss of allotment use. Grazing would be 

curtailed on the impacted areas for a minimum of one growing season or a minimum of two growing seasons 

if the rangeland has been reseeded. This could cause negative economic impact on the permittee and the 

need to find alternative grazing or feeding arrangements. Curtailing livestock use on a burned area is most 

critical the first growing season after fire, particularly in plant communities of arid and semiarid regions 

(Trlica 1977). If livestock have premature access to the burn, the full benefits of fire may not be realized and 

negative impacts may occur (Bunting et al. 1987). 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 41 percent of grazing allotments fall into Category A, 21 percent 

in Category B, 35 percent in Category C, and three percent in Category D. As indicated by this distribution, 

the majority of grazing allotments are located in areas where wildland fire is less desired. However, 38 

percent of allotment acres have been identified where wildland fire may be used. This is in contrast to the 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-21 

No Action Alternative, where wildland fire use would not be allowed. Therefore, the use of wildland fire and 

less aggressive suppression under the Proposed Action could increase the likelihood of economic impacts in 

the short-term. Figure 4.5 presents the location of grazing allotments relative to fire management 

categories. 

Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be coordinated with the permittee to reduce impacts 

from the loss of grazing use of the impacted portion of the allotment. Pre-fire rest from grazing is required 

on many range sites to allow the accumulation of enough fine fuel to carry a prescribed fire. This pre-fire 

management is important in areas where grass and shrub litter may be the main carrier fuels (Jones and 

DeByle 1985). However, range resources would benefit from an increase in desirable vegetation following 

treatments. 

Non-fire fuel treatments that involve the use of seeding would impact permittees by eliminating grazing from 

an allotment for a minimum of two growing seasons. Treatments that do not use seedings would not require 

any post-treatment rest from grazing. Post-recovery use of the grazing allotment would benefit through 

improved forage composition. 

Long-term Impacts 

Long-term impacts from less aggressive fire suppression, the reintroduction of fire, and more fuel treatments 

in the Proposed Action are expected to make grazing resources more productive and stable. Removal of 

hazardous fuels would reduce the risk of severe wildfire, which would decrease the likelihood that such an 

event would result in longer recovery periods for impacted allotments. However, restoring the natural role 

of fire would continue to have some economic impacts to permittees since rest would be required following 

fire. Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would affect a similar trend toward increases in ecosystem 

health and stability, result in improvement of grazing resources, and reduce the potential for longer recovery 

periods. This would be particularly evident in FMUs with cheatgrass infestation problems. 

4.2.12 WOODLANDS AND FORESTRY 

Short-term Impacts 

Under the Proposed Action, less aggressive wildland fire suppression may result in more acres of woodlands 

and forests being burned , thus decreasing the amount of biomass, timber, firewood, and pinyon nut 

harvesting opportunities in the areas affected by these events. In the short term, a noticeable change in the 

acreage of pinyon and juniper woodland that has encroached outside of its historical range would not be 

expected. The planting of seedlings through ESR actions would increase the occurrence of desirable forest 

types. 

The use of prescribed fire in forests is sometimes accompanied by non-fire treatment methods to modify 

vegetation to result in lowered burn intensity. In the short term, this would increase the opportunity for the 

harvesting of biomass and firewood in small site-specific areas. 

The use of non-fire treatment methods to reduce the occurrence of younger age classes in areas of old 

growth could increase the survivability of old growth forests during fire events (Howard 2003). This 

increased survivability could increase the availability of higher economic value forest products, particularly in 

mixed conifer and ponderosa stands. 
4-22 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.5: GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE PROPOSED 

ACTION
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-23 

Long-term Impacts 

Long-term impacts from the wildland fire suppression and wildland fire use would include a reduction in the 

acres of pinyon and juniper woodland encroaching on land outside of its historic range. This would decrease 

the availability of biomass and firewood collection in this vegetation type. This impact would be less 

pronounced in other forested vegetation types since they are not targeted for a reduction in their range of 

occurrence. 

Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would result in a gradual trend toward less biomass availability. The 

use of non-fire treatment methods to reduce the occurrence of ladder fuels in areas of desirable old growth 

forests, particularly ponderosa stands, would also decrease fire severity and increase survivability of old 

growth forests during fire events in the long term (Howard 2003). This would increase the availability of 

higher economic value forest products, particularly in mixed conifer and ponderosa stands. 

4.2.13 VEGETATION 

The impacts of fire at a species level for each vegetative type can be found in Appendix H.

Short-term Impacts 

All Vegetation Types 

FMU categories and their relationship to vegetation are displayed on Figure 4.6. Table 4.1 shows the 

percentage of each of the vegetation type groups in each of the FMU categories. Effects are described for 

each vegetation type. Wildland fire suppression and wildland fire use have the potential to disturb all 

vegetation types due to fireline construction or other initial attack actions, and from fire itself. For all 

planned actions, site-specific analysis would consider impacts to vegetation health thereby minimizing negative 

vegetation impacts from prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments, and ESR actions. 

TABLE 4.1: PERCENT OF VEGETATION TYPE GROUPS AND FMU CATEGORY UNDER 

THE PROPOSED ACTION

Fire Management Unit Category 

Vegetation Types A B C D 

Salt desert shrub 81% 13% 6% 0% 

Sagebrush 47% 26% 24% 3% 

Pinyon and juniper woodland 7% 28% 58% 7% 

Ponderosa pine 0% 36% 64% 0% 

Mountain shrub 2% 19% 77% 3% 

Mixed conifer 1% 8% 81% 10% 

Aspen 0% 0% 100% 0% 

Salt Desert Shrub: Aggressive fire suppression would be the AMR for this vegetation type in most 

cirumstances. Through implementing ESR actions and following RPMs for the prevention of invasive species 

(Appendix E), cheatgrass, and noxious weed invasion would be reduced and the appropriate vegetation 

seeded in this vegetation type. Because noxious weed and cheatgrass invasion are the main reasons that the 

vegetation type is in FRCC 3, ESR actions should improve the conditions and possibly reduce the FRCC. 
4-24 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Prescribed fire would not be used in this vegetation type, due to the the historical lack of fire in this 

vegetation type and the high potential for noxious weed invasion following disturbance. Consequently, the 

damaging effects fire has on this type (invasion of noxious weeds and lack of post-fire regeneration) would be 

avoided. When planned carefully, fire and follow-up rehabilitation and restoration would also reduce the risk 

of non-native species invasion. 

Little to no non-fire fuel treatments are planned in this vegetation type. The only treatments implemented 

would be to restore the native vegetation communities. Therefore, negative impacts from non-fire fuel 

treatments would not occur. 

Sagebrush: Through implementing ESR actions and following RPMs (Appendix E), cheatgrass, and noxious 

weed invasion would be reduced and the appropriate vegetation seeded in this vegetation type. Prescribed 

fire (coupled with seeding when appropriate) would reduce crowded and decadent sagebrush and reduce 

overstory competition favoring establishment of native grasses and forbs (Paysen et al. 2000). RPMs designed 

to avoid establishment of invasive species and noxious weeds following prescribed fire would restrict the 

amount of undesirable vegetation in these areas. 

Non-fire fuel treatments could be used to both reduce the existing FRCC of this type from a 2 or 3 to a 

FRCC of 1 or 2, and control/reduce existing and potential noxious weed invasion through mechanical and/or 

chemical methods. Non-fire treatments would also remove any encroaching P-J that has also led to a higher 

FRCC. Because of the high potential for noxious weed and cheatgrass invasion, this vegetation type is in 

FRCC 2 or 3; vegetation treatments (including seeding) should improve the conditions and reduce the FRCC. 

Pinyon and Juniper Woodland: Less aggressive wildland fire suppression would result in larger fires 

reducing the density of pinyon and juniper woodland. Prescribed fire would be lethal to many small or young 

juniper trees. 

Non-fire fuel treatments would reduce densities of juniper and pinyon, reduce woodland encroachment into 

historic sagebrush communities, and would consequently reduce fuel loads. These treatments would also 

likely reduce the potential for invasion of cheatgrass since seeding is typically a component if there is a risk of 

cheatgrass invasion. 

Ponderosa Pine: All acres of ponderosa pine vegetation type in the Vernal planning area is in FRCC 3. Nonfire fuel treatments in FRCC 3 areas would help reduce excessive fuel loadings prior to the re-introduction 

of fire as a management tool. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire would reduce encroachment by juniper 

into ponderosa pine habitats further reducing the risk of future crown fires. Seeding and tree planting 

following fire would restore and rehabilitate burned areas resulting in maintenance and perpetuation of this 

vegetation type. 

Mountain Shrub: Removal of encroaching woody species by wildland fire would enhance and maintain 

mountain shrub communities since these types readily sprout following fire. Post-fire ESR actions and RPMs 

would reduce the risk of cheatgrass invasion following fire. Other benefical effects of fire on the vegetation 

type would be a reduction of available fuels and a trend toward lower FRCC. Non-fire fuel treatments 

would reduce fuel loadings in this vegetation type and seedings would reduce the risk of cheatgrass invasion. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-25 

FIGURE 4.6: VEGETATION TYPES AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE PROPOSED 

ACTION
4-26 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Mixed Conifer: The mixed conifer types frequently benefit from fire. Effects from fire in this type would 

include a reduction in fuel loading and fuel density. These effects increase the nutrients and water available to 

remaining plants and reduce the severity of future fires. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire, as well as nonfire fuel treatments, can be very effective at reducing fuel loadings and densities on mixed conifer sites. 

Effects from prescribed fire would be much the same as wildland fire effects. Non-fire fuel treatments would 

reduce fuel loadings and tree densities in this vegetation type and would reduce the risk of noxious weed and 

cheatgrass invasion following severe fire. 

Aspen: With the used of prescribed fire and wildland fire use and increased wildfire acres from less 

aggressive suppression, FRCC would gradually be reduced as fire is re-introduced. Conifer encroachment 

into aspen would be reduced due to wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments resulting 

in increased aspen sprouting. 

Long-term Impacts 

All Vegetation Types 

All vegetation types would exhibit long-term reductions in fuel loadings, reduced risk of invasion from 

noxious weeds and cheatgrass, and decreased density of overstory (i.e., tree, woodland and shrub) 

vegetation. Overall, this would result in trends toward lower FRCCs. Many of these long-term effects would 

result from the application of ESR actions and by following RPMs applied as part of the Proposed Action. 

Where management actions occur, a long-term improvement in FRCC would result in less risk of wildland 

fires with characteristics (fire behavior, size, severity, or frequency) beyond the natural range of variability.. 

More natural fire regimes (fire return interval and severity) would benefit all vegetation types found in the 

Vernal planning area. 

4.2.14 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Fire management activities have the potential to directly and indirectly affect fisheries and wildlife throughout 

the Vernal planning area, depending upon treatment timing, extent, location, elevation, duration, fuel, and 

severity of fires, as well as habitat type or vegetation communities of the treated area. Effects to vegetation 

communities are discussed separately in Section 3.3.13. Any effects to vegetation have the potential to 

directly or indirectly affect the fish and wildlife species that inhabit them or areas adjacent to (or downstream 

from) them. 

RPMs were built into the Proposed Action to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to species and habitat. 

RPMs would be implemented during fire management actions, as applicable. In addition, all planned actions 

would undergo site-specific analyses prior to implementation, and would consider impacts to fish and wildlife. 

Site-specific analysis would typically incorporate measures to lessen impacts. 

Short-term Impacts 

Fish 

RPMs included in the Proposed Action would limit the potential for impacts to fisheries and aquatic 

resources. However, direct effects could occur from wildland fire suppression and wildland fire use, 

including: introduction of fire retardant, aviation fuel, or lubricants into streams and wetlands; erosion of 

exposed soils from fireline construction on steep slopes adjacent to streams; damaged riparian vegetation 

and soils (resulting in erosion) from use of heavy equipment and establishment of fire camps; and reduced 

natural stream flow during drafting and pumping. These impacts would adversely affect water quality of the 

various fisheries throughout the Vernal planning area. The collective short-term impacts of increased 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-27 

sedimentation (from erosion) could have watershed-wide effects including changes in temperature, turbidity, 

and water chemistry. 

Indirect impacts could include changes in the survival or successful reproduction of aquatic prey species (e.g., 

for birds and carnivores) due to increased sedimentation and subsequent habitat modification as a result of 

upstream erosion. 

Because RPMs limit acres and severity of prescribed fire, as well as constrain non-fire fuel treatments in and 

adjacent to riparian and wetland and water habitats, short-term adverse impacts from these fire management 

activities would be minimized or eliminated. 

Non-game and Big Game Species 

Short-term adverse impacts (e.g., direct species mortality, habitat destruction, and habitat displacement) to 

non-game and big game species would be minimized by RPMs. Impacts would be further minimized through 

ESR activities that would be conducted following wildland fire suppression events. 

Direct effects from wildland fire suppression could include: damaged vegetation (including forage resources) 

from the use of heavy equipment and establishment of fire camps; weed invasion; an increase in acres of 

undesirable habitat types; a decrease in understory diversity and overall species richness; an increase in insect 

herbivory; and suppressed flowering from the introduction of fire retardant or foam (Adams and Simmons 

1999). Direct effects from prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments could include mortality to individual 

animals, habitat alteration or damage, species displacement, and modification or destruction of forage or prey 

resources. 

A large portion of acres designated as Category C or D are comprised of mountain shrub, pinyon and juniper 

woodland, or sagebrush habitat. Species utilizing these three habitats would be more likely to incur shortterm adverse impacts (e.g., mortality, habitat destruction, and temporary displacement to nearby suitable 

habitat) from fire management activities. Species that are found only in mixed conifer, riparian and wetland, 

and water would be less likely to incur short-term adverse impacts. 

Raptors and Migratory Birds: Raptors that are found in mountainous and forested habitats (e.g., mountain 

shrub, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and aspen), and migratory birds that generally breed at higher 

elevations would likely incur few short-term impacts because these habitats more closely reflect a natural fire 

regime. These higher-elevation types would have fewer acres of treatments identified. However, raptors 

and migratory birds found within or using a variety of vegetation group habitats would likely incur impacts 

from wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments. Lower-elevation habitats, such as pinyon 

and juniper woodlands, are relatively far-removed from their natural fire regime and would be prioritized for 

fire management activities. However, because RPMs would be considered and implemented, as appropriate, 

for fire management actions, direct impacts would be limited. Those impacts would include mortality, 

habitat destruction, and displacement. Indirect impacts could include a short-term reduction in available prey 

sources and increased competition between the same species for the same prey base. 

Small Mammals: Vegetation communities for which RPMs have been developed (e.g., sagebrush and riparian 

and wetland), would likely maintain populations of small mammals during the short-term. Vegetation 

communities for which RPMs have not been explicitly developed could exhibit a decrease in small mammal 

abundance in the short term (i.e., for the duration of a fire event or non-fire fuel treatment). 

Carnivores and Predators: Carnivores and predators would be less likely to incur short-term adverse 

impacts than species found in some other habitats because mountainous and forested habitats (in which 

carnivores and predators are generally found) would be a lower priority treatments resulting in vegetation 

conversions. Carnivores and predators could incur adverse impacts from wildland fire suppression across all 
4-28 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

habitats from vegetation alterations. Impacts from fire management activities could include mortality, habitat 

alteration or destruction, displacement, a reduction in food sources and increased competition between the 

same species for the same prey base. 

Amphibians and Reptiles The habitats upon which amphibians and reptiles rely are relatively far-removed 

from their natural FR. These species groups could incur short-term adverse impacts from fire management 

actions including mortality, habitat destruction, and displacement. However, because RPMs would be 

implemented, direct impacts to amphibians would be limited. 

Long-term Impacts 

Fish 

Long-term impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources would be minimized or avoided by implementation of 

RPMs. Long-term beneficial impacts to fisheries would include an incremental reduction in the risk of severe 

wildland fire and a reduction in adverse impacts from wildland fire suppression activities that would be 

associated with wildland fire (regardless of severity) in fisheries habitat. 

Non-game and Big Game Species 

The long-term effects of the Proposed Action on fish and wildlife species found within the Vernal planning 

area would be similar to the long-term effects described for special status animal species (Section 3.3.6). 

Because long-term effects to non-game and big game species groups (raptors and migratory birds, small 

mammals, carnivores and predators, amphibians and reptiles, and big game) would be common to all, they are 

summarized below. Regardless of species or associated habitat, overall long-term effects to many non-game 

and big game species and their habitat would be beneficial. 

With less aggressive fire suppresion, and wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments used 

to minimize fuel loading, the vegetation communities and wildlife habitats within the Vernal planning area 

would transition over time to more closely reflect conditions associated with a natural fire regime. This 

would create a more stable ecosystem in which the threat of an unnaturally severe wildland fire would be 

minimized. 

Because wildland fire use and prescribed fire would not likely consist of large, severe fires, mortality or longterm displacement of species would likely be avoided. Populations could be displaced for longer periods of 

time if management activities were implemented repeatedly within the same treatment area (e.g., mechanical 

treatment followed by prescribed fire followed by chemical treatment). However, to the extent that suitable 

habitat were available nearby, these impacts would be offset by the beneficial reinstatement of a natural fire 

regime. 

Because establishment of noxious weed populations would be minimized following fire management actions 

(through seeding, RPMs, and project-level stipulations), long-term effects on habitat would include a gradual 

increase in native species diversity that would more closely reflect that associated with a natural fire regime. 

4.2.15 SOILS 

Short-term Impacts 

Under the Proposed Action, more acres of BLM-managed land would be affected fire management actions. A 

loss of vegetative cover due to fire management actions could affect soil quality through the loss of soil 

structure and temporary reduced porosity of soils in these impacted areas. This reduction in porosity and 

structure could result in a change in infiltration rates and increased erosion and runoff (Ralston and Hatchell 

1971). ESR actions and seeding associated with wildland fire suppression and fuels treatments would minimize 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-29 

direct effects to soil health, (e.g., loss in soil structural stability, increased soil compaction), and would 

address indirect impacts associated with soil loss and the potential for sediment loading and sedimentation. 

Erosion controls and revegetation may be proposed as post-fire treatments that would serve to stabilize 

these sites and to contain and control soil loss. 

Where expected fire severity could adversely impact sensitive soils, the AMR to wildland fire would be an 

aggressive initial action. Some level of ground-disturbing activities associated with suppression, prescribed 

fire, and non-fire fuel treatments would still be likely to occur. Indirect impacts include potential soil loss 

from wind and water erosion. Planning flexibility afforded by the Proposed Action would allow 

implementation of RPMs to minimize potential direct and indirect effects to soil. 

Long-term Impacts 

A trend toward less severe wildfires would result in fewer impacts to soil quality (including microbial 

populations, soil temperatures and the chemical and physical structure of the soil). Rehabilitation actions 

could include the use of erosion controls and/or revegetation that would serve to stabilize these sites to 

reduce soil loss. 

By fostering healthy, native understory communities, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel 

treatments would improve the soil resources and reduce erosion potential in the long term. Decreased 

potential for destruction of biological crusts due to severe fire events would also reduce the erosion 

potential and increase fixation of atmospheric nitrate. Planned actions that would consider site-specific soil 

impacts would continue to reduce the likelihood of severe wildfires that result in loss of soil structure and 

altered porosity and infiltration rates. As fire is restored to the ecosystem, there would be fewer indirect 

impacts from large, severe wildfires including potential sedimentation of streams and reservoirs from wind 

and water erosion and fugitive dust from wind erosion. 

4.2.16 RECREATION 

Short-term Impacts 

Because the Proposed Action includes RPMs that would protect developed special recreation management 

areas and recreation site infrastructure from wildland fire, any wildfire that presents a threat to a developed 

recreation site would be fully suppressed. The potential exists for wildland fire suppression to impact 

developed recreation sites and infrastructure. 

Infrastructure most likely to be impacted by wildfire and suppression efforts includes trails and OHV routes, 

interpretive and directional signage, and dispersed camping areas with developed sanitation facilities. Visitor 

experience may also be impacted by aesthetic qualities of the recreation area, degradation of air quality from 

smoke and road, trail, and route closures during and following wildfire suppression. The most abrupt impact 

to potential recreationists is the complete or partial closure of recreation sites and facilities or even 

evacuation of those recreationists. Other effects might include noise and visual impacts from ground 

equipment, helicopters, and air tankers delivering water, fire retardants, fire-fighting equipment, and 

personnel. Indirect impacts of wildfire at developed facilities may include mass wasting on slopes, increased 

erosion, and hazards associated with dead standing vegetation. Revegetation efforts may temporarily close 

areas to use. 

The RPMs would decrease the potential for impacts to developed facilities. Higher value sites and facilities 

would take precedence for protection. Despite potential negative impacts on developed recreation sites and 

facilities as a result of wildland fire, a positive impact would be the opportunity to educate the recreating 

public of the role of fire in the landscape (Silverman 1993). 
4-30 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments could negatively impact the aesthetic quality of 

developed recreational sites and facilities. However, no impacts to the infrastructure or natural features at 

these sites are anticipated due to the planning required prior to implementation. Additional impacts from 

these actions may include temporary site closures and the presence of crews performing the action. The 

aesthetic impacts would be temporary. Positive impacts include the removal of fuels, which left in place 

would create a wildfire danger to the site and facilities. 

Long-term Impacts 

Wildfire suppression management direction may impact developed recreation sites and facilities by burning 

more of the surrounding vegetation, relative to the No Action Alternative, thereby creating aesthetic 

changes to the landscape. However, a trend toward a more desirable FRCC and the associated potential for 

less severe fire events would make the potential for the loss of these resources and visitor use days less 

likely. The movement of vegetation toward a FRCC would lessen the potential for uncontrollable, severe 

wildland fire. 

Wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments around special recreation management areas 

would reduce excess fuels, which reduces the risk of large, severe wildland fire and the associated impacts to 

characteristics these sites are intended to utilize (NPS 2000). The reduced fuel load makes it less likely that a 

wildfire would burn the entire site. This increases both the level of safety for recreationists and available 

visitor days. 

4.2.17 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Short-term Impacts 

In the short term, air quality and livestock permittees could be adversely affected by the Proposed Action. 

Prescribed fires and wildland fires would create temporary decreases in air quality and displace livestock 

from foraging areas. A temporary loss of allotment use could affect the lessees by decreasing their revenue 

during the time that they are unable to utilize their allotment(s). Wildland fire suppression and wildland fire 

use could also cause livestock permittees to temporarily lose use and, subsequently, income, because land 

would be unavailable immediately following a fire. In addition, short-term impacts could include altered 

transportation routes, disruption of subsistence activities, and temporary increases in noise. 

Short-term beneficial effects could include an increase in revenue for communities from increased utilization 

of local services during suppression activities and treatments. 

Long-term Impacts 

Long-term beneficial effects could include a reduction in the cost of suppression, an increase in payroll 

benefits for non-fire and planned ignition treatments, and more protection in communities at risk and WUI 

areas and for their associated infrastructures and resource values. A decreased long-term potential for 

severe wildland fire would lead to increased firefighter and public safety, and a likely reduction in loss of 

property (from a severe fire event) and suppression expenses. 

Impacts from fire or treatment procedures would also be beneficial for livestock, resulting in an increase in 

the quantity and quality of forage. Over time, there would likely be fewer economic losses in the Vernal 

planning area from severe wildland fires. The subsequent decrease in fires that would otherwise cross land 

ownership boundaries onto private and county-owned land would result in an overall increase in safety for 

the general public. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-31 

4.2.18 WILD HORSES AND BURROS 

Short-term Impacts 

Short-term effects on the two HMAs and the one HA in the Vernal planning area would be the potential for 

temporary displacement of animals, damage to corrals, water storage devices, shelters, and forage loss. 

However, the AMR would take appropriate action to protect those structures. Use of non-fire and fire 

treatment projects could pose a temporary loss of resources during the treatment procedure. Altered herd 

movement routes and temporary increases in noise could also be short-term effects. Because prescribed fire 

and non-fire fuel treatments are planned, activities could be designed to minimize impacts. 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 53 percent of the HMAs fall into Category A and 21 percent are 

in Category B. This would leave the majority of HMAs and HA acres in a protected status and reduce the 

impacts from fire, but may increase the potential for suppression impacts such as ground disturbance and 

human presence. Seventeen percent are in Category C and nine percent in Category D. This would allow fire 

to play a role in about 26 percent of the HMA and HA areas. Reduction in loads would occur and post-fire 

interruption of forage resources would be evident. However, these areas would have less impacts from 

suppression activities. Figure 4.7 presents the location of HMAs relative to fire management categories. 

Long-term Impacts 

A decreased long-term potential for severe wildfire from decreased wildland fire suppression and increased 

fire and non-fire fuel treatments would lead to increased horse and burro protection and a reduction in loss 

of corrals, fences, shelters, and watering areas. Impacts from fire or treatment procedures would be positive 

for wild horses and burros, resulting in an increase in the quantity and quality of forage. Over time, potential 

loss of wild horse and burro habitat and infrastructure would decrease. 

4.2.19 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Within the Vernal planning area, approximately 126,001 acres of land have wilderness characteristics. 

Approximately 38 percent of these acres are found within Category A FMUs, 28 percent within Category B 

FMUs, 34 percent within Category C FMUs (Figure 4.8). Approximately 155,641 acres of land are likely to 

have wilderness characteristics. Approximately 11 percent of these acres are found within Category A FMUs, 

14 percent within Category B FMUs, 75 percent within Category C FMUs (Figure 4.8). There would be no 

acres in Category D FMUs since these FMUs coincide with WSA boundaries where wilderness 

characteristics have already been determined. 

Short-term Impacts 

This alternative would allow a less aggressive suppression response, and suppression actions could have 

adverse impacts on naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Short-term impacts 

on wilderness characteristics and areas likely to have wilderness characteristics could include ground 

disturbances associated with suppression and control efforts (e.g. hand lines and spike camps). Impacts to 

other related resources such as vegetation, soil, watersheds, etc. are discussed in the appropriate section of 

this chapter. 

Due to the increased emphasis on suppression, those areas with wilderness characteristics, or likely to have 

wilderness characteristics, found within Category A and B FMUs would likely see more short-term impacts 

from suppression activities than those areas found within Category C FMUs. Seeding would stabilize these 

areas following a fire event. This stabilization would minimize the threat of invasive and noxious weeds while 

preserving the naturalness of an area and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 
4-32 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.7: HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS, HERD AREAS, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR 

THE PROPOSED ACTION
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-33 

FIGURE 4.8: NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, NON-WSA LANDS LIKELY 

TO HAVE WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE 

PROPOSED ACTION
4-34 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Full suppression of wildland fires could be implemented to control fire size and severity within these areas, 

protecting resource values and minimizing safety concerns on adjacent lands. Wildland fire use could be 

implemented in Category C areas, and would preserve wilderness values by allowing restoration of natural 

processes. 

All planned management activities, including prescribed fires, non-fire fuel treatments, and ESR actions would 

undergo a site-specific environmental evaluation to consider potential impacts wilderness characteristics. 

Site-specific analysis may result in measures to reduce impacts. Therefore, impacts from planned actions 

would be minimized. Prescribed fire would help maintain the naturalness of these areas by allowing wildfire 

to play a more natural role in the ecosystem. 

Opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation could be restricted (e.g. from access and 

direct use) or impaired during fire management activities. However, these impacts on the quality of visitor 

experience would be limited to the treated area or duration of the treatment. 

Long-term Impacts 

The Proposed Action would result in modification of the current vegetation condition to a DWFC that 

would more closely reflect historic vegetation. Long-term impacts associated with the use of AMRs to 

wildland fire suppression and wildland fire use and the use of RPMs for prescribed fire and non-fire fuels 

treatments would trend toward a decreased risk of severe wildland fire. The trend away from severe fire 

would result from the removal of hazardous fuels over time. Together, removal of hazardous fuels and a 

reduced risk of severe wildland fire would beneficially affect areas with and likely to have wilderness 

characteristics, by preserving opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

By implementing proposed fire management goals (e.g., reducing hazardous fuels to restore natural 

ecosystems and allowing fire to function in its natural ecological role), values contained within these 

management areas would be enhanced and preserved. Likewise, visitor experience and opportunities would 

be enhanced by restoration of a more natural condition. 

4.2.20 MITIGATION MEASURES 

RPMs under the Proposed Action would minimize or avoid impacts on resources. No mitigation for impacts 

would be necessary because of the protection already afforded by the protection measures. 

4.2.21 RESIDUAL IMPACTS 

No mitigation measures are proposed with the Proposed Action, therefore, no residual impacts from 

mitigation measures would be present. 

4.2.22 MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE 

As a part of an adaptive management response to fire planning needs within the state, monitoring measures 

and compliance with the goals and objectives of this plan would be maintained. This would be achieved 

through future planning associated with fire management implementation actions. These fire management 

actions would be evaluated for adherence to the goals and objectives established by this Proposed Action, as 

well as specific resource requirements contained within the LUPs. Wildland fire impacts would be compared 

to FMP goals and, if necessary, revisions to the FMP would be incorporated to reflect the impact of nonplanned wildland fire events on the planning area resources. Implementation-level fire management actions 

would be developed to meet resource requirements and may include additional monitoring to evaluate and 

help ensure conformance to plan-level decisions. The frequency and duration of monitoring would be 

determined on a case by case basis. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-35 

4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

4.3.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

The ACECs and fire management categories for the No Action Alternative are shown in Figure 4.9. 

Short-term Impacts 

Impacts from existing fire management direction (including an emphasis on full suppression, no wildland fire 

use, and limited fuel treatments) would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. The 

increased emphasis on suppression and the lack of updated RPMs could lead to more severe short-term 

impacts than those anticipated by the Proposed Action from suppression activities. However, the greater 

focus on suppression efforts could potentially decrease the amount of ACEC acres that would burn. 

Long-term Impacts 

The lower amount of planned fuel treatments under this alternative would perpetuate the build-up of 

unnatural and unsustainable fuel loads. In the long-term there would be a higher risk of large-high severity fire 

with the potential to damage historic, cultural, physical or scenic values associated with ACEC designations. 

Suppression efforts implemented to protect these areas could increase impacts to the values present. This 

could involve the occurrence of ground-disturbing activities in and around ACECs from construction of fire 

camps and firelines. 

4.3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Short-term Impacts 

Under No Action Alternative, short-term impacts from fire management activities would be similar to the 

Proposed Action. However, under the No Action Alternative, there would be fewer acres affected by 

wildfire, prescribed fire, and non-fire fuel treatments. This would decrease the potential for heat- and 

duration-related impacts for wildland fire events relative to the Proposed Action in the short term. More 

impacts are possible in the No Action Alternative due to ground-disturbing suppression actions. However, 

those impacts would be more localized if initial suppression efforts are successful. With fewer burned acres 

in No Action Alternative, rehabilitation actions would be less likely to impact cultural resources. Both 

prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments are smaller in acreage than in the Proposed Action, resulting in 

less potential for impacts from these actions. 

Long-term Impacts 

Because wildland fire suppression would be more aggressive, and prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments 

would be used less under the No Action Alternative, less land area would trend toward a lower FRCC. This 

trend away from DWFCs would move vegetation fuel loads to a condition supporting higher severity 

wildland fire events. Aggressive suppression efforts would be required to contain wildland fire. The long-term 

impact from the No Action Alternative would be an increase in the loss of historic and prehistoric resources 

directly from the effects of severe fire. Indirect effects to cultural resources associated with the erosion of 

protective soil cover would increase the likelihood of removal by collectors or structural damage due to 

exposure. 
4-36 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.9: AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES 

FOR THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-37 

4.3.3 FLOODPLAINS 

Short-term Impacts 

Short-term direct effects to floodplains would be similar to those seen under the Proposed Action for 

suppression, including ESR. However, under the No Action Alternative, there would be fewer acres affected 

by prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments. The use of federally mandated procedures, such as EO 11988, 

in the vicinity of sensitive areas such as floodplains would likely result in limited impacts on water quality, 

similarly to those anticipated in the Proposed Action. However, the No Action Alternative may provide less 

guidance and fewer protections with respect to activities in these areas. 

Figure 4.10 presents the location of floodplain areas located in the Vernal planning area with areas 

categorized by relative desirability of fire. 

Long-term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, full suppression of wildfires would remain the principal response to 

wildland fires. The effort to fully suppress wildfire is expected to lead to an increase in fuel loads. This may 

result in the increase of uncontrollable high severity fires that would degrade floodplain health and the 

functioning condition of watersheds. This would result in large areas of reduced vegetation cover and organic 

matter, degradation of sustainable stream banks, and more erosion. 

Following established BLM guidelines in the vicinity of floodplains would result in limited impacts on water 

quality, which is similar to the Proposed Action. However, the expected increase in severe and 

uncontrollable wildland fires would reduce the ability to follow these guidelines, resulting in a decrease in a 

floodplain’s natural and beneficial use during and following these events. 

4.3.4 INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE SPECIES 

Short-term Impacts 

There would likely be no effect from the No Action Alternative on invasive weeds in the short term. The 

fires that would affect invasive, non-native species are outside the control of BLM action in the No Action 

alternative. The No Action Alternative would continue the current practice of ESR actions following fire 

suppression minimizing encroachment of invasive, non-natives in the short term. 

Long-term Impacts 

Because wildland fire suppression would be more aggressive, and fewer acres would be treated with 

prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments, an increase in the range of invasive weeds is expected to 

continue. The likelihood of larger and more severe wildfires under the No Action Alternative would allow 

invasives like cheatgrass to progressively colonize new areas. More aggressive seeding and rehabilitation 

programs would be required to control infestations. Management actions must comply with EO 13112 

(Invasive Species), however, that compliance would require greater resources to be allocated to ESR in 

response to fire suppression than under the management action in the Proposed Action. 
4-38 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.10: HUNDRED-YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-39 

4.3.5 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS 

Short-term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, fuel loads would continue to increase. The potential for severe wildland 

fires would be similar to the Proposed Action. However, more aggressive wildland fire suppression under the 

No Action Alternative would occur, increasing the likelihood of impacts to Native American religious 

concerns from suppression activities. This includes the potential for impacts to vegetation use areas, 

traditional cultural properties, and sites used for religious and ceremonial purposes. 

Wildland fire use is not allowed in the No Action Alternative, so suppression-related impacts would be 

greater compared to the Proposed Action. However, impacts from burning would be slightly reduced 

because wildland fire use is not allowed. Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be conducted 

on a smaller scale. This would, in the short term, potentially decrease the impact to Native American 

religious concerns from ground-disturbing activities. 

Long-term Impacts 

With the continued buildup of hazardous fuels, wildland fire is expected to trend toward larger and more 

severe events. The impact of these severe events would likely include impacts to Native American religious 

concerns, such as alteration of vegetation composition in use areas and increased direct and indirect impacts 

to religious and ceremonial sites. The lack of wildland fire use and a fewer acres of planned fuel reduction 

treatments would exacerbate this trend. In addition, aggressive suppression efforts would be required to 

control impacts from severe events, increasing the potential for impacts to Native American religious 

concerns from ground-disturbing activities. Extensive restoration and rehabilitation actions would be 

required following these events potentially altering the religious value of the impacted area. 

Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatment methods would be conducted on only about 15% of the acres 

than under the Proposed Action. While decreasing the impact to Native American religious concerns from 

ground-disturbing activities, it would exacerbate the trend toward an increase in dangerous fuel loads. This 

would result in larger more severe fires and more aggressive suppression efforts to contain them. 

4.3.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Short-term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would continue its current fire management practices. The BLM 

would still be required to Section 7 consultation with USFWS for all site-specific fire management activities if 

they would be implemented within suitable or potentially suitable habitat for federally listed species. The 

Alternative Consultation Agreement to Implement Section 7 Counterpart Regulations could be employed for 

consultation on projects that support the National Fire Plan. 

Because wildland fire suppression under the No Action Alternative would would be more aggressive 

compared to the Proposed Action, short-term impacts from burning could be less, Conversely, there would 

be greater suppression-related impacts in the No Action Alternative. 

Though prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatment would be limited under the No Action Alternative, 

short-term impacts would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Both alternatives would require 

consultation with the USFWS, which would help ensure protection of species and their habitat, prior to 

implementation of fire management activities. Accordingly, few adverse impacts to species (plant and animal) 

and their habitat would likely occur. 
4-40 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Long-term Impacts 

Long-term ecosystem-wide beneficial effects of the Proposed Action on SSS and their habitat would not be 

attained under the No Action Alternative. With implementation of aggressive suppresion efforts and a lack of 

fire and non-fire fuel treatments, fuel loading would continue to increase and the subsequent risk of a severe 

wildland fire would increase. Indirect adverse effects (from changes in vegetation composition and structure 

caused by aggressive fire suppression and potentially severe wildland fires) to individuals, populations, and 

habitats would continue. 

4.3.7 WATER QUALITY 

Short-term Impacts 

Surface Water 

Surface water would be at risk from soil disturbance and increased erosion potential related to fire 

suppression activities such as fireline construction, road construction and other uses of heavy equipment. 

This may result where wildfires are suppressed in an aggressive and focused manner, versus the Proposed 

Action, where lower severity and non-resource threatening fires may undergo limited suppression efforts. 

Figure 4.11 presents the location of 303(d)-listed waterbodies located in the Vernal planning area relative 

to polygons categorized in the No Action Alternative by relative desirability of wildland fire in the area. Most 

303(d)-listed impaired waters in the Vernal planning area are not located on BLM-administered land. Those 

that are located on BLM-administered land are primarily located in polygons where fire is generally not 

desirable. 

The No Action Alternative will follow regulations for protecting 303(d)-listed impaired water bodies, as in 

the Proposed Action, and would therefore result in limited impacts. However, the No Action Alternative 

would provide less guidance and fewer restrictions (since RPMs were not developed) resulting in possibly 

slightly greater impacts. 

Groundwater 

Short-term effects to groundwater would be similar to the Proposed Action for wildland fire suppression, 

prescribed fire, and non-fire fuels treatments. No acres have been identified for wildland fire use under the 

No Action Alternative. 

Long-term Impacts 

Surface Water 

Surface water resources would trend toward greater impacts under the No Action Alternative. Full 

suppression of wildfires would remain the principal response to wildland fires. The effort to fully suppress 

wildfire could lead to an increase in fuel loads. This may result in the increase of uncontrollable high-severity 

fires, which could increase the loss of vegetation cover and organic matter, increase degradation of 

sustainable stream banks and widths, and result in more erosion. Long-term effects could also include 

increases in dissolved and suspended solids, nutrients and temperature variations outside of normal 

conditions. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-41 

FIGURE 4.11: 303(D)-LISTED WATERBODIES AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE
4-42 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

 Groundwater 

The increase in high severity fires could decrease the amount of precipitation able to infiltrate into the 

subsurface, promoting run-off and erosion. Water that does infiltrate to the subsurface could have an 

increased nutrient load obtained as it passes through burned vegetation and physiochemically altered shallow 

soils resulting in chemical alterations of groundwater. 

4.3.8 WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES 

Short-term Impacts 

Short-term impacts on riparian areas and wetlands would be similar to those described under the Proposed 

Action. However, under the No Action Alternative, there would be fewer acres of prescribed fire, non-fire 

fuel treatments and fewer acres of wildland fire since wildland fire use would not be allowed and wildfire 

suppression would be more aggressive. 

Because the No Action Alternative lacks specific RPMs, negative impacts to riparian areas and wetlands could 

result. Short-term impacts of suppression activities could include vegetation damage or destruction, 

increased erosion, and increased sedimentation in streams. This loss of streamside vegetation could increase 

stream temperature and degrade aquatic habitat. 

Vegetation disturbance associated with prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be evaluated 

through site-specific analysis that would minimize impacts related to vegetation loss and increased erosion. 

Often, these impacts are short-term, and conditions return to pre-fire levels once vegetation is reestablished. Efforts would be made to protect vegetation and restore native species after a disturbance 

reducing the potential for impacts. 

Long-term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, suppression of wildfires would remain the principal response to wildland 

fires. The effort to suppress wildfire could lead to an increase in fuel loads. This may result in the increase of 

large or severe wildland fires, which could increase the loss of vegetation cover and organic matter, degrade 

banks, and increase erosion in riparian and wetland areas. 

4.3.9 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

Short-term Impacts 

Short-term impacts from the No Action Alternative would be similar to those described under the Proposed 

Action. The increased emphasis on suppression and the lack of RPMs could lead to more severe short-term 

impacts than those anticipated by the Proposed Action. Additionally, the greater focus on suppression efforts 

could potentially decrease the amount of river segment acres that burn. Fewer burned or treated acres may 

give the impression of a more natural environment to the public, when the lack of these treatments causes 

negatively impacts the health of riparian and wetland areas. 

Long-term Impacts 

This alternative would result in trends toward higher fuel loadings in or around eligible river segments. If 

heavy fuel loads were ignited, a high severity fire could damage values associated with wild, and wild and 

scenic designations. Suppression efforts to protect these areas may increase impacts on the values present. 

This may involve the occurrence of ground-disturbing activities in and around the eligible river segment, 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-43 

including fire camps and firelines. Excluding fire from playing its natural role in ecosystems, as set forth in the 

No Action Alternative, would negatively impact long-term wild and scenic river characteristics. 

4.3.10 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

As shown in Figure 4.12, the majority of Wilderness Study Area (WSA) acres occur in Category C. 

Management activities would be designed to minimize impacts on wilderness suitability of WSAs and would 

follow WSA guidelines and policies. 

Short-term Impacts 

The impacts from the No Action Alternative would be similar to the proposed Action. Although the No 

Action Alternative would comply with WSA guidelines and policies, there would be fewer opportunities to 

restore fire to its natural role in the No Action Alternative since wildland fire use is not allowed. Impacts 

from prescribed fire and seeding treatments would be similar since management actions would undergo sitespecific analysis. Mechanical treatments would not be appropriate for WSAs. Opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation would result in very short-term impacts while suppression or treatment efforts are 

taking place. 

Long-term Impacts 

Continued lack of fire in WSAs would perpetuate the build-up of unnatural and unsustainable fuel loads. If 

heavy fuel loads were ignited, a high-severity fire could damage resources such as soil, vegetation, and 

vegetation screening, and wildlife resources that are part of WSAs. Opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation associated with WSAs would be negligibly impacted. Suppression efforts implemented to protect 

these areas could increase impacts to the values present. This could involve the occurrence of grounddisturbing activities (e.g., from construction of firelines) in WSAs. 
4-44 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.12: WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-45 

4.3.11 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Short-term Impacts 

Figure 4.13 presents the locations of the grazing allotments relative to fire management categories and their 

associated impacts from wildland fire suppression and wildland fire. 

Under the No Action Alternative, short-term impacts of fire management activities would be less than the 

Proposed Action, with the potential exception of suppression-related impacts. The lower level of wildland 

fire and planned fuel treatments accounts for this decrease in impacts. Suppression-related impacts would 

potentially be larger due to the more aggressive goal of suppressing wildland fires at a smaller acreage; 

however, these impacts would occur on a relatively small scale. These relative decreases in impacts would 

include less impact on allotment use and range improvements. 

Long-term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, less land area would trend toward a lower FRCC. This trend away from 

DWFCs would move vegetation fuel loads to condition supporting higher severity wildland fire. This would 

lead to increased loss of allotment use than under the Proposed Action, due to the loss of seed banks and 

physical and chemical degradation of soil that would prolong recovery after wildfire. Larger, more severe 

wildfires would also result in more negative impacts to allotment improvements. The long-term impact from 

the No Action Alternative would trend toward more economic and forage impacts to permittees and 

livestock. 

4.3.12 WOODLANDS AND FORESTRY 

Short-term Impacts 

The No Action Alternative would continue current trends of fuel accumulation and juniper encroachment 

through limited use of wildland fire and fuel treatments. The No Action Alternative allows for limited 

prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments. Therefore, impacts to opportunities for biomass and firewood 

harvest would be slightly reduced from the Proposed Action. 

Long-term Impacts 

Long-term impacts from the wildfire suppression efforts would increase the acres of pinyon and juniper 

encroaching on land outside of its historic range and acres within its historic range where they have become 

the dominant species. This would directly decrease the availability of biomass and firewood collection in this 

vegetation type. This impact would be less pronounced in other forested areas. Fewer protections for oldgrowth forests would be in place under this alternative, resulting in potential impacts to old-growth. 

Although limited prescribed fire and non-fire treatments would initially result in an increase in the 

opportunity for the harvesting of biomass and firewood, a trend toward less biomass availability would 

eventually occur due to larger and more severe wildland fires in forests and woodlands. 
4-46 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.13: GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-47 

4.3.13 VEGETATION 

Figure 4.14 shows vegetation types relative to the polygon categories. Effects are described under each 

type. Appendix I describes the general effects of fire on resources. 

Short-term Impacts 

Salt Desert Shrub: Impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action Alternative since fire and non-fire 

treatments would play a small role in this vegetation type in both alternatives. Aggressive fire suppression 

would occur in both alternatives and associated suppression impacts would be similar. 

Sagebrush, Pinyon/Juniper, Mountain Shrub, Mixed Conifer, Aspen: The No Action Alternative would 

have more aggressive fire suppression in these vegetation types, compared to the Proposed Action 

Alternative that recognizes the beneficial role of fire in some of these areas. The No Action Alternative 

would have increased impacts from fire suppression actions. The No Action Alternative would have no 

impacts from wildland fire use since it is not allowed. 

The No Action Alternative would have slightly decreased prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatment acres. 

Therefore, negative impacts associated with vegetation removal would be reduced and occur in smaller 

areas. Conversely, beneficial impacts of promoting diverse vegetation species and structure would be 

reduced. 

Long-term Impacts 

In all vegetation types, acres of fire being restored to the ecosystem would be much smaller than the 

Proposed Action and non-fire fuel treatments and prescribed fire would be limited. Trends toward increasing 

hazardous fuel loads would continue, resulting in increased risk of large, severe wildfires. Larger, more 

severe wildfires would result in greater potential for invasive species establishment and risk of undesirable 

vegetation conversions. 
4-48 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.14: VEGETATION TYPES AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-49 

4.3.14 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Short-term Impacts 

The No Action Alternative would have more aggressive suppression than the Proposed Action resulting in 

more impacts from fire suppression efforts. Short-term impacts (e.g., introduction of fire retardant and/or 

foam into the ecosystem, habitat modification, plant mortality, and/or displacement of animal individuals or 

populations) from actual suppression activities would be slightly greater. There would be no impacts from 

wildland fire use since that would not be allowed in this alternative. 

Less direct, adverse impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitat would occur from prescribed fire 

and non-fire fuel treatments since these actions would occur on fewer acres in the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts from planned actions would be considered in site-specific analysis the same was as in the Proposed 

Action Alternative. 

Long-term Impacts 

Impacts from more aggressive wildland fire suppression and lack of vegetation treatments include the trend 

toward more severe and larger wildland fires. Larger and more severe fires would increase the potential for 

noxious weed establishment over large areas, thereby modifying wildlife habitat (particularly habitat that 

would otherwise provide forage resources). Adverse impacts (from long-term changes in vegetation 

composition and structure caused by aggressive fire suppression and potentially severe wildland fires) to 

individuals, populations, and habitats would continue. 

4.3.15 SOILS 

Short-term Impacts 

The No Action Alternative would provide minimal soil protection guidance for fire management actions. 

Due to more aggressive suppression, impacts to soils from fire suppression actions would be higher in this 

alternative. However, impacts from wildland fire would be slightly reduced since fires would be suppressed 

more aggressively and wildland fire use wouldn’t be allowed. Fire suppression impacts include soil 

disturbance and compaction. There would be fewer soil-related impacts from prescribed fire and non-fire 

fuel treatments since those actions would occur on fewer acres in the No Action Alternative. 

Long-term Impacts 

Because suppression would be more aggressive, and prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments occur less, 

wildland fires under the No Action Alternative would become increasingly larger and more severe, resulting 

in a greater occurrence of negative impacts to soil resources. High-severity fires would remove more of the 

vegetation cover and organic matter, reducing nutrient cycling. Increases in physiochemical alteration and 

decreases in plant-available moisture in shallow soils could occur. High-severity wildfires are also more likely 

to adversely affect soil microorganisms, decreasing biological crusts that prevent erosion and fix nitrogen 

from the atmosphere. High-severity fires may also result in formation of water-repellent soil layers 

(Robichaud et al. 2000), which can decrease infiltration and increase the rate and quantity of runoff, causing 

accelerated erosion and potentially dangerous debris flows. The degree of water repellency in soils following 

a fire is positively correlated with fire severity. These impacts would decrease the ability for soil to foster the 

beneficial uses of natural vegetative growth and wildlife habitat. 
4-50 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

4.3.16 RECREATION 

Short-term Impacts 

The impact to recreational sites and facilities from wildland fire suppression under the No Action Alternative 

would be slightly greater than the Proposed Action. However, because suppression would be more 

aggressive, there would be less risk to damaging recreation infrastructure. Fewer acres of prescribed fire and 

non-fire fuel treatments, particularly surrounding sites and facilities, would create an increasing trend of 

hazardous fuel loads compared to the Proposed Action. In the short-term, recreationists would be impacted 

less under the No Action Alternative since management actions would be less. 

Long-term Impacts 

Because suppression would be more aggressive, and prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments occur less, 

wildland fires under the No Action Alternative would become increasingly larger and more severe, resulting 

in a greater occurrence of negative impacts to recreation. 

4.3.17 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Short-term Impacts 

Short-term impacts would include continued risk to communities at risk and WUI areas from wildland fire 

events since WUI protection is not recognized in the No Action Alternative. Because of more aggressive 

wildfire suppression, grazing permittees would be impacted slightly less than in the Proposed Action where 

more wildland fire acres would occur. Economic losses, associated with a decrease in available forestry 

products, would be slightly less in the No Action Alternative. 

Long-term Impacts 

Aggressive fire suppression could result in an increase in payroll benefits for suppression forces, particularly 

in the long term, with the increased potential for severe wildland fire. The loss of grazing allotment use and 

forest product harvesting opportunities would increase with time as severe wildland fire events become 

more frequent. Forest product harvesting opportunities for pinyon nuts, firewood, and other products would 

decrease, as would the associated economic benefits to local residents, as these harvesting areas are altered 

with the trend toward large and severe wildland fire events. 

4.3.18 WILD HORSES AND BURROS 

Short-term Impacts 

Figure 4.15 presents locations of the HMAs relative to fire management categories. 

Under the No Action Alternative, short-term impacts of fire suppression would be slightly greater than the 

Proposed Action. Less forage loss would occur and the associated displacement of animals would be reduced 

because wildfires would be smaller and no wildland fire use would be allowed. Impacts from prescribed fire 

and non-fire fuel treatments would be slightly less under this alternative because those treatments would 

occur on fewer acres. 

Long-term Impacts 

Long-term effects from continued fire suppression would trend vegetation toward an increased hazardous 

fuel load leading to larger, more severe wildland fires. These severe wildland fire events have the potential to 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-51 

make forage unavailable for longer periods of time than lower severity fires and would increase potential for 

invasive species establishment. This would cause displacement of the herds potentially out of the designated 

management areas and increase the likelihood that remaining herds would damage fragile soil and recovering 

vegetation. 

4.3.19 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Figure 4.16 displays lands with wilderness characteristics and fire management categories. 

Short-term Impacts 

Impacts from existing fire management direction would be similar to those described under the Proposed 

Action. The increased emphasis on suppression, and the lack of updated RPMs, could lead to more severe 

short-term impacts than those that would occur under the Proposed Action. However, the greater focus on 

suppression efforts could potentially decrease the acreages that would burn. There would be no impacts 

from wildland fire use since it is not allowed in this alternative, and fewer impacts from prescribed fire and 

non-fire fuel treatments because treatments would occur on fewer acres. 

Long-term Impacts 

The lower amount of planned fuel treatments under the No Action Alternative would perpetuate the buildup of hazardous fuel loads. When heavy fuel loads are ignited, a high-severity fire could damage resource 

values (e.g., opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation) associated with areas with wilderness 

characteristics and areas likely to have wilderness characteristics. Suppression efforts implemented to protect 

these areas could increase impacts to the values present. This could involve the occurrence of grounddisturbing activities (e.g., from construction of fire camps and firelines) in areas with and likely to have 

wilderness characteristics. 
4-52 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

FIGURE 4.15: HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS, HERD AREAS, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR 

THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-53 

FIGURE 4.16: NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, NON-WSA LANDS LIKELY 

TO HAVE WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES FOR THE NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE
4-54 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

4.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

4.4.1 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTION SCENARIO 

The following reasonably foreseeable action scenario (RFAS) identifies the cumulative actions that would 

cumulatively affect the same resources in the cumulative impact area as the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

 National Fire Plan activities for all surrounding federal and many state land management agencies 

 Land and resource management plan revisions in Utah BLM as well as in Utah’s National Forests. 

 Continuing implementation of the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 

 Continuing implementation of vegetation treatment on BLM lands in 13 Western states (BLM 1991) and 

upcoming Vegetation EIS (ongoing planning) 

 Regulatory actions, guidance and associated revisions for sagebrush restoration and grazing on public 

lands 

 Vegetation treatment resulting from wildlife mitigation projects (big game winter range, sage grouse 

habitat restoration) 

 TMDL planning 

 Air quality degradation or improvement 

 Continued increase in WUI 

 Increase in recreational use of BLM lands 

 Continued expansion of mineral extraction activities including oil and gas 

 Ongoing growth and development throughout the planning area 

 New coal-fired power plants 

 Utility corridor development 

 Continued and increased noxious weeds infestation on lands adjoining lands administered by BLM 

 Continued human-caused and natural ignitions 

4.4.2 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

Proposed Action 

Past management and environmental actions, including changes in vegetation conditions and the resulting 

modification of fire regimes, have resulted in an existing environment that is much different than the 

historical condition. Likewise, a variety of political and regulatory management directives associated with 

safety considerations and other resource needs, affect how the role of fire and fuels management has been 

applied within these areas. 

The overall effect of the Proposed Action toward DWFC, together with reasonably foreseeable actions, 

would be a reduction of potential impacts from wildland fire. This would help to maintain the naturalness of 

ACECs by allowing wildfire to play its natural role in the ecosystem, and helping to protect the special values 

of ACECs. The Proposed Action would allow flexibility in fire and fuels management that would 

accommodate increased human use and subsequent impacts. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-55 

No Action Alternative 

Cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative could lead to more intense suppression actions, adversely 

impacting unique values associated with ACECs by continuing the trend toward fuel loading. This would pose 

a greater threat (from severe wildland fire) than the Proposed Action on historic, cultural, and scenic values 

associated with ACECs. These impacts would be exacerbated by reasonably foreseeable actions, and would 

contribute to adverse impacts that the No Action Alternative would have on ACECs. 

4.4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Proposed Action 

Full-suppression fire management techniques used prior to the current fire management actions have altered 

the natural fire regime and allowed preservation of historic-aged resources where they otherwise would 

have been consumed under more natural wildland fire conditions 

Reasonably foreseeable actions include increased mineral development activities, utility corridor 

development, vegetation treatments, and recreational use on and WUI expansion adjacent to BLMadministered lands. Impacts to cultural resources from these would include an associated increase in 

vandalism, artifact collection, and destruction. 

The Proposed Action would reduce impacts that wildland fire and wildland fire suppression have on cultural 

resources in the long term. However, in the short term more artifacts may be revealed due to an anticipated 

increase in annual wildland fire-suppression goals. Cumulative effects activities would add to the disturbance, 

possible destruction, or removal of cultural artifacts. Existing regulations and protocols should help reduce 

the impacts on cultural resources. 

No Action Alternative 

No Action Alternative would, in the long term, increase impacts that wildfire and wildfire suppression may 

have on cultural resources. Cumulative effects activities would add to the disturbance or removal of artifacts 

and would increase the amount of ground-disturbing suppression activities that would alter areas already 

being impacted by OHV use, such as sections of historic trails. Potential loss of cultural resources through 

mineral development, vegetation treatments, utility corridor development, and WUI expansion would 

exacerbate the loss of these resources through fire-suppression actions. 

4.4.4 FLOODPLAINS 

Proposed Action 

Effects of the Proposed Action on floodplain resources are closely associated with and similar to effects to 

soil, water, and wetlands and riparian area resources. Cumulative effects from activities such as land 

development and recreational use, as well as encroachment of noxious weeds, would continue to have 

negative effects on floodplain resources. The implementation of guidance on grazing, water quality (TMDLs), 

OHV use, and the National Fire Plan would improve the floodplain resources when combined with the longterm effects of the Proposed Action. 

No Action Alternative 

Cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative would generally have negative effects on floodplain 

resources due to the increasing trend toward more severe wildfires. Large-scale implementation of the 

National Fire Plan by other agencies and improvements made when resource impacts are reduced through 
4-56 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

regulation would have the same positive benefits as described under the Proposed Action. Overall, however, 

the long-term trend would be toward a degradation of floodplain resources and increased alteration of 

natural hydrologic systems. 

4.4.5 INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE SPECIES 

Proposed Action 

Noxious weed spread and introduction as a result of increased recreational use, continued grazing, and 

future development for mineral extraction would have a negative impact on vegetation throughout the 

Vernal planning area. However, the Proposed Action would contribute to the overall improvement of health 

within vegetation communities and make them more resistant to invasion from noxious weeds. 

No Action Alternative 

Increased recreational use, continued grazing, and future development for mineral extraction may contribute 

to the continued spread and introduction of noxious weeds, which would exacerbate the problems caused by 

No Action Alternative regarding cheatgrass invasion. 

4.4.6 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS 

Proposed Action 

Reasonably foreseeable actions include increased recreational use, utility corridor development and mineral 

resource development in areas containing Native American religious concerns. This would include an 

associated increase in alterations to the facets of a landscape valued in Native American religious beliefs and 

practices. 

The Proposed Action would reduce impacts that wildland fire and wildfire suppression have on Native 

American religious concerns including traditional cultural properties in the long term; however, in the short 

term, more of the associated values and sites may be impacted due directly to wildland fire. Cumulative 

effects activities would add to vegetation disturbances. Consultation with tribes prior to planned fuel 

management activities would help offset increasing impacts from other uses.. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would, in the long term, increase impacts to Native American religious values and 

traditional cultural properties. Impacts from larger fires, coupled with increased development would impact 

traditional cultural properties, and lead to impacts to TCPs. Cumulative effects activities would add to 

vegetation disturbance that may alter attributes Native American’s consider important in the practice of 

religious beliefs. Consultation with tribes prior to planned fuel management activities would help offset 

increasing impacts from other uses.. 

4.4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Proposed Action 

Overall hazardous fuel reductions associated with large-scale implementation of the National Fire Plan on 

adjacent lands would gradually reduce the risk of a severe wildland fire event and restore ecosystems that 

would reflect vegetation composition more consistent with a natural fire regime. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-57 

Since management actions would be planned to avoid and minimize impacts on SSS and their habitat, the 

Proposed Action coupled with reasonably foreseeable actions would result in minimal short-term adverse 

impacts. These short-term impacts would be offset by long-term beneficial effects of rehabilitation activities. 

Such activities include: large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan, the Vegetation EIS, and Utah 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management; and reduction of the fuel load following 

prescribed fire, non-fire fuel treatments or wildland fire use. The subsequent, gradual return to a more 

natural fire regime would result in long-term beneficial effects. Hazardous fuels would be reduced, which 

would reduce the risk of large, catastrophic fire events and habitat alteration. 

No Action Alternative 

Overall hazardous fuel reductions associated with the large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan on 

adjacent lands would gradually reduce the risk of a severe wildland fire event and restore ecosystems that 

would reflect historical vegetation composition. However, negative impacts would be more pronounced on 

BLM-administered land. 

4.4.8 WATER QUALITY 

Proposed Action 

The effects of the Proposed Action on water quality would include improvements in watershed health, such 

as an increased supply of woody debris or stream bank vegetation and increased stream bank and channel 

stability. Cumulative effects from recreational use and noxious weeds would continue to have negative 

sediment load effects. The implementation of water quality (TMDLs) regulations, rangeland health standards 

and guidelines, restrictions on OHV use, and large-scale implementation of the National Fire Plan by other 

agencies would improve the water quality and supply when combined with the long-term effects of the 

Proposed Action. 

No Action Alternative 

Effects of the No Action Alternative would generally have negative effects on water quality, largely due to the 

trend toward increasingly severe wildfires. Infiltration may be increased or reduced, affecting runoff and 

groundwater. Similar to the Proposed Action, implementation of the National Fire Plan, TMDLs, and 

rangeland health standards and guidelines would benefit water quality. Despite these benefits, the overall 

long-term trend resulting from increasingly severe wildland fire would be toward a degradation of water 

quality and increased alteration of natural hydrologic systems. 

4.4.9 WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES 

Past management and environmental actions, including changes in vegetation conditions and the resulting 

modification of fire regimes, have resulted in an existing environment that is much different than the 

historical condition. Alterations from water diversion, water impoundment, stream channelization, 

dewatering, timber and grazing practices, and the invasion of nonnative and noxious vegetation species, have 

considerably altered riparian and wetland conditions and adversely impacted functional capacities. 

Proposed Action 

Cumulative effects on riparian resources would include an increase in soil stability, a more sustainable supply 

of woody debris or stream bank vegetation, an improvement in native vegetation composition and 

bank/channel stability, and an increased functionality of riparian areas. Cumulative effects from recreational 

use could continue to adversely impact aquatic habitats by causing higher sediment loads). However, 

implementation of management guidance on grazing, recreation, and OHV use, and vegetation treatments 
4-58 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

would cumulatively improve the overall health and quality of riparian areas when combined with 

implementation of the Proposed Action. 

No Action Alternative 

Effects of the No Action Alternative would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action but 

with greater potential for adverse impacts (based on the lack of updated RPMs and a higher risk of severe 

wildland fire). Recreation and grazing practices could potentially damage vegetation further and cause 

increased erosion as well. 

4.4.10 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

Proposed Action 

Past management and environmental actions, including changes to vegetation conditions and the resulting 

modification of fire role and regime, have resulted in an existing environment much different than the 

historical condition. Likewise, a variety of political and regulatory management constraints associated other 

resource needs and safety considerations affect how the role of fire or non-fire fuels management can be 

applied along these river segments. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions would lead to additional human pressure on rivers, more use of these areas, 

an increase in noxious weed spread, and the potential for human-caused fires to affect the areas as use 

increases. 

No Action Alternative 

Effects of the No Action Alternative could lead to more intense suppression actions adversely impairing the 

unique values associated with river segments, continue the trend toward larger fuel buildups in and around 

river segments possibly damaging historic, cultural or scenic values associated with river segments, and have 

an adverse impact on management of these areas. These would all be exacerbated by the reasonably 

foreseeable actions and would contribute to the adverse effects the No Action Alternative has on WSR 

designations. 

4.4.11 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

Proposed Action 

Past management and environmental actions, including changes to vegetation conditions and the resulting 

modification of fire regimes, have resulted in an existing environment that is much different than the 

historical condition. Likewise, a variety of political and regulatory management directives associated with 

safety considerations and other resource needs affect how the role of fire and fuels management has been 

applied within these areas. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions would lead to increases in recreational use, growth, and development, and 

implementation of the National Fire Plan. These actions would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation. As fire regimes are gradually re-established, naturalness would be enhanced. 

No Action Alternative 

Large-scale implementation of the National Fire Plan would increase naturalness in the long term, but the No 

Action Alternative would limit this increase on BLM-administered lands. Increased recreational use could 

reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-59 

4.4.12 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Proposed Action 

Additional regulatory direction related to the proposed revision to the grazing regulations on public lands 

would eventually lead to increased rangeland health and better management. Increased recreational use and 

continued spread of noxious weeds may have a negative impact on grazing resources. Changes in grazing 

regulations, combined with the effects of the Proposed Action would contribute to the long-term increased 

productivity and stability of grazing resources. The negative effects of noxious weed spread may be 

somewhat mitigated by the Proposed Action, as it would contribute to the overall improvement of health of 

grazing resources and make allotments more resistant to invasion of noxious weeds. 

No Action Alternative 

The effects of the No Action Alternative on livestock grazing include an increase in the vegetative fuel load, 

particularly in non-palatable species and would continue to increase the likelihood of severe wildland fires in 

the long term. Allotments would require longer recovery periods following fire. Regulations on grazing would 

eventually lead to increased rangeland health and better management. However, the increase in fuel loadings 

from the No Action Alternative would reduce stability of grazing resources. Negative impacts from the 

spread of noxious weeds on lands adjoining the Vernal planning area, combined with the added risk of severe 

wildfires from the No Action Alternative, would reduce the health and productivity of livestock grazing 

resources. This would be most pronounced in areas where cheatgrass infestation is of greatest concern. 

4.4.13 WOODLANDS AND FORESTRY 

Proposed Action 

National Fire Plan activities, LUP and RMP revisions, implementation of Utah Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management, and continuing implementation of the vegetation treatment on BLM 

lands in 13 Western states (BLM 1991) would all contribute to lowered FRCC, which would help protect old 

growth forests. 

Increases in WUI, development, and recreational activities may eventually put more demands on local 

sources of biomass, timber, firewood, and pinyon nuts. 

No Action Alternative 

Cumulative effects under No Action Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action, though fewer 

acres would trend toward a lower FRCC. 

4.4.14 VEGETATION 

Proposed Action 

National Fire Plan activities, LUP and RMP revisions, implementation of Utah Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management, and continuing implementation of the vegetation treatment on BLM 

lands in 13 Western states (BLM 1991) would all contribute to reductions in in invasive species and fuel loads 

where treatments are applied. 

Increases in WUI, development and recreational activities may eventually cause more acres to have wildfire 

suppression actions due to the AMR. 
4-60 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

No Action Alternative 

Cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action, except there 

would be fewer acres trending toward a lower FRCC. 

4.4.15 FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Proposed Action 

Reasonably foreseeable actions would subject wildlife to temporary displacement and habitat alterations. 

Overall hazardous fuel reductions associated with the large scale implementation of the National Fire Plan on 

adjacent lands would gradually reduce the risk of a severe wildland fire event, and restore ecosystems that 

would reflect vegetation composition more consistent with natural fire regimes. 

No Action Alternative 

Overall hazardous fuel reductions associated with the implementation of the National Fire Plan on federal 

lands would gradually reduce the risk of a severe wildland fire event, and restore ecosystems that would 

reflect vegetation composition more consistent with natural fire regimes. 

4.4.16 SOILS 

Proposed Action 

Effects of the Proposed Action (long-term reduction in soil loss, erosion, compaction and damage to the soil 

crust, and less risk of altered porosity and infiltration rates) would be added to the effects from reasonably 

foreseeable actions, such as increased recreational land use and noxious weeds. However, the Proposed 

Action would help to minimize the total negative effects. The implementation of management guidance for 

grazing, water quality (TMDLs), and OHV use and implementation of the National Fire Plan on a large scale 

would improve soil conditions when combined with the long-term effects of the Proposed Action. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be an increasing risk over time of loss of vegetation cover and 

organic matter and an increase in erosion, along with a reduction in microorganisms and infiltration on BLMadministered lands, which would be minimally offset by implementation of the National Fire Plan by other 

agencies. Cumulative effects from reasonably foreseeable actions (described above) would exacerbate these 

problems with the exception of the improvements made when regulations decrease impacts. Overall, the 

cumulative long-term trend would be toward a more negative condition for soil on BLM lands. 

4.4.17 RECREATION 

Proposed Action 

Recreation may be affected from reasonably foreseeable actions. Increased recreational use and facility 

development, ongoing growth and development, wildfire, increase in the WUI and noxious weeds would all 

change visitors’ experiences. 

Cumulatively, these effects may increase the susceptibility of recreational facilities, dispersed camping areas, 

trails, OHV routes and sanitation facilities to fire or fire suppression impacts. Long-term benefits include 

reduced fuel loadings leading to more effective protection against wildfire and improved safety of 

recreationists. 
November 2005 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal 4-61 

4.4.18 SOCIOECONOMICS 

Proposed Action 

A continued increase in WUI area, recreational use of BLM-administered lands, increased oil and gas 

extraction, and growth and development throughout the Vernal planning area, would put more pressure on 

the BLM to protect resources from wildland fire both inside and outside of WUI areas. An increase in public 

use would expose a greater number of people to impacts from fire management actions on, and adjacent to, 

BLM-administered lands. The effects of the Proposed Action and reasonably foreseeable development 

scenario could result in additional payroll for planned management actions and its corresponding increase in 

agency expenses. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions, together with the Proposed Action, could cause a loss of forest harvesting 

opportunities and create a minor decrease in the income of local residents or require them to travel farther 

to gather those products. Impacts on livestock grazing permittee incomes through loss of forage would 

increase with the increase in other land uses, such as oil and gas development, in combination with impacts 

from wildland fire. 

No Action Alternative 

A continued increase in WUI area, recreational use of BLM-administered lands, oil and gas development, and 

growth and development throughout the Vernal planning area in combination with the trend toward more 

and larger severe wildland fires would increase the economic impact to forest product harvesters and 

livestock grazing permittees. These impacts would come through a loss in the quantity of forest products 

harvesting opportunities due to a decrease in forested areas and a decrease in the acreage of forage available 

to livestock. 

4.4.19 WILD HORSES AND BURROS 

Proposed Action 

Increased OHV use and oil and gas development would put more pressure on HMAs and the HA in the 

future by increasing human presence and decreasing forage availability. The Proposed Action’s long-term 

trend of smaller and more natural wildland fire, as well as ongoing management of activities such as noxious 

weed control would help offset impacts from OHV and oil and gas development. 

No Action Alternative 

Continued increases in OHV use and oil and gas development in combination with larger severe wildland 

fires would infringe on HMAs and the HA. More loss of forage and longer recovery periods would be 

expected. Herds may be displaced by the cumulative influence of less forage and more human presence. 

4.4.20 WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Proposed Action 

Past management and environmental actions, including changes to vegetation conditions and the resulting 

modification of fire regimes, have resulted in an existing environment that is much different than the 

historical condition. Likewise, a variety of political and regulatory management directives associated with 

safety considerations and other resource needs affect how the role of fire and fuels management has been 

applied within these areas. 
4-62 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences/Vernal November 2005 

Reasonably foreseeable actions would lead to increases in recreational use, growth and development, and 

implementation of the National Fire Plan, thereby reducing opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. As fire regimes are gradually re-established, naturalness would be enhanced. 

No Action Alternative 

Large-scale implementation of the National Fire Plan would increase naturalness in the long term, but the No 

Action Alternative would limit this increase on BLM-administered lands. Increased recreational use could 

reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 
November 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination/Vernal 5-1 

CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

Issues identified for analysis within this EA are included in Appendix A, which contains the resource 

concerns identified, including those resources considered as Critical Elements of the Human Environment 

and related issues derived from the BLM, affiliated agency reviews, and comments received. 

A thorough consultation and coordination effort among agencies and public parties with interests in the 

process was planned and conducted to ensure the opportunity for involvement throughout the EA process. 

Among the interested parties were federal, state and local government agencies, and tribes that create, 

administer, and monitor policy for these lands and adjacent lands. BLM established a coordinated 

collaborative effort in developing the EA by seeking the active participation from all of these parties. 

5.2 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED 

The BLM coordinated and collaborated with numerous federal, state, tribal, and local government agency 

representatives as well as private organizations and individuals wishing to participate in the LUP amendment 

and FMP revision processes. The BLM contacted more than 60 federal representatives; 40 Utah state agency 

representatives (several in the neighboring states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado); 100 county and city 

governments across Utah; and more than 70 tribes and tribal representatives. Each contact received public 

scoping meeting notices and planning bulletins informing them of the purpose, schedule, and progress of the 

project. The mailing list, containing all agency points of contact, is contained in the Administrative Record 

within the project documentation. Table 5.1 lists persons, agencies, and organizations consulted for 

purposes of the FMP EA. 

TABLE 5.1: LIST OF PERSONS, AGENCIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED

Name 

Purpose and Authorities for 

Consultation or 

Coordination 

Findings and Conclusions 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), 

Region 8 

Consultation for responsibilities 

under National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 

309 of the Clean Water Act 

The EPA provided formal comments to the BLM 

during public scoping on May 17, 2004 and identified 

concerns that included the need to develop broad 

fire planning to protect local ecology, recreation, 

and commodity production. The EPA requested that 

BLM consider management needs for local fuel 

hazards; that fire management planning would 

conform to interim air quality policy and local 

smoke management plans; and that management be 

developed to protect aquatic resources from 

adverse impacts on soil and water. The EPA also 

identified analysis considerations associated with 

livestock grazing and noxious weed control. The 

BLM considered EPA’s comments and incorporated 

them into the Proposed Action and the analysis of 

the alternatives. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 

Consultation under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) (16 USC 1531) and 

Biological Assessment (BA) 

Review 

USFWS is a participating party who is consulting 

under an agreement that tiers off the BLM and 

USFWS November 1, 2001 consultation agreement 

and March 3, 2004 alternative consultation 

agreement for land use planning. The service has 

provided comment and analysis recommendations 

for the species list prepared by the BLM. The 
5-2 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination/Vernal November 2005 

Name 

Purpose and Authorities for 

Consultation or 

Coordination 

Findings and Conclusions 

service has also reviewed, provided additional RPMs, 

and concurred with the species findings within the 

BA, completed on March 4, 2005. The Biological 

Opinion was completed in September, 2005. 

Tribes and Tribal 

Representatives within 

Utah and Surrounding 

States 

Consultation as required by the 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC 

1531) and National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 

USC 1531) 

Planning bulletins were provided to approximately 

50 tribes by BLM on June 21, 2004. In addition, 

individual letters were sent to each tribal 

government on June 29, 2004 regarding BLM’s intent 

to conduct this EA and requesting their participation 

and cooperation. Tribes were also invited to public 

scoping meetings that took place from July 6-14, 

2004. To date, no tribal government has agreed to 

participate or formally consult on this project. 

Utah Governor’s Office 

of Planning and Budget—

Resource Development 

Coordinating Committee 

(RDCC) 

Consultation regarding on-going 

multi-agency planning actions 

and associated federal planning 

actions 

BLM and Maxim Technologies (Maxim) met with the 

RDCC on June 23, 2004 to discuss the scope of 

proposed fire management planning and to seek 

input from associated state agencies that may be 

affected by the proposed federal actions. Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and Utah 

Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands (FFSL) 

indicated their desire to be involved in federal fire 

planning discussions (see proceeding comments). 

RDCC also responded to the BLM with a formal 

letter on July 15, 2004, which outlined the UDWR’s 

considerations. 

Utah Department of 

Community and 

Economic 

Development—Utah 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

(SHPO) 

Consultation on proposed fire 

management as required by the 

NHPA (16 USC 470) 

BLM and Maxim staff met with SHPO (in June 2004 

and July 2004) to discuss scope of planning and the 

possibility of SHPO acting as a participating party in 

the FMP process. SHPO had determined at these 

meetings not to act as a participating party, but they 

did provide feedback on the scope and analysis of 

the Proposed Action. In a meeting on January 25, 

2005, BLM and SHPO agreed to develop a 

programmatic agreement specifically addressing 

wildland fire use on public lands within Utah. 

Utah Division of Natural 

Resources—Division of 

Forestry, Fire and State 

Lands (FFSL) 

Consultation on fire 

management planning on 

adjacent state lands 

FFSL attended the BLM statewide interdisciplinary 

team (IDT) meeting on June 22, 2004 and June 23, 

2004, and contributed to scope and analysis 

discussions. BLM met with FFSL on August 24, 2004 

to discuss the proposed direction of statewide fire 

management on public lands, as well as the need to 

coordinate with local BLM field offices in the 

development of fire management planning at a local 

level as identified in the FMPs that tier off the 

statewide land use plan (LUP) amendment. Maxim 

staff coordinated with FFSL staff in September and 

October 2004 to obtain resource data and historic 

wildland fire information to support BLM data and 

the development of the environmental assessments 

(EAs). 
November 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination/Vernal 5-3 

Name 

Purpose and Authorities for 

Consultation or 

Coordination 

Findings and Conclusions 

Utah Division of Natural 

Resources—Division of 

Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR) 

Consultation on impacts of fire 

management on fish and wildlife 

species 

UDWR, in association with the Governor’s Office 

of Planning and Budget, and RDCC, provided formal 

comments to the BLM on July 15, 2004, and a 

request to be included as a participating party. The 

BLM coordinated proposed fire management actions 

and considerations of wildland fire use to benefit 

wildlife habitat with UDWR. Maxim staff 

coordinated with a variety of UDWR personnel, 

from July through October 2004, in developing fish 

and wildlife resource data, GIS data, and scope of 

analysis within the EA. These meetings also included 

coordination with the UDWR Utah Natural 

Heritage Program. 

Uintah County 

Commission 

Informal discussion with county 

commissioner on resource 

issues in county 

On July 13, 2004, the Uintah County Commissioner 

provided comments to BLM in regard to protection 

of sage grouse habitat and limited restriction on 

livestock grazing of burned areas. Comments in 

regard to habitat were incorporated into the 

Proposed Action for the statewide amendment EA 

and Vernal FMP EA. Limited restriction on livestock 

allotment resting was considered during 

development of the LUP and FMP Proposed Actions.

5.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

During preparation of the FMP EA, the public was notified of the Proposed Action. A Notice of Intent (NOI) 

invited participation of interested agencies, organizations, and members of the general public 

to assist the BLM in determining the scope of issues to be addressed. It was published in the Federal Register 

on April 2, 2004. The publication of this NOI initiated a public scoping comment period that ended on 

July 21, 2004. 

A Public Involvement Plan was prepared in June 2004 to ensure an effective, consistent, and open 

communication process among BLM and other federal, state, and local government agencies; Native 

American tribes; the public; and other stakeholders. This plan not only outlined the series of open house 

public meetings throughout the state that would allow for comment and discussion on current and proposed 

fire management, but also planned for continued public involvement opportunities throughout the project. 

A Planning Bulletin was also developed to advise the public of fire management project. It also described the 

project, encouraged public participation at the public scoping meetings, and identified opportunities and 

methods for submitting comments throughout the NEPA process. In addition to providing background 

information, the Bulletin outlined the public involvement process for the project; the schedule; a listing of 

public meetings; instructions on making comments and joining the mailing list, information about the project’s 

public website; and contact information. On June 24, 2004, the Bulletin was sent to 1,149 individuals, 

organizations, state, county and city government agencies, and tribal governments and groups on the BLM’s 

mailing list. The BLM sent each tribal government an individualized letter (dated June 29, 2004) inviting them 

to consult on the project. Native American consultation is ongoing. All entities on the mailing list were 

contacted about the project and invited to submit comments. In addition, a website has been established that 

displays information about this project. It is located at http://www.ut.blm.gov/fireplanning/index.htm. 
5-4 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination/Vernal November 2005 

5.3.1 PUBLIC MEETINGS 

On June 25, 2004, a public notice was delivered as a media advisory and press release to Utah newspapers, 

radio stations, and one cable television station. It also went to newspapers and radio stations in Arizona, 

Colorado, and Nevada. The notice announced public scoping meeting dates, times, and locations, and invited 

the public to participate. Prior to the formal scoping process, the BLM provided a number of opportunities 

for federal, state, and local agencies, interested organizations, and the general public to provide input for the 

planning process. These opportunities included early notification of the scoping process, a lengthy comment 

period, a variety of venues for meetings, and newspaper reminders of meeting times and locations. 

Comments were received from April 2, 2004 through July 21, 2004. 

From July 6, 2004 through July 14, 2004, BLM conducted five open house meetings in Moab, Cedar City, 

Richfield, Vernal, and Salt Lake City, Utah. These meetings were announced in a Planning Bulletin that was 

mailed on June 24, 2004, to more than 1,100 individuals and organizations throughout the state. News 

releases were issued to state and local media that communicated the purpose of the meetings, as well as the 

time and place of each meeting. Further, the Utah BLM webpage advertised the meetings and scoping period. 

Approximately 700 subscribers of the Utah BLM electronic newsletter (“E-Briefs”) received related 

information. News releases were issued to state and local media that communicated the purpose of the 

meetings, as well as the time and place of each meeting. A series of Public Scoping Meetings were held across 

the state according to the schedule in Table 5.2. 

TABLE 5.2: PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Date City Facility Address 

July 6, 2004 Moab BLM Field Office 82 East Dogwood 

July 7, 2004 Cedar City Heritage Center, Festival Hall 1 90 North Main 

July 8, 2004 Richfield BLM Field Office 150 East 900 North 

July13, 2004 Vernal Western Park 302 West 200 South 

July 14, 2004 Salt Lake City BLM Field Office 2370 South 2300 West 

5.3.2 PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Responses to solicitations for public input resulted in letters that were received via fax, mail, email, and hand. 

There were 91 comments identified from 20 letters received during the scoping process. A comment 

summary table is found in the Scoping Report. The letters received can be found in the Administrative 

Record. 

5.4 LIST OF PREPARERS 

BLM selected an environmental consultant, Maxim Technologies, from a list of qualified environmental 

services contractors through a competitive procurement process to support Utah BLM on this important 

FMP EA. Therefore, the preparers of this EA included a combination of BLM and contract personnel. 
November 2005 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination/Vernal 5-5 

5.4.1 BLM PREPARERS 

BLM participants and their responsibilities are listed in Table 5.3. BLM also assigned a contracting officer’s 

representative and technical project lead with primary responsibilities for oversight of contractors, agency 

collaboration, and NEPA process. 

TABLE 5.3: BLM INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM

Name Title Document Section Responsibility 

Jolie Pollet Project Manager Technical coordination, quality control, vegetation, fire ecology, 

Proposed Action, resource protection measures 

Matthew Higdon National Environmental 

Policy Act Planner Technical coordination, quality control, planning 

Tim Faircloth Threatened and Endangered 

Species (TES) Specialist Section 7 consultation, review of wildlife, TES 

Michael Dussinger Cultural Resource Specialist Cultural resources, Native American consultation 

Steven Strong Natural Resource Specialist Soils, forestry, fuels/fire management 

Tim Faircloth Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, fisheries 

Marc Stavropoulos Range Specialist Livestock grazing 

Kim Bartel Recreation Specialist Recreation, special designation, wilderness, visual 

Robert Specht Botanist Vegetation, special status plants/invasive weeds 

Del Clark Range Technician Wildhorses 

Karl Wright Natural Resource Specialist Watersheds, floodplains/riparian 

5.4.2 MAXIM TECHNOLOGIES PREPARERS 

The Maxim Technologies IDT is listed in Table 5.4. 

TABLE 5.4: MAXIM TECHNOLOGIES INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM

Name Title Document Section Responsibility 

Jim Melton Project Manager Planning, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

David Steed Asst. Project Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation, planning, 

NEPA 

Mike Egan Asst. Project Manager Planning, cultural resources, grazing 

Susan Hatch Biologist 

Special status species, fish and wildlife, areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACECs), wilderness 

characteristics, socioeconomics, wilderness study 

areas, riparian and wetlands 

Terry Grotbo Senior NEPA and Planning Advisor NEPA review 

Fred Gifford GIS Coordinator GIS, database 

Cameo Flood Forester Vegetation, woodlands and forests, chapters 3 and 4 

Valerie Waldorf Lead GIS Specialist GIS, maps, figures, socioeconomics, wild horses and 

burros 
5-6 Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination/Vernal November 2005 

Name Title Document Section Responsibility 

Wynn John Environmental Engineer Soil, water, floodplains 

Tennille Flint Biologist 

ACECs, wilderness characteristics, socioeconomics, 

wilderness study areas, riparian and wetlands, chapter 

1 

Nancy Linscott Socioeconomics Specialist Socioeconomics, environmental justice 

Dale-Marie Herring Technical Writer/Coordinator Writing, editing, chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, coordination 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References 6-1 

CHAPTER 6. ACRONYMS, GLOSSARY, AND REFERENCES 

6.1 ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

AMR Appropriate Management 

Response LUP Land Use Plan

BLM Bureau of Land Management NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

CWA Clean Water Act OHV Off-highway Vehicle 

DWFC Desired Wildland Fire Condition PFC Properly Functioning Condition 

EA Environmental Assessment PLO Public Land Order

EIS Environmental Impact Statement RPM Resource Protection Measure 

EO Executive Order RMP Resource Management Plan 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency ROI Region of Influence 

ESA Endangered Species Act SSS Special Status Species 

ESR Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

FMP Fire Management Plan UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality 

FMU Fire Management Unit UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GAP Gap Analysis Program WSA Wilderness Study Area 

HA Herd Area WUI Wildland Urban Influence 

HMA Herd Management Area 
6-2 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

6.2 GLOSSARY 

Agency Any federal, state, or county government organization participating with 

jurisdictional responsibilities. 

Air Quality The characteristics of the ambient air (all locations accessible to the general 

public) as indicated by concentrations of the six air pollutants for which national 

standards have been established (e.g., particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead), and by visibility in mandatory federal 

Class I areas. For the purposes of the Utah Smoke Management Plan, 

concentrations of particulate matter are taken as the primary indicators of 

ambient air quality. 

Alternative One of at least two proposed means of accomplishing planning objectives. 

Analysis The examination of existing and/or recommended management needs and their 

relationships to discover and display the outputs, benefits, effects, and 

consequences of initiating a proposed action. 

Appropriate 

Management 

Response (AMR) 

Specific actions taken in response to a wildland fire to implement protection and 

fire use objectives. Responses range from full suppression to managing fire for 

resource benefits (fire use).

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) 

An area of public lands where special management attention is required to 

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to 

protect life and provide safety from natural hazards.

Aspect Direction toward which a slope faces. 

Assessment The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose. 

Biological 

Treatment 

Biological treatment of vegetation could typically employ grazing by cattle, sheep, 

or goats, but as technology progresses, it may also include insects, but would not 

include the use of invertebrates or microorganisms. 

Biomass The dry weight of plants in a unit area. 

Brush A collective term that refers to stands of vegetation dominated by shrublands, 

shrubby woody plants, or low-growing trees. 

Buffer Zones An area of reduced vegetation that separates wildland from vulnerable residential 

or business developments or other high-value areas. This barrier is similar to a 

greenbelt in that it is usually used for another purpose such as agriculture, 

recreation areas, parks, or golf courses. 

Chemical 

Treatment 

The use of herbicide to control herbaceous and woody species. BLM would use 

EPA-approved herbicides in accordance with EPA’s Endangered Species Pesticide 

Program covered in BLM’s Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western 

States FEIS (May 1991). 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-3 

Clean Air Act A federal law enacted to insure that air quality standards are attained and 

maintained. Initially passed by Congress in 1963, it has been amended several 

times, the latest being August of 1977. 

Climax A terminal stage of ecological succession in which the vegetation association 

remains stable over a relatively long period. 

Closure Legal restriction – but not necessarily elimination – of specified activities such as 

smoking, camping, or entry that might cause fires in a given area. 

Collaboration A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied 

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support, for managing 

public and other lands. 

Composition The numbers and kinds of plants and animals in an area. 

Condition Class Condition class (CC) is a classification of the amount of departure from the 

natural condition. The three classes are based on low (CC 1), moderate (CC 2), 

and high (CC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural (historical) 

regime. See: www.frcc.gov. 

Critical Habitat Federally-mandated (under the ESA of 1973, as amended) designation for 

threatened or endangered species that is proposed, designated, and managed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Critical Seasonal 

Use Area 

Designation provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for the most 

important / valuable big game seasonal use areas in the state that they manage. 

Cultural Resources Those resources of historical, archaeological, or paleontological significance. Nonrenewable elements of the physical and human environment including 

archaeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and 

sociocultural values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally 

used raw materials, etc.). 

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects result from the impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities combined with the projected direct and indirect 

effects of each alternative considered. 

Direct Effects Direct effects are those consequences that are expected to occur following 

implementation of an alternative. Direct effects are caused by the action and 

occur at the same time and place as the action. 

Disturbance Any relatively discrete event, either natural or human-induced that causes a 

change in the existing condition of an ecological system. 

Ecosystem An arrangement of organisms defined by the interactions and processes that 

occur between them. Ecosystems are often defined by their composition, 

function, and structure. 
6-4 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

Ecosystem 

Sustainability 

The ability to sustain diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, health, 

renewability, and/or yields of desired values, resource uses, products, or services 

from an ecosystem while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem over time. 

Emergency 

Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation (ESR) 

Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and 

cultural resources after unplanned wildfires. 

Endangered Species 

Any animal or plant species in danger of extinction in a portion of its range. This 

is a federal designation (under the ESA of 1973 as amended). Most of these 

species fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Endemic A species restricted to a given geographical location and native to that locale. 

Environment All that surrounds an organism and interacts with it. 

Environmental 

Assessment 

(EA) 

EAs were authorized by NEPA of 1969. They are concise, analytical documents 

prepared with public participation that determine whether an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for a particular project or action. If an EA 

determines an EIS is not needed, the EA becomes the document allowing agency 

compliance with NEPA requirements. 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement (EIS) 

EISs were authorized by NEPA of 1969. Prepared with public participation, they 

assist decision makers by providing information, analysis, and an array of action 

alternatives, allowing managers to see the probable effects of decisions on the 

environment. Generally, EISs are written for large-scale actions or geographical 

areas. 

Environmental 

Justice 

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and 

policies. 

Ephemeral A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel is 

above the water table at all times. 

Fine (Light) Fuels Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, 

which is less than 1⁄4-inch in diameter and has a time lag of one hour or less. 

These fuels readily ignite and are rapidly consumed by fire when dry. 

Fire Intensity A general term relating to the heat energy released by a fire. 

Fire Management 

Plan (FMP) 

A FMP is a functional activity plan for the fire management program. The FMP is 

the primary tool for translating programmatic direction developed in the land 

management plan into on-the-ground action. The FMP synthesizes broad fire 

management goals and places them into a strategic context. Criteria for making 

initial action decisions must be a component of the FMP. 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-5 

Fire Management 

Unit (FMU) 

Any land management area definable by objectives, topographic features, access, 

values-to-be-protected, political boundaries, fuel types, or major fire regimes, etc., 

that set it apart from management characteristics of an adjacent unit. FMUs are 

delineated in FMPs. These units have dominant management objectives and preselected strategies assigned to accomplish these objectives. 

Fire Regime The fire pattern across the landscape, characterized by occurrence interval and 

relative intensity. Fire regimes result from a unique combination of climate and 

vegetation. Fire regimes exist on a continuum from short-interval, low-intensity 

fires to long-interval, high-intensity fires. The five natural (historical) fire regimes 

are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) 

combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the fire on the dominant 

overstory vegetation. These five regimes include: 

I – 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed 

severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced). 

II – 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 

75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced). 

III – 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced). 

IV – 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater 

than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced). 

V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity. (See 

www.frcc.gov). 

Fire Return Interval The number of years between two successive fires in a designated area. 

Fire Season 1) Period(s) of the year during which wildland fires are likely to occur, spread, and 

affect resource values sufficient to warrant organized fire management activities. 

2) A legally enacted time during which burning activities are regulated by state or 

local authority. 

Fire Severity Fire severity is a product of fire intensity and residence time at a site. Severity 

denotes the effects, from low to high, of fire on the soil and vegetation 

components of a site. 

Fire Use The combination of wildland fire use and prescribed fire application to meet 

resource objectives. 

Fireline A linear fire barrier that is cleared of fuels and scraped or dug to mineral soil. 

Also called control line, containment line or line. 

Forage Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption. 

Forbs Plants with soft, rather than permanent, woody stems that are not grass or grasslike plants. 

Forest Products Woodland and timber products, such as posts, poles, firewood, Christmas trees, 

and sawlogs. 
6-6 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

Fuel A combustible material, including vegetation such as grass, leaves, ground litter, 

plants, shrubs, and trees that feed a fire. (See Surface Fuels.) 

Fuel Reduction Manipulation, including combustion and/or or removal of fuels to reduce the 

likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control. 

Fuels Management The practice of evaluating, planning, and executing the treatment of wildland fuel 

to control flammability and reduce the resistance to control through mechanical, 

chemical, biological, or manual means, or by prescribed and wildland fire, in 

support of land management objectives. 

Fuel Type An identifiable association of fuel elements of a distinctive plant species, form, 

size, arrangement, or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of fire 

spread or difficulty of control under specified weather conditions. 

Geographic Area A political boundary designated by the wildland fire protection agencies, where 

these agencies work together in the coordination and effective utilization of 

resources. See www.fs.fed.us/fire/reports.shtml for a listing of and links to 

Geographic Area Coordination Centers. 

Goal A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime 

in the future. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms (usually not 

quantifiable) and is timeless in that it has no specific date by which it is to be 

completed. Goal statements form the principle basis from which objectives are 

developed. 

Grazing Permit An authorization that allows grazing on public lands. Permits specify class of 

livestock on a designated area during specified seasons each year. Permits are of 

two types: preference (10 year) and temporary non-renewable (1 year). 

Guideline Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed in Best Management Practices (BMPs). Guidelines may be 

identified during the land use planning process, but they are not considered a land 

use decision unless the plan specifies that they are mandatory. Guidelines for 

grazing administration must conform to 43 CFR 4180.2 

Habitat A specific set of physical conditions in geographical area(s) that surround a single 

species, a group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the 

major components of habitat are food, water, cover, and living space. 

Implementation 

Plan 

A sub-geographic or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a 

LUP. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans. 

Incident A human-caused or natural occurrence, such as wildland fire, that requires 

emergency service action to prevent or reduce the loss of life or damage to 

property or natural resources. Incident management teams also handle other 

non-fire emergency response, including tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, 

earthquakes, and other disasters or large events. 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-7 

Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those consequences, which are expected to occur following 

implementation of an alternative. Indirect effects are caused by the action and 

occur later in time or farther from the activity. 

Interdisciplinary 

Team (IDT) 

A team representing several disciplines to ensure coordinated planning of the 

various resources. 

Ladder Fuels Fuels that provide vertical continuity between strata and allow fire to carry from 

surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. They help 

initiate and assure the continuation of crowning. 

Land Use Plan 

(LUP) 

A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area. An assimilation of land-use-plan-level decisions developed 

through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, regardless of the scale at 

which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and MFPs. 

Landscape An area of interacting and interconnected patterns of habitats (ecosystems) that 

are repeated because of the geology, land form, soil, climate, biota, and human 

influences throughout the area. Landscape structure is formed by disturbance 

events, successional development of landscape structure, and flows of energy and 

nutrients through the structure of the landscape. A landscape is composed of 

watersheds and smaller ecosystems. It is the building block of biotic provinces and 

regions. 

Large Fire 1) For statistical purposes, a fire burning more than 100 acres. 2) A fire burning 

with a size and intensity such that its behavior is determined by interaction 

between its own convection column and weather conditions above the surface. 

Light (Fine) Fuels Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, 

which is less than 1⁄4-inch in diameter and has a time lag of one hour or less. 

These fuels ignite readily and are rapidly consumed by fire when dry. 

Litter Top layer of the forest, scrubland, or grassland floor, directly above the 

fermentation layer, composed of loose debris of dead sticks, branches, twigs, and 

recently fallen leaves or needles, little altered in structure by decomposition. 

Long Term Defined in this document as 10 years or more. This applies to any long-term use. 

Management 

Concern 

An issue, problem, or condition that constrains the range of management 

practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process. 

Management 

Direction 

A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, associated 

management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them. 

Management 

Framework Plan 

(MFP) 

A LUP for public lands administered by BLM that provides a set of goals, 

objectives, and constraints for a specific planning unit or area; a guide to the 

development of detailed plans for the management of each resource. This form of 

plan is now being replaced with RMPs. 

Management 

Practice 

A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment. 
6-8 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

Mechanical 

Treatment 

Mechanical treatments of vegetation employ several different types of equipment 

to suppress, inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody vegetation. For the 

purposes of this plan, mechanical treatments may include employing the following: 

cabling, chaining, disking (or disk plowing), bulldozing, mowing, beating, crushing, 

chopping or shredding vegetation using a variety of mechanized equipment. 

Monitoring (Plan 

Monitoring) 

The process of tracking the implementation of LUP decisions and collecting and 

assessing data and/or information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land 

use planning decisions. 

National Ambient 

Air Quality 

Standards 

Standards for maximum acceptable concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air 

to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and to protect public 

welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of such pollutants (e.g., 

visibility impairment, soiling, materials damage, etc.) in the ambient air. 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) 

NEPA is the basic national law for protection of the environment, passed by 

Congress in 1969. It sets policy and procedures for environmental protection, 

and authorizes EISs and EAs to be used as analytical tools to help federal 

managers make decisions on management of federal lands. 

Naturalness An area which “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable” (Section 2[c], 

Wilderness Act). 

Non-fire Fuel 

Treatments 

Includes manual, mechanical, biological, chemical, and seeding actions. 

Objective A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to 

pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define 

the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified 

goals. 

Off-road Vehicle 

(ORV) 

Any motorized vehicle designated for or capable of cross-country travel over 

lands, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other terrain excluding: (1) 

any non-amphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or 

law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle 

whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise 

officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat 

support vehicle used in national defense. 

Old Growth A wooded area, usually greater than 200 years of age, which has never been 

altered or harvested by humans. An old-growth forest often has large individual 

trees, a multi-layered crown canopy, and a significant accumulation of coarse 

woody debris including snags and fallen logs. Utah BLM would adopt the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) old-growth definitions and identification standards per the 

USFS document Characteristics of old-growth forests in the intermountain region (April 

1993). In instances where the area of application in the previous document 

doesn’t apply to specific species (e.g., Pinus edulis), use the document 

Recommended old-growth definitions and descriptions, UDSA Forest Service 

southwestern region (Sept.1992). 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-9 

Perennial A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with 

a water table in the localities through which they flow. 

Planning Area One or more planning units for which MFPs were prepared under previous BLM 

planning procedures. 

Planning Unit As used in previous BLM planning, a geographical unit within a BLM district. It 

included related lands, resources, and use pressure problems that were 

considered together for resource inventory and planning. 

Prescribed Fire Any fire ignited by management actions under certain predetermined conditions 

to meet specific objectives related to hazardous fuels or habitat improvement. A 

written prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met 

prior to ignition. 

Prescription Measurable criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire may be 

ignited, guide selection of AMRs, and indicate other required actions. Prescription 

criteria may include a combination of safety, economic, public health, 

environmental, geographic, administrative, social, or legal considerations. 

Prevention Activities directed at reducing the incidence of fires, including public education, 

law enforcement, personal contact, and reduction of fuel hazards. 

Public Lands Any lands or interest in lands outside of Alaska owned by the United States and 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, except located on 

the Outer Continental Shelf and lands held for the benefit of Indians. 

Public Participation The process of attaining citizen input into each planning document development 

stage. It is required as a major input into the BLM’s planning system. 

Range 

Improvements 

(Structural / 

Nonstructural) 

Any activity or program on or relating to rangelands designed to improve forage 

production, change vegetation composition, control patterns of use, provide 

water, stabilize soil and water conditions, and enhance habitat for livestock, 

wildlife, and wild horses and burros. Rangeland improvements include nonstructural land treatments (such as chaining, seeding, and burning), and structural 

(such as stockwater developments, fences, and trails). 

Rangeland Land dominated by vegetation that is useful for grazing and browsing by animals. 

Range and rangeland are used interchangeably. 

Raptors Birds of prey, such as the eagle, falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture. 

Recreation 

Opportunities 

Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure activity to 

realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added 

beneficial outcomes. 

Region May be any geographical area larger than a planning area (socioeconomic profile 

area, sub-state, state, multi-state, or national), appropriate for comparative area 

analysis and for which information is available. Regions may be different for 

different resources or subject matter analysis. 
6-10 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

Rehabilitation The activities necessary to repair damage or disturbance caused by wildland fires 

or the fire suppression activity. 

Resource Area A geographic portion of a BLM district. An administrative subdivision whose 

manager has primary responsibility for day-to-day resource management activities 

and resource use allocations. In most instances it is the area for which RMPs are 

prepared and maintained. 

Resource 

Management Plan 

(RMP) 

A document prepared by field office staff with public participation and approved 

by field office managers that provides general guidance and direction for land 

management activities at a field office. The RMP identifies the need for fire in a 

particular area and for a specific benefit. 

Resources 1) Personnel, equipment, services, and supplies available or potentially available 

for assignment to incidents. 2) The natural resources of an area, such as timber, 

grass, watershed values, recreation values, and wildlife habitat. 

Retardant A substance or chemical agent that reduces the flammability of combustibles. 

Riparian Habitat A native environment growing near streams, reservoirs, ponds, etc. that provides 

food, cover, water, and living space (permanent or intermittent). It is usually 

unique or limited in arid regions and is, therefore, of great importance to a wide 

variety of wildlife. 

Seeding (and 

Planting) 

Involves the introduction of seeds and plants to a site that alters existing plant 

communities and influences successional processes. 

Sensitive Species Species not yet officially listed but that are undergoing status review for listing on 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official threatened and endangered list; species 

whose populations are small and widely dispersed or restricted to a few localities; 

and species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that official listing may be 

necessary. 

Severity Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; loosely, a product of 

fire intensity and residence time (duration) of the fire. Severity denotes the 

effects, from low to high, of fire on the soil and vegetation components of a site. 

Short Term Defined in this document as one to five years. This applies to any short-term use. 

Slash Debris left after logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting. Includes logs, chips, 

bark, branches, stumps, and broken understory trees or brush. 

Smoke 

Management 

Conducting a prescribed fire under fuel moisture and meteorological conditions, 

and with firing techniques that keep the smoke's impact on the environment 

within acceptable limits. 

Soil Compaction Increasing the soil bulk density, and concomitantly decreasing the soil porosity, by 

the application of mechanical forces to the soil. 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-11 

Soil Disturbance Physical disturbance of the vegetation or soil surface by any action, usually via 

mechanical or manual tools. Includes all activities except casual use, wildland fire, 

and prescribed fire treatments. See Surface Disturbance. 

Special Recreation 

Management Areas 

Recreation management areas that receive emphasis and priority in BLM’s 

recreation planning and management efforts. The recreation resources in these 

areas require explicit management to provide specified recreation setting, activity, 

and experience opportunities. Recreation management objectives would provide 

explicit guidelines with respect to the existing opportunities and problems in 

these areas. RMPs would subsequently be prepared for special recreation 

management areas using RMP objectives for guidance. 

Special Status 

Species (SSS) 

Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the ESA; 

state-listed species; and BLM state director-designated sensitive species (see BLM 

Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy). 

Standard Forest plan standards describe a condition of land, normally a maximum or 

minimum condition, which is measurable. A standard can also be expressed as a 

constraint on management activities or practices. Deviation from compliance with 

a standard requires a forest plan amendment. 

State Lands Lands controlled or administered by the State of Utah. 

Strategy The science and art of command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of 

an incident. 

Structure The sizes, shapes, and/or ages of the plants and animals in an area. 

Succession Observed process of change in the species structure (and composition) of an 

ecological community over time. 

Suppression A management action intended to extinguish a fire or alter its direction of spread. 

Surface Disturbance Any surface disturbing activity (does not include fire).Disturbance of the 

vegetative or soil surface by any action. Includes all activities but casual use and 

wildland fire or fire treatments. See Soil Disturbance. 

Surface Fuels Loose surface litter on the soil surface, normally consisting of fallen leaves or 

needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small branches that have not yet decayed enough 

to lose their identity; also grasses, forbs, low and medium shrubs, tree seedlings, 

heavier branchwood, downed logs, and stumps interspersed with or partially 

replacing the litter. 

Sustainability The ability to maintain a desired condition or flow of benefits over time. 

Tactics Deploying and directing resources on an incident to accomplish the objectives 

designated by strategy. 

Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) 

An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all sources: point, nonpoint, 

and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding applicable water 

quality criteria. 
6-12 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

Values at Risk To rate according to a relative estimate of worth when exposed to a chance of 

loss or damage. 

Vegetation 

Treatment 

Changing the characteristics of an established vegetation type to improve 

rangeland forage or wildlife habitat resources. Treatments are designed for 

specific areas and differ according to the area’s suitability and potential. The most 

common land treatment methods alter the vegetation by chaining, spraying with 

herbicides, burning, and plowing, followed by seeding with well adapted desirable 

plant species. 

Vegetation Plants in general or the sum total of the plant life above and below ground in an 

area. 

Visibility The greatest distance in a given direction where it is possible to see and identify 

with the unaided eye a prominent dark object against the sky at the horizon. 

Wetlands Lands including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, such as wet meadows. 

They also include River overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. 

Wilderness Area An area officially designated as wilderness by Congress. Wilderness areas will be 

managed to preserve wilderness characteristics and shall be devoted to the public 

purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical 

use. 

Wilderness Study 

Area (WSA) 

Areas under study for possible inclusion as a wilderness area in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 

Wilderness An area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, 

where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of undeveloped 

federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent 

improvements or human habitations. 

Wildfire A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response. 

Wildland Any area under fire management jurisdiction of a land management agency. 

Wildland Fire 

Situation Analysis 

(WFSA) 

A decision making process that evaluates alternative management strategies 

against selected criteria (e.g., safety, environmental, social, political, economic), 

and resource management objectives. 

Wildland Fire 

Suppression 

An AMR to wildland fire that results in curtailment of fire spread and eliminates 

all identified threats from the particular fire. All wildland fire suppression activities 

provide for firefighter and public safety as the highest consideration, but minimize 

loss of resource values, economic expenditures, and/or the use of critical 

firefighting resources. 

Wildland Fire Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland. 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-13 

Wildland Fire Use 

(WFU) 

The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific prestated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined in 

an FMP. Operational management is described in the WFIP. Wildland fire use is 

not to be confused with “fire use,” a broader term encompassing more than just 

wildland fires. 

Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) 

The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or 

intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Because of their 

location these structures are extremely vulnerable to fire should an ignition occur 

in the surrounding area. 

Woodlands Forest lands stocked with other than timber species (i.e., pinyon and juniper 

woodland, mountain mahogany, etc.). A plant community in which, in contrast to 

a typical forest, the trees are often small and relatively short compared to their 

crown (i.e., pinyon and juniper). Uses of the woodland products are generally 

limited to firewood, posts, and harvest of fruit (pinyon nuts). 

6.3 REFERENCES 

Adams, R. and D. Simmons. 1999. Ecological effects of fire fighting foams and retardants. New South Wales, 

Australia: School of Environmental and Information Sciences, Charles Sturt University. 

Allison G.B., G.W. Gee, and S.W. Tyler. 1994. Vadose-zone techniques for estimating groundwater recharge 

in arid and semiarid regions. Soil Science Soc. of America J. 58:6-14. 

Baskin, R. et al. 2002. Water-quality assessment of the Great Salt Lake Basins, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming: 

environmental setting and study design. USGS: Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4115. 47 

p. 

Belnap, J. and O.L. Lange, editors. 2003. Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and management. Ecological 

Studies, Vol. 150. New York: Springer. p 503. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1988a. National Environmental Policy Act handbook (H-1790-1).

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1988b. Areas of critical environmental concern. BLM Manual 1613. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1991 May. Final environmental impact statement: vegetation treatment 

on BLM lands in thirteen western states. BLM Wyoming State Office. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Riparian-wetland area management. BLM, Washington, DC: BLM 

Manual 1737. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Process for assessing proper functioning condition for lentic 

riparian and wetland areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. 1737-11. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1998a June. Fire management activity plan. BLM Vernal Field Office, 

Vernal, UT. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1998b. Utah weed program. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/utah/resources/weeds. Accessed 2004 Aug 12. 
6-14 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1998c. A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the 

supporting science for lotic areas. Gen. Tech Rep. 1737-15. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Utah wilderness inventory. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health. Gen. Tech. Rep. 1734-

6. Version 3. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2001. A management approach to off-highway vehicle use on public land 

in Utah. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2002a. Relevance and importance evaluations of area of critical 

environmental concern nominations. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2002b. Draft sensitive plant species list for Utah. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2003a June. Interagency strategy for implementation of federal wildland 

fire management policy. Instruction Memo. No. OF&A 2003-038. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2003b. Appropriate management response procedures. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2003c. Normal fire year rehabilitation plan. BLM, Vernal Field Office, 

Vernal, UT. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2003d. Revision of 1999 Utah wilderness inventory. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2003e. Revision of 1999 user guide to assessing proper functioning 

condition and the supporting science for lentic areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. 1737-16. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2003f. Public rewards from public lands: Utah. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2004a. Utah NEPA guidebook. Available at: 

http://www.ut.blm.gov/landuseplanning/NEPAguidance.htm. Accessed 2004 May. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2004b. Land use planning handbook revision (DRAFT). BLM Handbook 

H-1601-1. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2005 January. Vernal field office resource management plan and 

environmental impact statement (DRAFT). 

Brown, J.K. 2000. Ecological principles, shifting fire regimes and management considerations. Chapter 9, p 

185-203.Chapter 9In: J.K. Brown, J. Smith, and J. Kapler, editors. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on flora. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT: Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMS-GTR-42, Vol.2. 

Bunting, S.C., B.M. Kilgore, and C.L. Bushey. 1987. Guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrush-grass 

rangelands in the northern Great Basin. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 

Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-231. p 33. 

Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer. 1982. Wild mammals of North America. Baltimore (MD): The John 

Hopkins University Press. 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-15 

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: changes since EuroAmerican settlement. J. of Forestry 92:39-47. 

Edwards, T.C. et al. 1998. Utah GAP analysis: an environmental information system. Logan (UT): Utah State 

University. 

Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Perceptions in management. Rangelands 9(6):260-65. 

Fielding, D.J. and Brusven. 2000. Grasshopper habitat manipulation. USDA, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Washington, DC: Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management User Handbook, 

Tech. Bull. No. 1809 p.VII.15-1-VII.15-5. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver (CO): Museum of 

Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 

Garwood, A.N., editor. 1996. Weather America. Milpitas (CA): Toucan Valley Publications, Inc. p 1217-49. 

Gee, G.W., M.J. Fayer, M.L. Rockhold, and M.D. Campbell. 1992. Variations in recharge at the Hanford site. 

Northwest Sci. 66:237-50. 

Goodrich, S. and E. Neese. 1986. Uinta Basin flora. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ashley 

National Forest and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Vernal District, Ogden, UT. 320 p. 

Gregory, S.V. et al. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41(8):540-551. 

Hansen, J. 1996. Letter from Hansen (Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee for the House Resources 

Committee) to Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt. 

Harper, K.T., D.C. Freeman, W.K. Ostler and L.G. Klikoff. 1978. The flora of Great Basin mountain ranges: 

diversity, sources, and dispersal ecology. In: K.T. Harper and J. L. Reveal, editors. Intermountain 

biogeography: a symposium. Great Basin Nat. Mem. 2. p 81-103. 

Howard, J.L. 1999. Artemesia tridentate ssp. wyomingensis. In: Fire effects information system (FEIS). USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Ogden, UT (Producer). 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed 2004 Aug. 

Howard, J.L. 2003. Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum. In: Fire effects information system (FEIS). USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Ogden, UT (Producer). 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinpons/fire_effects.html/. Accessed 2004 

Oct 12. 

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. 2004 Oct. Wild and scenic rivers reference guide. 

Joint document produced by BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA 

Forest Service. 

Johnson, K. 2005 Jan. 25. Personal communication between Johnson (UDEQ Division of Drinking Water, 

Environmental Scientist-Source Protection) and Maxim Technologies. 

Jones, J.R. and N.V. DeByle. 1985. Fire. In: N.V. DeByle and R.P. Winokur, editors. Aspen: ecology and 

management in western United States. p 77-81. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station: Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-119. p 283. 
6-16 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

Keyes, C.P., R.L. LaMadeleine, V. Applegate, and D. Atkins. 2003 Jan. Utah forest health report: a baseline 

assessment, 1999/2001. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Health 

Protection, Forest Health Monitoring; State of Utah Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of 

Forestry, Fire and State Lands, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Knight, D.H. 1994. Mountains and plains: the ecology of Wyoming landscapes. New Haven (CT): Yale 

University Press. 338 p. 

Lanner, R. 1984. Trees of the Great Basin. Reno (NV): University of Nevada, Reno Press. 

Limbach, E. 2004. Personal communication between Limbach (BLM Range Management Specialist for Burley 

and Pocatello Field Offices) and Bruce Glisson. 

McAuliffe, J. R. 1995. Landscape evolution, soil formation and Arizona's desert grasslands. In: M. McClaran 

and T.R.V. Devender, editors. The desert grassland. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press. p 68-

129. 

McIntosh, B.A. et al. 1991. Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 

1935-92. USDA Forest Service: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-321. 55 p. 

Mueggler, W.F. 1989. Age distribution and reproduction of intermountain aspen stands. Western J. of 

Applied Forestry 4(2):41-45. 

[NPS and USDA] National Park Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1982 Sept. 7. Wild and scenic 

rivers guidelines. Fed. Register 47(173). 

Parrish, J., F. Howe, and R. Norvell, editors. 2002. Utah partners in flight avian conservation strategy. Version 

2.0. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Partners in Flight Program, Salt Lake City (UT): Pub. 

No. 02-27. 302 p. 

Paysen, T.E. et al. 2000. In: J.K. Brown and J.K. Smith, editors. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

flora. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42, Vol. 

2. p 121-60. 

Pellant, M. 2002. Cheatgrass: invasion, occurrence, biological/competitive features and control measures. 

Proceedings: Restoration and Management of Sagebrush/Grass Communities Workshop; 2002 Nov. 

4-8; Elko, NV. 

Pope, D. and C. Brough, editors. 1996. Utah's weather and climate. Salt Lake City (UT): Publishers Press. 

Ralston, C.W. and G.E. Hatchell. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on physical properties of soil. 

Proceedings: Prescribed Burning. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Station. 

Ritter, D.F., R.C. Kochel, and J.R. Miller. 1995. Process geomorphology. 3rd edition. Dubuque (IA): Wm. C. 

Brown Publishers. 546 p. 

Robichaud, P.R., J.L. Beyers, and D.G. Neary. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of post-fire rehabilitation 

treatments. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR- RMRS -

63. 

Romin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office guidelines for raptor protection proximal to disturbances 

from land use activities. USFWS, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, UT: Unpublished final report. 
November 2005 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal 6-17 

[SHPO] State Historical Preservation Officer. 2005 Jan 25. Verbal communication between Dykman (Utah 

SHPO) and Maxim Technologies. 

Silverman, A. 1993. Appropriate risks for recreation in wildlands. Proceedings: Symposium on Fire in 

Wilderness and Park Management; 1993 Mar 30-Apr 1; Missoula, MT. 

Sonoran Institute. 2005. Socioeconomis program: tools for automated economic analysis, economic profile 

system. Available at: http://www.sonoran.org/programs/si_se_program_tools.html. 

Trlica, M.J. 1977. Distribution and utilization of carbohydrate reserves in range plants. In: R.E. Sosebee et al., 

editors. Rangeland plant physiology. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. p 73-96. 

[UDEQ] Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 2004 Apr. 303(d) list of impaired waters. UDEQ 

Division of Water Quality. 85 p. 

[UDEQ] Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 2005a. Watershed management map. UDEQ Division 

of Water Quality. Available at: http://waterqualityutah.gov/watersheds/state/htm. Accessed 2005 Feb. 

[UDEQ] Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 2005b. TMDL information. UDEQ Division of Water 

Quality. Available at: http://waterquality.utah.gov/TMDL.index.html. Accessed 2005 Feb. 

[UDWR] Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2004a. Available at: 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/SearchSelection.asp? 

[UDWR] Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2004b. Biological and conservation database. Available at: 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/Display.asp?FINm=antiamer 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. State and county quickfacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census 

of Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates, County Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned 

Business, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments. 

Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html. Accessed 2004 Aug. 9. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002.: Annual projections of the total resident population: 1990 to 2100 Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum-T1.html).Accessed 2004 Sept. 21. 

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Wildland and prescribed fire management policy 

implementation procedures reference guide. 

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Recreation research update. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures, Riverside, CA: Special Fire 

Issue. 2p. 

[USDI] U.S. Department of Interior. 2003. Consideration of wilderness characteristics in land use plans 

(excluding Alaska). USDI Instruction Memo. No. 2003-275. 

[USDI and USDA] U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995 Dec. 18. Federal 

wildland fire management policy and program review. USDI and USDA Final Report. 

[USDI and USDA] U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001a January. USDI and 

USDA implementation action plan review and update of the 1995 federal wildland fire management 

policy. Cooperative effort of USDI, USDA, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, 
6-18 Chapter 6: Acronyms, Glossary, and References/Vernal November 2005 

Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, and National Association of State Foresters. 

[USDI and USDA] U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001b Aug. A 

collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment: 10-year 

comprehensive strategy. 

Utah Department of Public Safety. 2004 Nov. The state of Utah natural hazard mitigation plan. Utah Dept. of 

Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services. 

Utah Department of Workforce Services. 2004. Available at: http://www.utah.gov/working/workforce.html. 

Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 1993. A Utah flora. 2nd edition. Provo (UT): 

Brigham Young University Press. 

Whitson T. et al. 1991. Weeds of the west. Jackson (WY): University of Wyoming Press. 630 p. 

Wissmar, R.C. et al. 1994. A history of resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon 

and Washington (early 1800s-1900s). Northwest Science 68:1-35. 

Wood, B.W. and J.D. Brotherson. 1986. Ecological adaptation and grazing response of budsage (Artemisia 

spinescens) in southwestern Utah. In: E.D. McArthur and B.L. Welch, compilers. Proceedings: 

Symposium on the Biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus; 1984 Jul 9-13; Provo, UT. USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. p. 75-92. 

Wright, H.A. 1990. Role of fire in management of southwestern ecosystems. USDA Forest Service: Gen. 

Tech. Rpt. 191:1-5. 

Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee. 2002. Wyoming guidelines for managing sagebrush 

communities with emphasis on fire management. Wyoming Game and Fish Department and 

Wyoming BLM, Cheyenne, WY. 53 p. 

Zeveloff, S. and F. Collette. 1988. Mammals of the intermountain west. Salt Lake City (UT): University of 

Utah Press. p 288-90. 
Appendix A 

Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist 

November 2005 Appendix A A-1 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ANALYSIS RECORD CHECKLIST 

Project Title: VERNAL Management Plan Environmental Assessment 

NEPA Log Number: VFO UT-080-2004-0430 

File/Serial Number: 

Project Leader: Troy Suwyn, Steve Strong 

FOR EAs/CXs: NP: not present; NI: resource/use present but not impacted; PI: potentially impacted 

STAFF REVIEW OF PROPOSAL: 

NP/NI/

PI 

NC 

Resource 

Date 

Reviewe

d 

Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require 

further analysis.) 

CRITICAL ELEMENTS 

NI Air Quality 10.26.200

4 Steve Strong Planned ignitions follow Utah Smoke Management Plan (SMP). Unplanned ignitions not subject to Utah SMP 

PI 

Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) 

10.26.200

4 Kim Bartel Impacts on the values the ACECs were designated to address, as 

important and relevant. 

PI Cultural Resources 10.26.200

4 

Michael 

Dussinger Impacts on cultural sites. 

NI Environmental 

Justice 10.26.04 Jean NitschkeSinclear 

According to the EPA Region 8, 1999, State of Utah, Environmental 

Justice Map, the region has been categorized as a minority population 

area of 10 to 20 percent and a poverty population area of 10 to 20 

percent. No minority or economically disadvantaged communities or 

populations are present that would be affected by the Proposed Action 

or No Action Alternative. (http://www.epa.gov/environ/ej, 8/9/04) 

NP Farmlands (Prime 

or Unique) 10.26.04 Jean NitschkeSinclear 

These are uniquely identified areas and there are none in the Vernal 

field office. 
A-2 Appendix A November 2005 

NP/NI/

PI 

NC 

Resource 

Date 

Reviewe

d 

Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require 

further analysis.) 

PI Floodplains 10.26.200

4 Karl Wright Impacts on natural and beneficial use of floodplains 

PI Invasive, Nonnative Species 

10.26.200

4 Robert Specht Potential for increased noxious weed infestation from unplanned fire. 

PI Native American 

Religious Concerns 

10.26.200

4 

Michael 

Dussinger 

Impacts of fire on traditional cultural properties, and areas of traditional 

cultural importance. 

PI 

Threatened, 

Endangered or 

Candidate Species -

Plants 

10.26.200

4 Robert Specht Impacts on listed / candidate plant species from suppression. 

PI 

Threatened, 

Endangered or 

Candidate Species 

– Animals 

10.26.200

4 Tim Faircloth Impacts on listed / candidate animal species from unplanned actions. 

NI Wastes (hazardous 

or solid) 

10.26.200

4 Merlin Sinfield 

No chemicals subject to SARA Title III in amounts greater than 10,000 

pounds would be used. No extremely hazardous substances as defined 

in 40 CFR 355 in threshold planning quantities would be used. 

PI Water Quality 

(drinking/ground) 

10.26.200

4 Karl Wright Impacts on water quality. 
November 2005 Appendix A A-3 

NP/NI/

PI 

NC 

Resource 

Date 

Reviewe

d 

Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require 

further analysis.) 

PI Wetlands/Riparian 

Zones 

10.26.200

4 Karl Wright Impact to riparian from suppression and fuels management. 

PI Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

10.26.200

4 Kim Bartel Impacts on outstanding remarkable values, tentative classification. 

NP/PI 

Wilderness / 

Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs) 

10.26.200

4 

Impacts on the naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and 

opportunities for primitive recreation of the WSA. 

OTHER RESOURCES / CONCERNS* 

- 

Rangeland Health 

Standards and 

Guidelines 

10.26.200

4 

Marc 

Stauropoulos 

Impacts on rangeland health standards from fire management actions 

will be addressed in the water, soils, vegetation, and riparian sections of 

this EA. 

PI Livestock Grazing 10.26.200

4 

Marc 

Stauropoulos Impact to allotment use. 

PI Woodlands / 

Forestry 

10.26.200

4 Troy Suwyn Potential for vegetation conversion. 
A-4 Appendix A November 2005 

NP/NI/

PI 

NC 

Resource 

Date 

Reviewe

d 

Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require 

further analysis.) 

PI 

Vegetation, 

including Plant 

Special Status 

Species (SSS) 

10.26.200

4 Robert Specht Impacts on vegetation, including SSS plant species, from fire. 

PI Fish and Wildlife, 

including SSS 

10.26.200

4 Tim Faircloth 

Impacts on fish and wildlife (including SSS) species and 

potential/occupied habitat. 

Impacts on crucial seasonal habitats. 

PI Soils 10.26.200

4 Dylan Tucker Issue: Impact to soils. 

PI Recreation 10.26.200

4 Kim Bartel Issue: Impacts on developed recreation sites / facilities. 

NI Visual Resources 10.26.200

4 Kim Bartel 

Visual resources would be degraded in the short term, but would 

improve to surpass existing conditions as more diverse and more 

desirable vegetation becomes established. The same would be true for 

wilderness values. As a greater variety of vegetation presents itself, 

positive changes to texture, color, and line may be apparent. As conifers

are thinned, and more shrubs appear, more visual variety exists, in the 

long term. Identification of visual resource management classes for 

individual field offices may be helpful. 

NI Geology / Mineral 

Resources 

10.26.200

4 Kirk Fleetwood

The Proposed Action includes resource protection measures (RPMs) to

address concern of suppression of wildland fire in presence of oil and 

gas facilities. 

Mitigation measures may be added to future, site-specific Proposed 

Actions as a result of site-specific analysis during project-level planning 

for treatment. 

NI Paleontology 10.26.200

4 John Meyers 

RPMs resolve concerns regarding fire management impacts on 

paleontological resources. In the event that paleontological resources 

are discovered in the course of ground-disturbing activities, effort 

should be made to protect these resources. Further, BLM Manual and 

Handbook H-8270-1, Chapter III (A) and III (B) would be used to plan 

and implement projects. Further, the Proposed Action includes a RPM 

that directs use of heavy equipment to avoid rock outcrops. 
November 2005 Appendix A A-5 

NP/NI/

PI 

NC 

Resource 

Date 

Reviewe

d 

Signature Review Comments (required for all NIs and PIs. PIs require 

further analysis.) 

NI Lands / Access 10.26.200

4 Paul Rodriguez 

While lands and access concerns are present in the planning area, fire 

management practices would be designed to avoid conflicts with 

authorized rights-of-way. Prior to planned activities, appropriate 

coordination would take place with holders of rights-of-way as well as 

with private and cooperating agency land owners, and additional RPMs 

would be incorporated into Proposed Actions as needed. Protection of 

infrastructure is an overriding priority of the proposed management 

actions. Concerns relating to lands and access during planned activities 

have been considered with the inclusion of the following RPMs in the 

Proposed Action: “Fire management practices would be designed to 

avoid or otherwise ensure the protection of authorized rights-of-way 

and other facilities located on the public lands, including coordination 

with holders of major rights-of-way systems within rights-of-way 

corridors and communication sites.” 

PI Fuels / Fire 

Management 

10.26.200

4 Steve Strong 

Fire and fuels management considerations form the basis for the 

Proposed Action. Therefore, fire and fuels management is considered 

and addressed in full in this EA. The objective of the fire management 

plan is to provide management direction for this resource, in 

consideration of other resources. 

PI Socioeconomics 10.26.200

4 

Jean NitschkeSinclear 

Impacts on socioeconomics. 

Fire management actions have the potential to impact the 

socioeconomic status of a wide array of public land users, including 

rights-of way holders, special use permit holders, licensed livestock 

operators, American Indian tribes, local communities, and other 

government entities, including federal, state, county, and municipal units.

Impacts on individuals, local communities, American Indian tribes, and 

others can be both short term and long term in duration and positive 

and negative in nature. 

PI Wild Horses and 

Burros 

10.26.200

4 Del Clark Impact to herd management area. 

PI Wilderness 

Characteristics 

10.26.200

4 Kim Bartel Impacts from fire management actions to the naturalness, opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, and any supplemental values. 
A-6 Appendix A November 2005 

FINAL REVIEW 

Reviewer Title Date Signature Comments 

NEPA / Environmental 

Coordinator 

11.5.2004 /s/ Steve Strong 

Manager 

11.5.2004 

/s/ Bill Stringer 
Appendix B 

Wildland Fire Management Legislation 

November 2005 Appendix B B-1 

Wildland Fire Management Legislation 

Authority: The statutes cited herein authorize and provide the means for managing wildland fires. 

Protection Act of September 20, 1922 

(42 Stat. 857; 16 USC 594) 

Authorizes the Secretary of Interior to protect (and preserve, from fire, 

disease, or the ravages of beetles or other insects), timber owned by the 

United States upon the public lands, national parks, national monuments, 

Indian reservations, or other lands under the jurisdiction of the 

Department of Interior (DOI) owned by the United States. 

Clark-McNary Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 

221; 16 USC 487) 

Authorizes technical and financial assistance to the states for forest fire 

control and for production and distribution of forest tree seedlings. 

(Sections One through Four were repealed by the Cooperative Forestry 

Assistance Act of 1978.) 

Federal Property and Administrative 

Service Act of 1949 (40 USC 471 et 

seq.) 

Provides the government an economical and efficient system for 

procurement and supply of personal property and non-personal services. 

Reciprocal Fire Protection Act, Act of 

May 27, 1955 (69 Stat. 66; 42 USC 

1856a, 42 USC 1856) 

Authorizes agencies that provide fire protection for any property of the 

United States to enter into reciprocal agreements with other fire 

organizations to provide mutual aid for fire protection. 

Clean Air Act, Act of July 14, 1955, as 

amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.) 

Provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources 

and applies to the application and management of prescribed fire. 

Wilderness Act, Act of September 3, 

1964 (16 USC 1131, 1132) Provides for the designation and preservation of wilderness. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended (80 Stat. 927; 16 USC 

668dd through 668ee) 

Provides guidelines and directives for administration and management of all 

areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System, including “wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are 

threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, or waterfowl production areas.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 USC 4321) 

Requires the preparation of environmental impact statements for federal 

projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. It requires 

systematic, interdisciplinary planning to ensure the integrated use of the 

natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in making 

decisions about major federal actions that may have a significant effect on 

the environment. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

USC 1531) 

Provides for the protection and conservation of threatened and 

endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species. Directs all federal agencies to 

utilize their authorities and programs to further the purpose of the Act. 

Disaster Relief Act, Act of May 22, 

1974 (88 Stat. 143; 42 USC 5121) 

Provides the authority for the federal government to respond to disasters 

and emergencies. Established the presidential declaration process and 

authorized disaster assistance programs. 

Federal Fire Prevention and Control 

Act, Act of October 29, 1974 (88 

Stat. 1535; 15 USC 2201) 

Authorizes reimbursement to state and local fire services for costs 

incurred in firefighting on federal property. 

Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 

2743) 

Outlines functions of the BLM Directorate, provides for administration of 

public land through the BLM, provides for management of the public lands 

on a multiple use basis, and requires land-use planning including public 

involvement and continuing inventory of resources. The Act establishes as 

public policy that, in general, the public lands would remain in federal 

ownership. 

Federal Grant and Cooperative 

Agreement Act of 1977 (PL 950224, 

Establishes criteria for a federal agency to use to determine whether a 

transaction is procurement or financial assistance. Establishes guidelines to 
B-2 Appendix B November 2005 

as amended by PL 97-258, September 

13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1003; 31 USC 6301 

thru 6308) 

bring about uniformity in the selection and use of procurement contracts, 

grants, and cooperative agreements. 

Supplemental Appropriation Act, Act 

of September 10, 1982 (96 Stat. 837) 

Authorizes the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to enter 

into contracts with state and local governmental entities, including local 

fire districts, for procurement of services in the preparedness, detection, 

and suppression of fires on any units within their jurisdiction. 

Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act, 

Act of April 7, 1989 (PL 100-428, as 

amended by PL 101-11, April 7, 1989; 

42 USC 1856). 

Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with fire 

organizations of foreign countries for assistance in wildfire protection. 

Indian Self-determination and 

Education Assistance Act (PL 93-638), 

as amended 

Provides for the full participation of Indian tribes in programs and services 

conducted by the federal government for Indians and encouraged the 

development of human resources of the Indian people; establishes a 

program of assistance to upgrade Indian education. 

National Indian Forest Resources 

Management Act (PL 101-630, 

November 28, 1990) 

Requires the Secretary of Interior to undertake management activities on 

Indian forestlands, in furtherance of the United States trust responsibility 

for these lands. Activities must incorporate the principles of sustained 

yield and multiple use, and include tribal participation. 

Tribal Self-governance Act of 1994 

(PL 103-413) 

Provides for native tribes to enter into annual funding agreements with 

DOI “to plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, 

functions, and activities” administered by DOI that are of special 

geographic, historical, or cultural significance. 

Clean Water Act of 1987, as 

amended (33 USC 1251) 

Establishes objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation’s water. 

Executive Order 12898, 

Environmental Justice, February 11, 

1994 (59 FR 7629) 

Requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. 

Executive Order 13112, Invasive 

Species, February 3, 1999 (64 FR 

6183) 

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, 

provide for their control, and minimize the economic, ecological, and 

human health impacts that invasive species cause. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929, as amended (16 USC 715) and 

treaties pertaining thereto 

Provides for habitat protection and enhancement of protected migratory 

birds. 

Executive Order 13186, 

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies 

to Protect Migratory Birds, January 

10, 2001 (66 FR 3853) 

Directs agencies within the executive branch to take certain actions to 

further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, with the goal of 

promoting the conservation of migratory bird populations. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-

542) 

Provides a national policy and program to preserve and protect selected 

rivers because of their outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Archaeological Resource Protection 

Act 

Expands the protections provided by the Antiquities Act of 1906 in 

protecting archaeological resources and sites located on public and Indian 

lands. 

Executive Order 11514, Protection 

and Enhancement of Environmental 

Quality 

Directs federal agencies to provide leadership in protecting and enhancing 

the quality of the nation’s environment to sustain and enrich human life 

and to initiate measures to meet national environmental goals. 

Executive Order 11593, Protection 

and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment 

Requires federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving, restoring, 

and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the nation by 

administering and initiating measures necessary to preserve, restore, and 

maintain federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, 
November 2005 Appendix B B-3 

architectural, or archaeological significance. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management 

Requires federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands 

Directs federal agencies to provide leadership and to take action to 

minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Enhances planning and coordination with respect to both new and existing 

regulations; reaffirms the primacy of federal agencies in the regulatory 

decision-making process; restores the integrity and legitimacy of regulatory 

review and oversight; and makes the process more accessible and open to 

the public. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Act 

Authorizes the construction, operation, and maintenance of works in the 

Colorado River Basin to control the salinity levels of the Colorado River. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended (16 USC 470) 

Expands protection of historic and archaeological properties to include 

those of national, state, and local significance. It also directs federal 

agencies to consider the effects of Proposed Actions on properties eligible 

for, or included in, the National Register of Historic Places. 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 

2003 

Reduces the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental 

standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning 

processes. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 

(PL 90-542, as amended) (16 USC 

1271-1287) 

Provides for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems and for other 

purposes. 

These acts are codified (as referenced) in the United States Code that can be accessed at 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode. 

Policy Documents 

Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and Program Review, 

December 18, 1995, USDI and USDA 

Final Report. Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy and Program 

Review, March 23, 1996, USDI and 

USDA Implementation Action Plan 

Review and Update of the 1995 

Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy, January, 2001, USDI, USDA, 

DOE, DOD, DOC, EPA, FEMA, and 

NASF. 

Provide a common approach to wildland fire by the DOI and Department 

of Agriculture. The plan encourages agencies to move the emphasis from 

fire suppression to integrating fire into the management of lands and 

resources consistent with public health and environmental quality 

considerations. Managers are encouraged to use fire as one of the basic 

tools for accomplishing resource management objectives 

Utah BLM Rangeland Health 

Standards and Guidelines, 1997. 

Provides standards that spell out conditions to be achieved on BLM lands 

in Utah and guidelines that would be applied to achieve the standards. 

Western Governor’s Association (http://www.westgov.org/) 

A Collaborative Approach for 

Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 

Communities and the Environment: 

10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, 

August 2001. 

Outlines a comprehensive approach to the management of wildland fire, 

hazardous fuels, and ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation on federal 

and adjacent state, tribal, and private forest and rangelands in the United 

States, emphasizing measures to reduce the risk to communities and the 

environment 

A Collaborative Approach for Sets forth core principles was developed to guide the identification of 
B-4 Appendix B November 2005 

Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to 

Communities and the Environment: 

10-year Comprehensive Strategy 

Implementation Plan, May 2002, 

27p. 

goals for this strategy. These principles include such concepts as priority 

setting, accountability, and an open, collaborative process among multiple 

levels of government and a range of interests. The end results sought by all 

stakeholders are healthier watersheds, enhanced community protection, 

and diminished risk and consequences of severe wildland fires. This 

community-based approach to wildland fire issues combines cost-effective 

fire preparedness and suppression to protect communities and the 

environment with a proactive approach that recognizes fire as part of a 

healthy, sustainable ecosystem. 

National Academy of Public Administration (http://www.napawash.org/) 

Federal Fire Management: Limited 

Progress in Restarting the Prescribed 

Fire Program (GAO/RCED-91-42), 

December 5, 1990. 

Reiterates that fire is beneficial and even necessary to wildlands. Where 

fire has been a historic component of the environment it is essential to 

continue that influence, and that attempts to exclude fire from such lands 

could result in unnatural ecological changes and increased risks created by 

accumulation of fuels on the forest floor. Supports the use of prescribed 

burn to achieve management objectives, when the risks of such a burn 

have been analyzed. 

State of Utah Regulations and Local Government Plans 

Utah Administrative Code R317 Sets forth Utah regulation concerning water quality. 

Utah Administrative Code R307 Sets forth Utah’s regulation concerning air quality. 

Uintah Basin Association of 

Government 2004 

Sets forth a pre-disaster mitigation plan comprising Daggett, Duchesne, 

and Uintah Counties. 
Appendix C 

Wildland Fire Management Categories 

November 2005 Appendix C C-1 

Wildland Fire Management Categories 

For the purposes of comparing the No Action with the Proposed Action in this environmental assessment, 

the planning areas for both alternatives were divided into four fire management categories that define the 

role and response that wildland fire has in a particular ecosystem. These four fire management categories 

were labeled A, B, C, and D, and are defined below. 

Category A: Wildland fire is not desired. 

Category A is designated for two reasons. First, wildland fires in these areas have adverse environmental 

impacts on the ecosystem. The second reason for designating an area as a Category A is related to adverse 

impacts to social, economic, and/or political issues. 

Category A areas are where fire return intervals were historically long, or where fire has more harmful 

impacts than benefits. Fire now is not desired because these areas have altered vegetation due to past fire 

exlusion and land uses and high potential for invasion of exotic species such as cheatgrass. Introduction of 

these exotic species has changed the size and interval of fires and has altered the natural species composition 

of the sites disrupting the natural secession of the native plant communities. As a result, increased size and 

frequency of fires allows continued and increased disturbance to native plant communities, destroys wildlife 

habitat, and produces other adverse impacts to the ecosystem. Because the native species generally lack an 

ability to out-compete introduced and exotic species following a fire, rehabilitation projects are required to 

establish desirable vegetation and prevent soil loss and other undesirable natural consequences. Key 

examples include the salt desert shrub, black sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush shrub communities. 

Prescribed fire is generally not recommended in this category due to fire’s adverse environmental impacts. 

However, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments may be used to establish fuelbreaks and perform 

hazardous fuel reduction when the benefits of mitigating the potential for a large spreading fire outweigh the 

impacts of the fuels management project. Fire and non-fire treatments may be used as part of a restoration 

or rehabilitation program. 

Category B: Wildland fire would likely cause negative effects, but effects may be mitigated by management 

actions. 

Wildland fires in Category B produce similar adverse and harmful impacts as in Category A due to altered 

vegetation conditions in these areas. The general objective is to limit and suppress wildland fires within these 

areas. However, Category B areas may respond positively to properly managed and planned prescribed fires.. 

Prescribed fires and other fuel treatments (mechanical manipulation, seeding of less flammable and more 

desirable species, vegetation greenstripping, and other techniques) can improve vegetation diversity and/or 

revitalize plant communities through restoration and rehabilitation. Treatments may be used to reduce 

hazardous fuel loadings, thus mitigating and reducing the impacts should a wildland fire occur. The key 

examples are those areas where the absence of fires has resulted in replacement of diverse vegetation 

communities with monotypic stands of less desirable species. These areas include dense stands of juniper or 

decadent stands of Wyoming big sagebrush. These plant communities may have little vegetation and age class 

diversity, resulting in accumulations of hazardous and volatile fuels. 

Category C: Wildland fire is desired to manage ecosystems, but there are constraints. Wildland fire use is 

appropriate. 

The vegetation conditions are somewhat altered, but not to the degree in Categories A and B. The existing 

native vegetation would naturally re-vegetate after fire. Key ecosystem examples include juniper with 

perennial grasslands, aspen groves and Wyoming big sagebrush with perennial grasses, and other upper 
C-2 Appendix C November 2005 

elevation plant communities. Although these ecosystems benefit from both unplanned wildland fires and 

planned prescribed fires, use of either as a management tool may be limited by constraints. These constraints 

include threats to private property, smoke impacts, lack of manageable fire boundaries, political concerns, 

cultural resources, and sensitive species. The appropriate fire management response may utilize less 

aggressive suppression strategies and tactics that result in more acreage burned than under a more 

aggressive fire suppression response. 

Prescribed fire in these areas is desired to meet resource management objectives and reduce hazardous 

fuels. Fuels management would be necessary to define more manageable wildland fire boundaries, to protect 

and minimize the severity and impact of wildland fires on existing plant communities, and to protect values in 

adjacent units (i.e.: resource values, developments, etc.). Fuels management activities may involve prescribed 

fire, mechanical manipulation, fuelbreak development, and other management techniques. 

Category D: Wildland fire may burn with few constraints associated with resource conditions, social, 

economic, or political considerations. Wildland fire use is appropriate. 

The ecosystem response of these areas is similar to Category C, except there are fewer constraints to the 

use of fire. Most often the appropriate fire management response in these areas is to monitor the fire and let 

the fire play out its natural role in the ecosystem. There are few threats to resource values, improvements, 

or adjacent ownerships. Prescribed fire and non-fire fuel treatments would be used similarly to Category C. 
Appendix D 

Summary of Goals and Objectives by Fire Management Unit for 

the Vernal Proposed Action

November 2005 Appendix D D-1 

Summary of Goals and Objectives By Fire Management Unit for the 

Vernal Proposed Action 

Vernal FMU Total FMU Area (acres) Total BLM Area in FMU (acres) Per Occurrence Burn Acreage Ceiling 10 year Burn Acreage Ceiling Wildland Fire Use Prescribed Fire (10 year acreage estimates in veg type) Non-Fire Treatment (10-year acreage estimation veg type) 

Other Goals and 

Objectives 

A-1 River 

Corridors 87,324 52,287 2 CW 50 GW 

100 CW 

100 GW NA 1,000 TSK 

Determined 

on a sitespecific 

basis. 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading within 

and into adjacent 

cottonwood stands. 

A-2 

North 

Uintah 

Basin 

633,862 441,252 

50WBS 

10 SDS 

10 CG 

500 

WBS 

50 SDS 

50 CG 

N/A 1,000 

WBS 

Determined 

on a sitespecific 

basis. 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading into the 

salt desert shrub and 

sagebrush types. 

A-3 

Myton 

Bench 

(Pariette 

wet) 

168,415 149,025 50 WBS

10 SDS 

 500 

WBS 

50 SDS 

N/A 30-40 CT 

Determined 

on a sitespecific 

basis. 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading into the 

salt desert shrub and 

sagebrush types. Allow 

for burning of cattails 

at the various ponds 

and reservoirs at the 

Pariette Wetlands. 

Approximately 30-40 

acres of cattails would 

be ignited per year. 

Burning would occur 

during late winter, 

prior to green up. 

A-4 

South 

Uintah 

Basin 

108,490 80,146 50 WBS

10 SDS 

 500 

WBS 

50 SDS 

N/A 300 WBS 

Determined 

on a sitespecific 

basis. 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading into the 

salt desert shrub and 

sagebrush types. 

B-1 Dry 

Fork 42,452 17,477 25 5,000 N/A 500 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading to 

adjacent private lands 

where structures and 

other developments 

are located. 

B-2 

Browns 

Park 

17,993 14,697 25 WBS 500 

WBS N/A 500 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading to 

adjacent private lands 

where structures and 

other developments 

are located. 
D-2 Appendix E November 2005 Vernal FMU Total FMU Area (acres) Total BLM Area in FMU (acres) Per Occurrence Burn Acreage Ceiling 10 year Burn Acreage Ceiling Wildland Fire Use Prescribed Fire (10 year acreage estimates in veg type) Non-Fire Treatment (10-year acreage estimation veg type) 

Other Goals and 

Objectives 

B-3 Blue 

Mtn 

Plateau 

14,306 9,910 25 MS 500 MS N/A 500 500 

mechanical 

Prevent wildfires from 

spreading onto 

adjacent private lands 

on Taylor Flat, and to 

existing developments 

on public lands. 

B-4 

Lower 

Bookcliffs 

276,638 206,865 25 WBS 

25 PJ 

500 

WBS 

5000 PJ 

N/A 200 WBS 

500 PJ 

500 

mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading form 

the Pinyon-Juniper type 

to the adjacent 

Wyoming sagebrush 

types. 

B-5 

Deadman 

Bench 

59,471 52,953 25 WBS 

25 PJ 

500 

WBS 

500 PJ 

N/A 500 500 

mechanical 

Prevent wildfires from 

spreading to adjacent 

agency lands and to the 

oil and gas 

infrastructure 

development. 

Use non fire 

rehabilitation and 

restoration treatments 

to reduce the 

conversion of 

sagebrush to the annual 

cheatgrass type. 

B-6 

Lower 

Bitter 

Creek 

14,451 9,527 25 GW 1500 

GW N/A 130 GW 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildfires from 

spreading to adjacent 

agency lands and to the 

oil and gas 

infrastructure 

development. Use non 

fire rehabilitation and 

restoration treatments 

to reduce the 

conversion of 

greasewood to the 

annual cheatgrass type, 

and to convert the 

greasewood type back 

to the riparian/grassy 

bottom type. 

B-7 

Argyle 

Canyon 

64,539 12,422 100 500 N/A 100 500 

mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent private land. 
November 2005 Appendix D D-3 Vernal FMU Total FMU Area (acres) Total BLM Area in FMU (acres) Per Occurrence Burn Acreage Ceiling 10 year Burn Acreage Ceiling Wildland Fire Use Prescribed Fire (10 year acreage estimates in veg type) Non-Fire Treatment (10-year acreage estimation veg type) 

Other Goals and 

Objectives 

B-8 

Diamond 

Mtn 

43,121 16,044 25 3,500 N/A 350 300 

mechanical 

The desired mix of 

seral stages, sagebrush 

restoration/rehabilitati

on and 

woodland/forest 

management would be 

achieved through 

prescribed fire, & 

mechanical/chemical 

treatments. Prevent 

wildland fires from 

spreading onto 

adjacent private land. 

B-9 

Goslin 

Mtn 

13,996 12,054 25 MS 

200 PJ 500 N/A 500 100 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent private land. 

B-10 

Bender 

Mtn 

8,014 6,074 25 3,000 N/A 3,000 100 

mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent private land. 

C-1 East 

Diamond 

Mtn 

199,804 115,001 

25 

MS/WBS 

200 PJ 

10 PD 

3,000 As 

appropriate 3,000 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent private land. 

C-2 Little 

Mtn 23,332 16,205 25 MS 200 PJ 2,500 As appropriate 2,000 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent private land. 

C-3 

Three 

Corners 

16,160 9,602 200 3,000 As 

appropriate 1,750 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

C-4 

Upper 

Myton 

Bench 

149,054 124,525 200 10,000 As 

appropriate 1,750 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

C-5 Cliff 

Ridge 26,597 22,602 200 3,000 As appropriate 1,750 500 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 
D-4 Appendix E November 2005 Vernal FMU Total FMU Area (acres) Total BLM Area in FMU (acres) Per Occurrence Burn Acreage Ceiling 10 year Burn Acreage Ceiling Wildland Fire Use Prescribed Fire (10 year acreage estimates in veg type) Non-Fire Treatment (10-year acreage estimation veg type) 

Other Goals and 

Objectives 

C-6 

Upper 

Bookcliffs 

417,705 287,310 

25 FWS 

200 MS 

200 MB 

200 PJ 

200 

DFA 

20,000 

MB 

45,000 

PJ 

8,000 

DFA 

40,000 

MS 

As 

appropriate 113,000 1000 mechanical 

Aspen stands would be 

managed to maintain or 

enhance distribution, 

density, regeneration 

and sustainability and 

to favor regeneration 

of aspen where 

deemed appropriate. 

Stands would be 

managed for 

maintenance or 

enhancement using a 

variety of methods 

including harvest 

cutting or burning. 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

C-7 

Antelope 

Flat 

15,182 13,888 

200 

WBS 

200 PJ 

750 

WBS 

2000 PJ 

As 

appropriate 2,500 P/J 2,000 WBS 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

C-8 Red 

Mtn 28,065 12,040 

50 WBS 

5 PD 

100 PJ 

1,000 PJ 

(700 

target) 

100 PD 

500 

WBS 

As 

appropriate 200 100 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

the private land in the 

Spring Creek drainage. 

C-9 Leers 

Canyon 

ACEC 

1,411 1,411 200 PJ 

50 DF 

100 Df 

500 PJ 

As 

appropriate 200 100 mechanical 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

D-1 

Winter 

Ridge 

WSA 

45,971 42,763 

200 

WBS 

200 PJ 

1,000 

WBS 

5,000 PJ 

As 

appropriate 5,000 Not appropriate 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

D-2 W 

Cold 

Springs 

WSA 

3,296 3,296 100 MS 

200 PJ 

1,000 

MS 

2000 PJ 

As 

appropriate 1,500 Not appropriate 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

D-3 

Diamond 

Breaks 

WSA 

3,801 3,801 100 MS 

200 PJ 

1,000 

MS 

2,000 PJ 

As 

appropriate 1,600 Not appropriate 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 
November 2005 Appendix D D-5 Vernal FMU Total FMU Area (acres) Total BLM Area in FMU (acres) Per Occurrence Burn Acreage Ceiling 10 year Burn Acreage Ceiling Wildland Fire Use Prescribed Fire (10 year acreage estimates in veg type) Non-Fire Treatment (10-year acreage estimation veg type) 

Other Goals and 

Objectives 

D-4 

Daniels 

Canyon 

WSA 

2,488 2,488 100 MS 

500 PJ 

1,000 

MS 

2,000 PJ 

As 

appropriate 1,500 Not appropriate 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

D-5 Bull 

Canyon 

WSA 

581 581 20 WBS 

100 PJ 

100 

WBS 

400 PJ 

As 

appropriate 1,600 Not appropriate 

Prevent wildland fires 

from spreading onto 

adjacent non-federal 

lands. 

TOTAL 

ACRES 2,486,519 1,736,246 5,327 178,350 146,470 9,700 

Abbreviated Vegetation Types: PJ-pinyon and juniper woodland, WBS-Wyoming big sage, MS-sagebrush, SDS-salt desert shrub, PDponderosa, TSK-tamarisk infested, FWS-four-wing sagebrush, MB-mountain browse, DFA-Douglas fir-aspen, GW-greasewood, CWcottonwood

Appendix E 

Resource Protection Measures Applied to Specific Fire 

Management Units for the Vernal Proposed Action 

November 2005 Appendix E E-1 

Resource Protection Measures Applied to Specific Fire Management Units for the Vernal 

Proposed Action 

Abbreviaitons for fire management actions: 

SUP: Wildfire Supression NF: Non-fire fules treatments 

WFU: Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

RX: Prescribed Fire 

CODE 

Protection Measures 

(and applicable fire 

management practices) 

A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 

Air Quality

A-1 Evaluate weather conditions, 

including wind speed and 

atmospheric stability, to 

predict impacts from smoke 

from Prescribed Fires and 

Wildland Fire Use. 

Coordinate with Utah 

Department of 

Environmental Quality for 

Prescribed Fires and 

Wildland Fire Use. (RX, 

WFU) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

A-2 When using chemical fuels 

reduction methods, follow 

all label requirements for 

herbicide application. (NF) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Cultural Resources 

CR-1 Cultural resource advisors 

should be contacted when 

fires occur in areas 

containing sensitive cultural 

resources. (SUP) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

CR-2 Wildland Fire Use is 

discouraged in areas 

containing sensitive cultural 

resources. A Programmatic 

Agreement is being 

prepared between the Utah 

State Historic Preservation 

Office, BLM, and the 

Advisory Council to cover 

the finding of adverse effects 

to cultural resources 

associated with Wildland 

Fire Use. (WFU) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
E-2 Appendix E November 2005 

CR-4 The implementation of 

ground-disturbing Wildland 

Fire Suppression activities 

and Wildland Fire Use will 

be prohibited or curtailed in 

areas where significant and 

sensitive cultural resource 

sites are known or 

suspected to occur. The 

application of fire retardant 

will be prohibited in areas 

known or suspected to 

contain rock art. (SUP, 

WFU) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

CR-5 If prudent and feasible, areas 

of traditional cultural 

concern to Native American 

groups will be protected 

during Wildland Fire 

Suppression activities. If 

areas of traditional cultural 

concern are impacted by 

Wildland Fires or Wildland 

Fire Suppression, the BLM 

would work with affected 

parties to mitigate impacts. 

(WFU, RX, SUP) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

CR-6 If Native American human 

remains are discovered on 

BLM lands during Wildland 

Fire Suppression, Wildland 

Fire Use, Prescribed Fire, 

Non-Fire fuels treatments, 

and Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation activities, 

the BLM will follow 

procedures identified in the 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act and 43 CFR Part 10. If 

BLM fire suppression 

activities or Emergency 

Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation activities 

extend onto private or state 

land, and Native American 

human remains are 

discovered, the provisions of

the appropriate state laws 

will be adhered to. (SUP, 

WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
November 2005 Appendix E E-3 

CR-7 Previously unidentified 

cultural resources that are 

identified during the course 

of project implementation 

will be avoided until they are

documented, evaluated, 

appropriate notification 

procedures have been 

accomplished, and proper 

management 

recommendations and 

requirements have been 

agreed upon. (SUP, WFU, 

RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Invasive, Nonnative Species 

INV-1 In areas known to have 

weed infestations, aggressive 

action should be taken in 

rehabilitating fire lines, 

seeding and follow-up 

monitoring and treatment to 

reduce the spread of 

noxious weeds. Monitor 

burned areas and treat as 

necessary. All seed used will 

be tested for purity and for 

noxious weeds. Seed with 

noxious weeds will be 

rejected (ROD 13 Western 

States Vegetation Treatment 

EIS 1991). (SUP, WFU, RX, 

NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Native American Religious Concerns 

NAT-1 Consultation will be 

completed on a site-by-site 

basis. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, 

ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species (Plants and Animals)

END-1 Initiate emergency Section 7 

consultation with United 

States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) upon the 

determination that Wildfire 

Suppression may pose a 

potential threat to any listed 

threatened or endangered 

species or adverse 

modification of designated 

critical habitat. (SUP) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

END-2 Prior to planned fire 

management actions, survey 

for listed threatened and 

endangered and non-listed 

sensitive species. Initiate 

Section 7 consultation with 

USFWS as necessary if 

proposed project may affect 

any listed species. Review 

appropriate management, 

conservation, and recovery 

plans and include recovery 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
E-4 Appendix E November 2005 

plan direction into project 

proposals. For non-listed 

special status plant and 

animal species, follow the 

direction contained in the 

BLM 6840 Manual. Ensure 

that any proposed project 

conserves non-listed 

sensitive species and their 

habitats and ensure that any 

action authorized, funded or 

carried out by BLM does not

contribute to the need for 

any species to become 

listed. (RX, NF, ESR) 

END-3 See site-specific 

conservation measures 

identified in the Biological 

Assessment. (SUP, WFU, 

RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Wastes (Hazardous or solid) 

HW-1 Recognize hazardous wastes 

and move fire to a safe 

distance from dumped 

chemicals, unexploded 

ordnance, drug labs, wire 

burn sites, or any other 

hazardous wastes. 

Immediately notify BLM 

Field Office hazmat 

coordinator or state hazmat 

coordinator upon discovery 

of any hazardous materials, 

following the BLM 

hazardous materials 

contingency plan. (SUP, 

WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Water Quality (Drinking/Ground) 

SW-1 When using chemical fuel 

reduction treatments follow 

all label directions, additional

mitigations identified in 

project NEPA evaluation, 

and the Approved Pesticide 

Use Proposal. At a 

minimum, provide a 100-

foot-wide riparian buffer 

strip for aerial application, 

25 feet for vehicle 

application and 10 feet for 

hand application. Any 

deviations must be in 

accordance with the label. 

Herbicides would be applied 

to individual plants within 10 

feet of water where 

application is critical (BLM 

ROD 13 Western States 

Vegetation Treatment EIS 

1991). (NF) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
November 2005 Appendix E E-5 

SW-2 Suppress wildfires 

consistently with compliance 

strategies for restoring or 

maintaining the restoration 

of water quality impaired 

[303(d) listed] water bodies. 

Do not use retardant within 

300 feet of water bodies. 

(SUP, WFU) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

SW-3 Plan and implement projects 

consistent with compliance 

strategies for restoring or 

maintaining the restoration 

of water quality impaired 

[303(d) listed] water bodies. 

Planned activities should 

take into account the 

potential impacts on water 

quality, including increased 

water yields that can 

threaten fisheries and 

aquatic habitat; 

improvements at channel 

crossings; channel stability; 

and downstream values. Of 

special concern are small 

headwaters of moderate to 

steep watersheds, erosive or

saline soils, multiple channel 

crossings, at-risk fisheries, 

and downstream residents. 

(RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

SW-4 Plan and implement projects 

taking into account the 

potential impacts on water 

quality, including increased 

water yields that can 

threaten fisheries and 

aquatic habitat, 

improvements at channel 

crossings, channel stability, 

and downstream values. Of 

special concern are small 

headwaters of moderate to 

steep watersheds, erosive 

soils, multiple channel 

crossings, at-risk fisheries, 

and downstream residents. 

(SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

SW-5 Consider monitoring of 

water quality parameters 

and channel conditions 

following fire or other 

treatments. (WFU, RX, NF, 

ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Wetlands/Riparian Zones 

WET-1 Avoid heavy equipment in 

riparian or wetland areas. 

During Wildfire Suppression 

or Wildland Fire Use, 

consult a resource advisor 

before using heavy 

equipment in riparian or 

wetland areas. (SUP, WFU, 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
E-6 Appendix E November 2005 

RX, NF, ESR) 

WET-2 Limit ignition within native 

riparian or wetland areas. 

Allow low-intensity fire to 

burn into riparian areas. 

(RX) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas 

WILD-1 The use of earthmoving 

equipment must be 

authorized by the field office 

manager. (SUP, WFU, RX, 

ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

WILD-2 Fire management actions will

rely on the most effective 

methods of suppression that 

are least damaging to 

wilderness values, other 

resources, and the 

environment, while requiring

the least expenditure of 

public funds. (SUP, WFU) 

X X X X X 

WILD-3 A resource advisor should 

be consulted when fire 

occurs in Wilderness and 

WSA. (SUP, WFU) 

 X X X X X 

WILD-4 Minimum Impact 

Suppression Tactics must be 

employed in this FMU to 

preserve the Wilderness 

Study Unit present. (SUP) 

 X X X X X 

WILD-5 Restoration and 

rehabilitation techniques will 

be developed that are 

consistent with guidelines 

described in BLM Handbook 

8550-1 Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review. (ESR) 

X X X X X 

Rangeland Health Standards 

and Guidelines 

R-1 Rangelands that have been 

burned, by Wildfire, 

Prescribed Fire or Wildland 

Fire Use, will be ungrazed 

for a minimum of one 

complete growing season 

following the burn. (SUP, 

WFU, RX) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

R-2 Rangelands that have been 

reseeded or otherwise 

treated to alter vegetative 

composition, chemically or 

mechanically, will be 

ungrazed for a minimum of 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
November 2005 Appendix E E-7 

two complete growing 

seasons. (RX, NF, ESR) 

Livestock Grazing 

LG-1 Coordinate with permittees 

regarding the requirements 

for nonuse or rest of 

treated areas. (SUP, WFU, 

RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Woodland and Forestry 

WF-1 Planned projects should be 

consistent with HFRA 

Section 102(e) (2) to 

maintain or contribute to 

the restoration of oldgrowth stands to a pre-fire 

suppression condition and 

to retain large trees 

contributing to old-growth 

structure. (SUP, WFU, RX, 

NF) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

WF-2 During planning, evaluate 

opportunities to utilize 

forest and woodland 

products prior to 

implementing Prescribed 

Fire activities. Include 

opportunities to use forest 

and woodland product sales 

to accomplish non-fire fuels 

treatments. In forest and 

woodland stands, consider 

developing silvicultural 

prescriptions concurrently 

with fuel treatment 

prescriptions. (RX, NF) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Vegetation 

V-1 When restoring or 

rehabilitating disturbed 

rangelands, nonintrusive, 

nonnative plant species are 

appropriate for use when 

native species 1) are not 

available, 2) are not 

economically feasible, 3) 

cannot achieve ecological 

objectives as well as 

nonnative species, and/or 4) 

cannot compete with 

already established native 

species (Noxious Weeds 

Executive Order 13112 

2/3/1999; BLM Manual 9015; 

BLM ROD 13 Western 

States Vegetation Treatment 

EIS 1991). (RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Fish and Wildlife 
E-8 Appendix E November 2005 

FW-1 Avoid treatments during 

nesting, fawning, spawning, 

or other critical periods for 

wildlife or fish. (RX, NF, 

ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

FW-2 Avoid if possible, or limit the

size of, wildland fires in 

important wildlife habitats 

such as mule deer winter 

range and riparian and 

occupied sage-grouse 

habitats. Use resource 

advisors to help prioritize 

resources and develop 

Wildland Fire Situation 

Analyses (WFSAs) and 

Wildland Fire 

Implementation Plans 

(WFIPs) when important 

habitats may be impacted. 

(SUP, WFU) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FW-3 Minimize wildfire size and 

frequency in sagebrush 

communities where sage 

grouse habitat objectives will

not be met if a fire occurs. 

Prioritize Wildfire 

Suppression in sagebrush 

habitat with an understory 

of invasive, annual species. 

Retain unburned islands and 

patches of sagebrush unless 

there are compelling safety, 

private property and 

resource protection, or 

control objectives at risk. 

Minimize burn-out 

operations (to minimize 

burned acres) in occupied 

sage-grouse habitats when 

there are no threats to 

human life and/or important 

resources. (SUP) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FW-4 Establish fuel treatment 

projects at strategic 

locations to minimize size of 

wildfires and to limit further 

loss of sagebrush. fuels 

treatments may include 

greenstripping to help 

reduce the spread of 

wildfires into sagebrush 

communities. (RX, NF) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FW-5 Use Wildland Fire to meet 

wildlife objectives. Evaluate 

impacts to sage-grouse 

habitat in areas where 

Wildland Fire Use for 

Resource Benefit may be 

implemented. (WFU, RX) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
November 2005 Appendix E E-9 

FW-6 Create small openings in 

continuous or dense 

sagebrush (>30% canopy 

cover) to create a mosaic of 

multiple-age classes and 

associated understory 

diversity across the 

landscape to benefit 

sagebrush-dependent 

species. (WFU, RX, NF) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

FW-7 On sites that are currently 

occupied by forests or 

woodlands, but historically 

supported sagebrush 

communities, implement 

treatments (fire, cutting, 

chaining, seeding, etc.) to 

reestablish sagebrush 

communities. (RX, NF) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FW-8 Evaluate and monitor 

burned areas and continue 

management restrictions 

until the recovering and/or 

seeded plant community 

reflects the desired 

condition. (SUP, WFU, RX, 

ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FW-9 Utilize the Emergency 

Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation program to 

apply appropriate post-fire 

treatments within crucial 

wildlife habitats, including 

sage-grouse habitats. 

Minimize seeding with 

nonnative species that may 

create a continuous 

perennial grass cover and 

restrict establishment of 

native vegetation. Seed 

mixtures should be designed 

to reestablish important 

seasonal habitat components 

for sage-grouse. Leks should 

not be reseeded with plants 

that change the vegetation 

height previously found on 

the lek. Forbs should be 

stressed in early and late 

brood-rearing habitats. In 

situations of limited funds 

for ESR actions, prioritize 

rehabilitation of sage-grouse 

habitats. (ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FW-10 Seed mixtures should be 

designed to reestablish 

important seasonal habitat 

components for sagegrouse. Leks should not be 

reseeded with plants that 

change the vegetation height 

previously found on the lek. 

Forbs should be stressed in 

early and late brood-rearing 

habitats. In situations of 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
E-10 Appendix E November 2005 

limited funds for ESR 

actions, prioritize 

rehabilitation of sage-grouse 

habitats. (ESR) 

FW-11 Vegetation treatments 

would consider the Western

Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies () 

Guidelines for Management 

of Sage Grouse Populations 

and Habitats and State and 

Local Conservation Plans. 

This is in accordance with 

the Memorandum of 

Understanding among 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land 

Management and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

regarding sage-grouse 

management. (WFU, RX, 

NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Soils 

S-1 Avoid heavy equipment use 

on highly erosive soils (soils 

with low soil loss tolerance), 

wet or boggy soils, and 

slopes greater than 30%, 

unless otherwise analyzed 

and allowed under 

appropriate NEPA 

evaluation with 

implementation of additional 

erosion control and other 

soil protection mitigation 

measures. (SUP, WFU, RX, 

NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

S-2 There may be situations 

where high intensity fire will 

occur on sensitive and 

erosive soil types during 

Wildland Fire, Wildland Fire 

Use, or Prescribed Fire. If 

significant areas of soil show 

evidence of high severity 

fire, then evaluate area for 

soil erosion potential and 

downstream values at risk 

and implement appropriate 

or necessary soil 

stabilization actions such as 

mulching or seeding to avoid 

excessive wind and water 

erosion. (SUP, WFU, RX) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

S-3 Complete necessary 

rehabilitation on fire lines or 

other areas of direct soil 

disturbance, including but 

not limited to waterbarring 

fire lines, covering and 

mulching fire lines with slash,

tilling and/or subsoiling 

compacted areas, 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
November 2005 Appendix E E-11 

scarification of vehicle 

tracks, OHV closures, and 

seeding and/or mulching for 

erosion protection. (SUP, 

WFU, RX) 

S-4 When using mechanical fuel 

reduction treatments, limit 

tractor and heavy equipment

use to periods of low soil 

moisture to reduce the risk 

of soil compaction. If this is 

not practical, evaluate sites, 

post treatment, and if 

necessary, implement 

appropriate remediation, 

such as subsoiling, as part of 

the operation. (NF) 

 

S-5 Treatments such as chaining, 

plowing, and roller chopping 

shall be conducted as much 

as practical on the contour 

to reduce soil erosion (BLM 

ROD 13 Western States 

Vegetation Treatment EIS 

1991). (NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

S-6 Scarification of tracks caused

by repeated cross country 

driving during suppression 

would lead to scarification, 

mechanical, and material 

reclamation to prevent 

travel on constructed 

firelines and a rest period 

(OHV closure) following 

fires as per management 

discretion. 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Recreation 

REC-1 Wildland Fire Suppression 

efforts will preferentially 

protect Special Recreation 

Management Areas and 

recreation site infrastructure

in line with fire management 

goals and objectives. (SUP) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

REC-2 Vehicle tracks created off of 

established routes would be 

obliterated after fire 

management actions in 

order to reduce 

unauthorized OHV travel. 

(SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Geology/Mineral Resources 

M-1 A safety buffer should be 

maintained between fire 

management activities and 

at-risk facilities. (SUP, WFU, 

RX) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
E-12 Appendix E November 2005 

Paleontology

P-1 Planned projects should be 

consistent with BLM Manual 

and Handbook H-8270-1, 

Chapter III (A) and III (B) to 

avoid areas where significant 

fossils are known or 

predicted to occur or to 

provide for other mitigation 

of possible adverse effects. 

(RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

P-2 In the event that 

paleontological resources 

are discovered in the course 

of surface fire management 

activities, including fire 

suppression, efforts should 

be made to protect these 

resources. (SUP, WFU, RX, 

NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Lands/Access 

LR-1 Fire management practices 

would be designed to avoid 

or otherwise ensure the 

protection of authorized 

rights-of-way and other 

facilities located on the 

public lands, including 

coordination with holders of 

major rights-of-way systems 

within rights-of-way 

corridors and 

communication sites. (WFU, 

RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

LR-2 Fire management actions 

must not destroy, deface, 

change, or remove to 

another place any 

monument or witness tree 

of the Public Land Survey 

System. (SUP, WFU, RX, 

NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Wild Horses and Burros 

WHB-1 Avoid fencing that would 

restrict access to water. 

(RX, NF, ESR) 

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 
Appendix F 

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Found Within 

the Vernal Planning Area 

November 2005 Appendix F F-1 

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Found Within the Vernal Planning Area 

Common Namea Scientific Name Federal Statusb 

Vegetation Community (Substrate 

Type identified for Flowering Plants 

only)

Shrubby reed-mustard Schoencrambe 

suffrutescens Endangered Salt desert shrub; pinyon and juniper 

woodland; mountain shrub (calcareous shale)

Clay reed-mustard Schoencrambe 

argillacea Threatened Salt desert shrub (shale) 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus Sclerocactus glaucus Threatened Salt desert shrub (gravelly loam) 

Ute ladies’-tresses (H) Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Riparian/wetland (hanging gardens) 

Horseshoe milk-vetch Astragalus equisolensis Candidate Salt desert shrub; sagebrush (sandy) 

Graham’s beardtongue Penstemon grahamii Candidate Salt desert shrub; pinyon and juniper 

woodland (shale) 

White River beardtongue Penstemon scariosus 

var. albifluvis Candidate Salt desert shrub; pinyon and juniper woodland (shale) 

Bald eagle (Br) Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus Threatened Sagebrush; mixed conifer; riparian/wetland 

Mexican spotted owl* (Br) Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Pinyon and juniper woodland; sagebrush; 

riparian/wetland 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Riparian/wetland 

Black-footed ferret 

(H, Exp, Un) Mustela nigripes Endangered, 10(j) Sagebrush; grassland 

Canada lynx (H) Lynx canadensis Threatened Mixed conifer 

Humpback chub* (H) Gila cypha Endangered Water 

Bonytail* (H) Gila elegans Endangered Water 

Colorado pikeminnow 

(=squawfish)* (H) Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Water 

Razorback sucker* (H) Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Water 

a Definitions for notations: 

* Species with designated critical habitat. 

** Species with proposed critical habitat. 

Br – Species known to nest or breed within the planning area. 

H – Species or populations existed in historical locations (i.e., the current range or number of individuals or 

populations has decreased when compared to historical standards). For extirpated species, all management areas 

are considered historical. 

Exp – Management areas contain designated use areas for experimental, nonessential populations designated under 

Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended. 

I – Management areas contain introduced, refugia populations of the species. 

Un – Management areas contain unconfirmed historical locations of the species. b Definitions for species status:

Endangered Species – Species or distinct populations listed by USFWS that have a probability of worldwide extinction. 

Threatened Species – Species or distinct populations listed by USFWS that are threatened with becoming endangered. 

Candidate and Petitioned Species – No legal protection under ESA, as amended. However, USFWS has sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threats to candidate species that they are under active consideration by 

USFWS for federal listing. For petitioned species, outside entities have submitted petitions to USFWS to consider 

these species for federal listing. Candidate or petitioned species could be proposed or listed during the life of the 

proposed action for this project. 

10(j) Species – Considered by the USFWS to be “experimental and non-essential populations” within designated use 

areas in Utah, as provided by Section 10(j) of the ESA, as amended. This designation provides greater management 

flexibility. For BLM, 10(j) populations of federally listed species are equivalent to a “proposed” status. 

Extirpated Species – Federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species considered by USFWS to no longer 

occur in Utah. 

Appendix G 

BLM Sensitive Species Found Within the Vernal Planning Area

November 2005 Appendix G G-1 

BLM Sensitive Species Found Within the Vernal Planning Area 

Common Namea Scientific Name Federal 

Statusb 

Vegetation Community (Substrate type 

identified for flowering plants only)

Park rockcress Arabis vivariensis SPS Salt desert shrub; pinyon and juniper 

woodland (limestone, sandstone) 

Hamilton milk-vetch Astragalus hamiltonii SPS Salt desert shrub; pinyon and juniper 

woodland (sandy) 

Ownbey thistle Cirsium ownbeyi SPS Pinyon and juniper woodland; sagebrush; 

riparian/wetland (sandy) 

Untermann daisy Erigeron untermanii SPS 

Pinyon and juniper woodland; sagebrush; 

mountain shrub; mixed conifer (calcareous, 

sandstone, shale) 

Alcove bog-orchid Habenaria zothecina SPS Riparian/wetland (hanging gardens) 

Rock hymenoxys Hymenoxys lapidicola SPS 

Pinyon and juniper woodland; mountain 

shrub; ponderosa pine 

(rocks/crevices/ledges, sandstone, sandy) 

Huber’s pepperweed Lepidium huberi SPS Sagebrush; mountain shrub; mixed conifer; 

ponderosa pine (sandy) 

Stemless penstemon Penstemon acaulis SPS Pinyon and juniper woodland; sagebrush 

(clay, sandy) 

Flowers penstemon Penstemon flowersii SPS Salt desert shrub (clay) 

Gibbens penstemon 

(Gibbens beardtongue) Penstemon gibbensii SPS Salt desert shrub; pinyon and juniper 

woodland (clay, shale) 

Goodrich penstemon 

(Goodrich beartongue) Penstemon goodrichii SPS Salt desert shrub; pinyon and juniper 

woodland; mountain shrub (clay) 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles CA Mixed conifer; riparian/wetland 

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum WSC Grassland 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia WSC Grassland 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WSC Sagebrush; grassland 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus WSC Riparian/wetland 

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis WSC 

Pinyon and juniper woodland; mountain 

shrub; mixed conifer; ponderosa pine; 

riparian/wetland 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WSC Grassland 

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos WSC Riparian/wetland 

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus WSC Salt desert shrub; sagebrush; grassland 

Three-toed 

woodpecker Picoides tridactylus WSC Mixed conifer; aspen 

Greater sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus WSC Sagebrush 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat Corynorhinus townsendii WSC Mountain shrub; mixed conifer 

White-tailed prairie 

dog Cynomys leucurus WSC Sagebrush 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus CA Water 

Roundtail chub Gila robusta CA Water 

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus CA Water 

Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis CA Water 

Smooth greensnake Opheodrys vernalis WSC Sagebrush; riparian/wetland 

a Species already represented as federally listed, candidate, or petitioned species are not repeated here. Sources of information: 

UDEQ 2003; BLM 2002b. 

b BLM sensitive species status designations are CA: Conservation Agreement, WSC: Wildlife Species of Concern, and SPS: Sensitive 

Plant Species. CA species receive special management under a CA to preclude the need for listing. 

Appendix H 

Fire’s Interaction with Resources 

November 2005 Appendix H H-1 

Fire’s Interaction with Resources 

Fire’s Interaction with Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

In many cases, fire is a natural part of the character of an area. However, fire could damage or destroy the 

relevant and important values for which each area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) was originally 

designated. (See the Cultural Resources, Special Status Species, Vegetation, and Fish and Wildlife sections of 

Chapter 4.) These disturbances, with some exceptions, would often be temporary and short-term, while 

relevant and important values are assessed on a long-term scale. 

Fire’s Interaction with Cultural Resources 

An understanding of how fire affects cultural resources is necessary in order to analyze the impact of 

proposed management actions covered in Chapter 4. These interactions are context-dependent and vary by 

temperature and duration of exposure to heat. Generally, higher temperatures and/or longer duration of 

exposure to heat increase the potential for damage to cultural resources. Variables that affect temperature 

and duration include type of fuel, fuel load and distribution, fuel moisture and soil type and moisture. As a 

rule, fire does not affect buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few centimeters of soil cover (10 

cm) are sufficient to protect cultural materials (Oster n.d.). However, there are times when conditions do 

carry heat below the surface, with the potential to affect buried materials. These conditions include stumps, 

heavy duff, surface logs, and roots that smolder and burn. Fires that burn hot and fast through a site may 

have less of an affect on certain types of cultural materials than fires that smolder in the duff or logs that burn 

for a period of time. 

Prehistoric and historic resources potentially affected by fire may be inorganic (lithic, ceramics, cans, glass, 

rock art, etc.) or organic (basketry, wooden structures, dendroglyphs, etc.). Certain resources that are 

important for dating archaeological sites may also be affected. Generally, organic materials are more at risk as 

they tend to burn or alter at lower temperatures than inorganic items. 

Fire can affect chipped and groundstone tools through changes in morphology rather than in chemistry. 

Exposure to heat and rapid cooling may cause fracturing, potlidding, crazing, shattering, and changes in color 

and internal luster, which might reduce an artifact’s ability to render information about the past. Deal (n.d.), 

Buenger (2003), Loyd et al. (2002), Shackley and Dillian (2002), and Waechter (n.d.) provide data concerning 

the effects of temperature on obsidian, various silicates (including chert), basalt, and sandstone used for 

groundstone. Generally, hotter temperatures and longer exposure to fire may affect lithic materials. It may 

be necessary to take protective measures when these materials are likely to be present. 

Different types of clays, inclusions and manufacturing techniques lead to different effects among distinct 

ceramic types. Heat damage is not as significant a consideration for this artifact type as it is for others. 

Generally, structural damage does not occur until temperatures exceed the original firing temperature. The 

main type of damage noted is to the surface decoration or glaze (Andrews 2004; Rude and Jones n.d.). Pyne 

et al. (1996) suggest that when fires remain below 500° C and occur within 30 minutes (as is typical for 

prescribed burns), little damage to artifacts and resources even at shallow depths is likely to occur. 

Inorganic historic artifacts are generally safe from fire, but some artifacts such as soldered cans may melt at 

temperatures as low as 137 to 177° C (Haecker n.d). Can morphology may be damaged and ceramic artifacts 

may crackle or spall in lower temperature fires. Other materials, such as machinery utilized in historic mining, 

are less susceptible. Inorganic structures constructed of sandstone, adobe, cement-mortared fieldstone, 

firebrick, cinder block or cement aggregate are generally fire-resistant. Fracturing and spalling may occur at 

700° C (Buenger 2003). Wooden sub-structures (common in adobe structures) would be destroyed, possibly 

compromising the structure as a whole. Historic earthworks such as trails, roads, irrigation ditches, canals, 

etc. are less sensitive to fire. 
H-2 Appendix H November 2005

 

Fire has the potential to damage to rock art. Though there are no specific temperature guidelines for rock 

art, fire effects include soot smudging and discoloration from smoke, which obscure the rock art images; 

degradation of the rock surface from spalling, exfoliation and increased weathering; changes in organic paints 

due to heat; and damage to rock varnish which may destroy its potential to date the art (Tratebas 2004; 

Kelly and McCarthy 2001). 

Organic artifacts (e.g., basketry, digging sticks, clothing, textiles) and features (e.g., structures, bow-stave 

trees, wikiups, culturally modified trees, historic timber structures) made of or containing organics such as 

wood, leather and hide or cordage need protection or treatment before any fire burns through a site 

containing such items. Bone and shell can sustain some degree of burning without complete destruction 

(Buenger 2003). Plant and animal residues may survive exposure to fire. Pollen may be destroyed at 

temperatures greater than 300° C (572° F), but animal proteins survive to 800° C (1472° F). 

Determining temporal context is an important part of archaeology. Fire has the potential to adversely impact 

the dating potential of archaeological data. Fire is likely to destroy organic material such as bone, wood or 

charcoal that yield radiocarbon dates. Fire can modify or destroy obsidian hydration rinds, thus 

compromising obsidian hydration dates (Deal n.d.; Buenger 2003; Loyd et al. 2002; Shackley and Dillian 2002; 

Solomon 2002). Finally, temperatures that exceed original firing temperatures (generally 400° C) would 

destroy the potential for thermoluminessence dating of ceramics (Rude and Jones n.d.). 

Fire's Interactions with Floodplain Resources 

Direct effects of fire on floodplains are primarily associated with loss (burning) of vegetation that may be 

growing on the floodplain. Damage to vegetation may result in the loss of root structure, therefore resulting 

in reduced channel stability and changes in the stream flow paths and erosion rates. Indirect impacts to 

floodplains from fire include the potential for increased sediment transport rates, deposition of soil, and 

changes to water quality due to upstream watershed events. Impacts to floodplains due to fire may be closely 

associated with effects of fire on soil and water, as discussed in the Soils and Water Quality sections of 

Chapter 4. 

Fire’s Interaction with Invasive and Non-Native Species 

Musk thistle is spreading into sagebrush and pinyon and juniper woodland types. Following fire, musk thistle 

produces abundant seed. Fire creates conditions that are favorable to the establishment of musk thistle (i.e. 

open canopy, reduced competition, areas of bare soil), making it likely to spread if seeds are present. 

In Utah, houndstongue may be found in sagebrush, pinyon and juniper woodland, cottonwood, mountain 

shrub, aspen, and ponderosa pine communities. Fire creates conditions that are favorable for establishment 

of houndstongue (i.e. open canopy, reduced competition, areas of bare soil), so if houndstongue seeds are 

present and competition minimal, it may be favored in the post-fire community. Houndstongue plants may 

also survive fire, since nutrient reserves in the taproot acquired during the first year are sufficient for normal 

seed production the following year, even if the plants are completely defoliated early in the spring. 

Black henbane is toxic to humans and animals when ingested. Plants sprout when the seed are exposed to 

sunlight and is mostly found in disturbed areas. Like most invasive, non-natives, fire creates favorable 

conditions for the proliferation and spread of this plant. 

Wherever cheatgrass or red brome dominate, the prevailing fire regime condition class (FRCC) is 3 due to 

the loss of key ecosystem components such as native species. The establishment of these invasive grasses 

fosters much more frequent fire-return intervals. The presence of grass in a wildland community extends the 

time during which the community is susceptible to wildland fire ignitions. In the summer, cheatgrass dries out 
November 2005 Appendix H H-3 

four to six weeks earlier than perennial grasses and forms a fine-textured, highly flammable fuel. Cheatgrass 

may also be susceptible to fire one to two months longer in the fall (Paysen et. al. 2000). Dead culms and 

stems of red brome may persist on the average for two years, promoting fast, hot fires where abundant. 

It is expected that as tamarisk continues to increase, desirable native communities such as willows would 

decrease, resulting in lower biodiversity, inferior wildlife habitat, t and shortened fire intervals. Tamarisk does 

provide, however, streambank stability. 

Because it is considered a halophyte, tamarisk is better adapted to persist in an environment of frequent fires 

than native willows (soil salinity tends to increase following fire). Even though tamarisk foliage has a high salt 

and water content, making it somewhat inflammable, it builds up senescent woody material within its 

branches, resulting in increased flammability. This combined with repeated fire disturbance results in 

impenetrable thickets that shade-out native plants like willows, which require direct sunlight. 

The response of knapweeds to fire is unclear and appears to differ regionally, by density of infestation, the 

time of year, and the severity of fire (Tirmenstein 1999). Even if they are top-killed by fire, which may 

weaken the plant, it is likely they would still survive due to their long taproots (in the case of Russian 

knapweed these roots can penetrate over 23 feet deep). They accomplish this by re-sprouting from the 

taproot if the root crown is not killed. In addition, if any infested areas are left unburned, they readily 

establish in burned areas by dispersing seed through a tumbleweed action. They appear to be most 

vulnerable to fire in the seedling and rosette stages. 

Fire’s Interaction with Native American Religious Concerns 

The presence of fire prehistorically and historically in the planning area is an integral part of the landscape 

and by association the traditional belief system of Native Americans. Fire in its natural form, where the 

occurrence of more but lower severity events are more typical relative to current events, represent a 

continuation of the cycle of life intertwined in Native American beliefs. Both high- and low-severity fires have 

the potential to impact the physical characteristics of features considered part of Native American religions. 

These may include destruction of constructed features and changes to the visual characteristics of a place 

important to a Native American belief system. The occurrence of high-severity fires would increase the 

chance that these changes would be longer lasting and alter the properties to a greater degree. 

Fire’s Interaction with Special Status Species 

Effects of fire on special status species and their habitat vary widely depending upon the size and intensity of 

the fire, fuel type, location, topography, season, and duration. High-severity wind and fire can destroy large 

areas of habitat and make recovery of those habitats a long process. Both low- and high-severity wildland fire 

can destroy important habitat, displace animal species, and inflict direct mortality. However, low-severity 

fires have greater potential to enhance and sustain a more natural and beneficial habitat. 

Fire's Interaction with Surface Water Resources 

Watersheds denuded by wildland fire are subject to accelerated soil erosion, reduced soil moisture, poor 

plant growth, and the loss of other ecosystem components. Wildland fire can also increase water 

temperature, alter stream channel morphology, affect floodplain functions and values, and increase nutrient 

and sediment loads to downstream waters. Sediment from accelerated soil erosion and elevated levels of 

nitrogen and phosphorous from ash are common in water after wildland fires (NWCG 2001). 

Wildland fires reduce vegetation cover, especially in the short term, which intercepts precipitation before it 

hits the soil surface. The lack of vegetation cover on burned areas could allow precipitation to increase 

surface runoff, soil loss, and sediment input to surface waters. These sites could also have lower soil-water 
H-4 Appendix H November 2005

 

infiltration rates, which increase surface runoff and decrease soil moisture available for plants. The seasonal 

timing, size, duration, and severity of fires significantly influences the magnitude of effects. 

Burned watersheds generally respond to rainfall faster than unburned watersheds, potentially increasing the 

potential for flash flooding (Anderson et al. 1976). Water repellent soils and cover loss could cause flood 

peaks to arrive faster, rise to higher levels and entrain significantly greater amounts of bedload and suspended 

sediments. 

Wildland fire could have many effects on stream habitats including changes in soil erosion, turbidity, sediment 

loads and nutrient loads, as well as indirect effects such as changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations and 

algal growth. Sediment input could reduce the area suitable for spawning or smother fish eggs with fine 

materials. Removal of streamside vegetation increases water temperatures, increases streambank erosion and 

the available streamside habitat (Monsen et al. 2004). 

Fire's Interaction with Groundwater Resources 

Fire can destroy accumulated forest floor material and vegetation, altering infiltration to groundwater by 

exposing soils to raindrop impact or creating short-term water repellent conditions (MacDonald and 

Huffman 2004). Burned areas could also be more susceptible to erosion, delivering minerals to recharge 

areas. Effects of fire on groundwater, however, are generally not substantial due to the common depth of 

useable groundwater (tens to hundreds of feet) in relation to the depth of fire effects on soil and recharge 

(inches to feet). 

Fire’s Interaction with Wetlands and Riparian Zones 

Historically fires were an important component of the disturbance regime for watersheds and aquatic 

ecosystems. Fire in riparian communities would have been infrequent and varied from small size (with highly 

mosaic burn patterns as a result of the higher moisture content generally present in riparian areas/species) to 

stand-replacing burns likely to occur only in extreme drought periods. Large fires supplied woody debris and 

triggered hydrologic events and debris flows that transported coarse substrates to stream channels. These 

processes may have provided the materials that maintained productive habitats for fish and other organisms 

(Swanson et al. 1990). 

Fire suppression and control of wildland fires have altered the natural process of periodic burning, resulting 

in fuel load buildups, increases in understory and brush, and increases in stand density (Wright 1990; 

Covington and Moore 1994). The re-sprouting ability of invasive species gives them a long-term ecological 

edge over native species in regard to recovery after fire. After the fires, tamarisk sprouts vigorously, while 

native riparian trees and shrubs generally do not. 

Direct effects of fires include heating or abrupt changes in water chemistry (Minshall et al. 1989; McMahon 

and de Calista 1990; Rinne 1996; Beeny and Parker 1998). In the Stanislaus Complex of 1987 and other 

prescribed fires on the Stanislaus National Forest, Roberson noted that vigor of riparian species increased 

dramatically following the fires. This was partially attributed to lack of competition from adjacent vegetation 

(especially shading from dense, forested canopies). Indirect effects were changes in hydrologic regime, 

erosion, debris flows, woody debris loading, and changes to riparian cover (Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978; 

Megahan 1991). 

Fire’s Interaction with Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility 

Fire would have impacts to the resources within the eligible area (including vegetation, fish and wildlife, soils 

and water, etc). Temporary disturbances may occur to visual resources and scenic values; however, these 
November 2005 Appendix H H-5 

effects would be short-term, while outstanding remarkable values are assessed on a long-term scale. Highseverity wildland fire would increase the likelihood that these effects would be longer lasting and more 

destructive to the values identified for protection. Additional discussion of fires interaction with visual 

resources may be found in the Visual Resources section of Chapter 4. Fire would likely have little affect on 

the eligibility or suitability of a river or river segment for wild and scenic river designation. 

Fire’s Interaction with Wilderness Study Areas 

Fire is a generally a natural part of the wilderness character (USDI and USDA 1995). Fire would have impacts 

on the resources within the eligible area (including vegetation, fish and wildlife, soils, and water, etc). 

Temporary resource and value disturbances may occur, however these effects would be short-term while 

wilderness values are assessed on a long-term scale. Fire would have little or no effect on the eligibility. 

Fire’s Interaction with Livestock Grazing 

Burning of rangeland can result in an increase in the production of perennial grasses and grazing capacity. This 

is primarily accomplished by removal of dense stands of sagebrush and other brush species (BLM 1991). 

However, a short-term loss of forage may occur following a fire event. A high severity fire has the potential 

to extend the time frame and decrease the capability for the generation of forage on rangelands through soil 

sterilization and loss of the native seed bank. High severity fires may also increase the potential for 

undesirable forage species to extent their distribution on a rangeland. The physical destruction of allotment 

improvements may also occur, restricting use of the allotment until they are rebuilt. The potential for this 

increases with higher severity fire events, due to increased heat or fire duration around both combustible 

and non-combustible allotment improvement infrastructure. Mortality of livestock can occur due to the 

direct effects of fire. High intensity fires moving quickly would have a greater chance at causing mortality. 

Fire’s Interaction with Woodlands and Forestry 

From a commodity standpoint, wildland fire often precludes the use of woodlands and forests for commercial 

products. Depending on the degree of consumption, burned wood may or may not be useful commercially. 

Burned trees, if only partially consumed, can still be used for firewood, lumber, pulp and some other fiber 

products. Wildland fire can completely consume all woodland and forest products making them unavailable 

for commercial uses. Even low severity fire would consume pine nuts and render some fiber unusable for 

certain products. In the long term, frequent, low-intensity fire would remove competing vegetation and 

lower branches of conifers, which would eventually produce a higher quality lumber product in the form of 

larger trees with fewer knots. 

Fire’s Interaction with Sagebrush Vegetation Type 

Pre-settlement, stand-replacing fire frequencies for low-elevation sagebrush are estimated to vary from 60 to 

110 years (Fire Regime II) (Whisenant 1990; Peters and Bunting 1994; Miller et al. 2001). Because of the high 

risk of losing key ecosystem components following fire due to cheatgrass invasion on the Vernal planning 

area, 100 percent of the sagebrush type is in a FRCC 3 condition. 

Wyoming and basin big sagebrush do not sprout after fire and low- to high-intensity fires kill most plants. 

Generally, the herbaceous understory composition does not determine the intensity and severity of wildland 

fires—sagebrush itself is the primary fire carrier. The high canopy cover associated with late, mature 

sagebrush stands likely facilitated historic stand-replacing fires. A sagebrush stand with a robust understory of 

native grasses and forbs would generally be replaced after fire with native perennial grassland, which would 

have eventually progressed through seral stages to sagebrush communities. Although sagebrush does not resprout with fire, it is a prolific seeder (a healthy, mature plant may produce 500,000 seeds) and if a seed 
H-6 Appendix H November 2005

 

source is present, re-establishment is quite rapid and dominance would occur within 20 years (Winward 

1997). 

In the absence of fire, sage canopy cover increases. According to Winward (2004), the maximum canopy 

cover for sagebrush is 30 percent; anytime canopy cover reaches more than 15 percent, the sage individuals 

compete with each other. Because sagebrush is a relatively short-lived species, approximately 60 years, in the 

absence of fire there is no recruitment of younger individuals. Consequently, the stand has the tendency to 

become old and decadent. 

Fire’s Interaction with Salt Desert Shrub Vegetation Type 

Fire frequency has been estimated at 35 to more than 300 years and is historically classified as Fire Regime V. 

Most species of this type are not fire adapted and are considered climax the exception is threadleaf 

rabbitbrush (which is sensitive to competition when growing with other species but may dominate a postburn site). Because rabbitbrush easily establishes from seed after fire, it is considered fire adaptable. Due to 

the risk of losing key ecosystem components and greatly increased fire regimes as invasive annual grasses 

dominate, salt desert shrub is typically classified as FRCC 2 or FRCC 3, depending on the relative departure 

from its historic fire regime (Table 3.1). 

A lack of continuous cover (fuels) made fire rare to non-existent in salt desert shrub communities. 

Historically, these types did not burn often enough or in large enough patches to support dominance of fireadapted plants. Most salt desert shrub species do not readily regenerate following fire. Further expansion of 

invasive species following fire is a major concern for salt desert shrub communities. 

Fire’s Interaction with Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 

Most of the area where pinyon and juniper currently dominates was historically characterized by fires 

burning every 15 to 50 years (Kitchen 2004; Miller and Tausch 2001). Below 7,000 feet elevation, these 

woodlands are characterized by dense closed stands of pinyon and juniper, scarce understory, and high 

potential for cheatgrass invasion following fire, placing them in FRCC 3. Above 7,000 feet, these woodlands 

are characterized by encroached pinyon and juniper (but less dense than FRCC 3) and are at less risk of 

cheatgrass invasion following fire, so they are considered FRCC 2. 

Old-growth pinyon and juniper is estimated to be less than 10 percent of the current area classified as pinyon 

and juniper woodland (Miller and Tausch 2001). Old-growth pinyon and juniper is often restricted to fire-safe 

habitats (e.g., steep, dissected, and rocky terrain, and in thin substrates along ridges) where they are 

considered climax. Fire frequency in these climax pinyon and juniper sites has been estimated at 200 to more 

than 300 years for old-growth pinyon and juniper (Romme et al. 2002; Goodrich and Barber 1999) and 

would be classified as Fire Regime V. 

Because it is a non-sprouter and is thin-barked when young, fire was the major historical cause of destruction 

for young juniper trees. However, adult juniper trees in mature stands are difficult to burn since the 

understory is usually sparse (older trees succumb to fire when 60 percent of the crown is scorched). Pure 

juniper stands need 35 mph winds or greater to carry fire through the canopy (Winward et al. 1997). When 

they do ignite, these closed forests often support high intensity, stand-replacing crown fires covering large 

landscapes that can endanger firefighters and the general public (Keyes et al. 2003). It is generally agreed that 

fire was the most important natural disturbance that impacted distribution of juniper and/or pinyon and 

juniper woodland before the introduction of livestock in the 19th century (Miller and Rose 1999). Burkhardt 

and Tisdale (1976; Tirmenstein 1999) concluded that fire frequencies of 30 to 40 years would help keep 

juniper from expanding into mountain big sagebrush communities. 
November 2005 Appendix H H-7 

Fire’s Interaction with Pinyon and Juniper Woodland 

Most of the area where pinyon and juniper currently dominates was historically characterized by fires 

burning every 15 to 50 years (Kitchen 2004; Miller and Tausch 2001). Below 7,000 feet elevation, these 

woodlands are characterized by dense closed stands of pinyon and juniper, scarce understory, and high 

potential for cheatgrass invasion following fire, placing them in FRCC 3. Above 7,000 feet, these woodlands 

are characterized by encroached pinyon and juniper (but less dense than FRCC 3) and are at less risk of 

cheatgrass invasion following fire, so they are considered FRCC 2. 

Old-growth pinyon and juniper is estimated to be less than 10 percent of the current area classified as pinyon 

and juniper woodland (Miller and Tausch 2001). Old-growth pinyon and juniper is often restricted to fire-safe 

habitats (e.g., steep, dissected, and rocky terrain, and in thin substrates along ridges) where they are 

considered climax. Fire frequency in these climax pinyon and juniper sites has been estimated at 200 to more 

than 300 years for old-growth pinyon and juniper (Romme et al. 2002; Goodrich and Barber 1999) and 

would be classified as Fire Regime V. 

Because it is a non-sprouter and is thin-barked when young, fire was the major historical cause of destruction 

for young juniper trees. However, adult juniper trees in mature stands are difficult to burn since the 

understory is usually sparse (older trees succumb to fire when 60 percent of the crown is scorched). Pure 

juniper stands need 35 mph winds or greater to carry fire through the canopy (Winward et al. 1997). When 

they do ignite, these closed forests often support high intensity, stand-replacing crown fires covering large 

landscapes that can endanger firefighters and the general public (Keyes et al. 2003). It is generally agreed that 

fire was the most important natural disturbance that impacted distribution of juniper and/or pinyon and 

juniper woodland before the introduction of livestock in the 19th century (Miller and Rose 1999). Burkhardt 

and Tisdale (1976; Tirmenstein 1999) concluded that fire frequencies of 30 to 40 years would help keep 

juniper from expanding into mountain big sagebrush communities. 

Fire’s Interaction with Mountain Shrub Vegetation Type 

Stand replacing fire frequency ranges from 25 years to 100 years in mountain shrub (Gruell and Loope 1974), 

though return intervals may vary widely with changes in elevation, aspect, site moisture, and the associated 

forest or woodland type. Mountain shrubs are classified as Fire Regimes I (e.g., Gambel oak), II (e.g., mixed 

mountain shrub or maple), and IV (e.g., mountain mahogany), depending on the dominant species and the 

site. The FRCC also varies depending on the dominant species, and the understory. Mountain shrub 

communities at lower elevations (less than 6500 feet) are classified as FRCC 3 due to the high risk of 

cheatgrass invasion following fire. On the Vernal District, three percent of the mountain shrub vegetation 

type is in a FRCC 1, whereas 97 percent is in a FRCC 2. 

Some species, like oak, readily re-sprout after fire because they reproduce vegetatively. Others, like 

Ceanothus, have specialized seed, which enable it to readily invade burns (Knight 1994), while some are 

intolerant of fire like curl-leaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush and bitterbrush. This may cause a 

temporary shift in the species composition, however most mountain shrub communities generally recover 

rapidly following wildland fire and are considered to be fire tolerant. 

Fire’s Interaction with Mixed Conifer Vegetation Type 

Fire frequencies in mixed conifer range from 100 to 300 years. These forests are characterized by a 

combination of understory and complete stand-replacement fire regimes (Arno 2000). Mixed conifer is 

classified as Fire Regime III or IV depending on the elevation and related dominant species. Fire Regime III 

would characterize conifer-shrub communities occurring at lower elevations that have pure conifer stands. 

Due to the longer historic fire return intervals and well-functioning vegetation attributes, mixed conifer is 

classified as FRCC 1 when associated with Fire Regime IV, and FRCC 2 when associated with Fire Regime III. 
H-8 Appendix H November 2005

 

In recent years, prolonged drought has predisposed species like Douglas fir to insects (bark beetles) resulting 

in an increased fuel load. Dead woody fuels are accumulating, either standing and on the ground often in a 

haphazard manner with the greatest fuel loadings occurring on the most productive sites, which are 

predominantly stand-replacement fire regimes. This mixed severity fire regime often results in a mosaic 

pattern of stand structure and fuels. Past stand burn mosaics tend to increase the probability that subsequent 

fires would also burn in a mixed pattern (Arno 2000). When fires do occur, they tend to be intense and 

often sterilize the ground, with some 30-year-old fire scars showing very little vegetation returning . 

Fire’s Interaction with Riparian Vegetation 

Historically, fire in these riparian communities would have been infrequent, and varied from small size, with 

highly mosaic burn patterns due to higher moisture content generally present in riparian areas/species, to 

stand replacing burns likely to have occurred only in extreme drought periods. Willow species typically 

sprout vigorously following a fast-moving fire because slow moving fires are generally more damaging, 

presumably due to greater heat transfer to root crowns. The riparian vegetation type is classified as FRCC 3 

mainly due to tamarisk invasion. Because of its high water and salt content and extensive root system, fire is 

ineffective in the control of tamarisk and may actually encourage its growth. Light (low temperature) fire 

encourages tamarisk to re-sprout and become even denser, whereas hot fire would sterilize the surrounding 

soil so that desirable shrubs and herbaceous species are unable to get established. 

Fire’s Interaction with Aspen 

Fire frequencies range between 25 to 100 years with mixed severity (Gruell and Loope 1974). Because of 

their high water content, aspen stands do not easily burn and often act as natural fuel breaks during wildland 

fires. Fire regimes and vegetation structure have been moderately altered from the historical conditions, 

mostly as a result of conifer encroachment. Because they are thin-barked, aspen-dominated sites are 

particularly susceptible to mortality of aboveground stems from fire of low intensity, even though aspen is 

well adapted to regeneration by sprouting after fire (Jones and DeByle 1985; Mutch 1970). Fires in young 

aspen stands tend to be low intensity surface fires unless there is a great deal of understory fuel. In older 

stands, during the warmest and/or driest months of the year, abundant fuel can lead to higher intensity fires. 

Decadent aspen stands and other areas with thin, acidic soils may be less vigorous at regenerating via 

suckering and may tend to support conifers even after fire (Howard 1996). 

Fire’s Interaction with Ponderosa Pine 

Ponderosa pines have thick bark, which protects them from serious damage from surface fires. However, in 

the absence of fire (and an increase in grazing), ponderosa pines increase in density or other woody species 

like juniper or shade-tolerant firs encroach in the understory, resulting in an increased risk of crown fire. 

Also, increased density of shade tolerant species can place greater stress on larger old trees, mostly due to 

competition from other species resulting in increased susceptibility to insects and disease (Keyes et al. 2003). 

Fire frequency for ponderosa pine communities ranges from 10 to 40 years with low- to mixed-severity fires 

(BLM 2005). These forests have typically missed between five and 10 fire cycles due to fire suppression and 

may have more woody vegetation in the understory. 

Fire’s Interaction with Fisheries and Wildlife Resources 

Effects of fire on special status species and their habitat vary widely depending upon the size and intensity of 

the fire, fuel type, location, topography, season, and duration. High-severity wind and fire can destroy large 

areas of habitat and make recovery of those habitats a long process. Both low- and high-severity wildland fire 
November 2005 Appendix H H-9 

can destroy important habitat, displace animal species, and inflict direct mortality. However, low-severity 

fires have greater potential to enhance and sustain a more natural and beneficial habitat. 

Fire's Interaction with Soil Resources 

Fires affect soils primarily by consuming live or dead vegetation cover, litter, and organic soil layers, and the 

resulting loss of soil stabilizing organic material such as root structure. Fire may also alter soil chemical 

properties, post-fire soil temperatures, microorganism populations and their activity rates, erosion rates, 

increase nutrient availability, sterilize soil, and increase soil water repellency (NWCG 2001; Centers for 

Water and Wildland Resources 1996). The degree of short-term effect on these soil characteristics depends 

on amount of vegetation, and thickness and density of litter and organic layers. Soil texture and type, soil 

moisture at the time of burning, and depth and duration of heat penetration into soil horizons are also 

critical factors (NWCG 2001). Soil water repellency (hydrophobicity) from severe fire may substantially 

increase runoff and erosion, but repellency has not been found to persist for more than one year after a 

wildland fire (MacDonald and Huffman 2004). 

The single most important factor in soil health (topsoil and nutrient loss) is the timing of vegetation recovery 

with the severity of precipitation rates. The potential for post-fire erosion also depends on the soil type in 

the area of the burn, the amount of residual vegetation and organic matter, the rate and amount of 

vegetation recovery, and slope. If post-fire rains are relatively gentle, some nutrients released by a fire may 

be reabsorbed; however, these nutrients are generally lost during severe, erosive rainfall. 

Soil microorganisms (biological crusts) may be affected by heating from fire, as well as surface disturbances 

that compact or disaggregate these features. Disturbance of biological crusts can increase the potential for 

both water and wind erosion. 

Fire’s Interaction with Recreation 

Fires can partially or completely destroy developed facilities. Fires can temporarily change the landscape in a 

manner that degrades visual quality and recreation opportunities and experiences. The landscape may be 

blackened or smoke could limit visibility. During periods of high fire danger and wildland fire activity, 

recreation use may be restricted or prohibited on large areas of public lands to protect public safety. 

Fire’s Interaction with Wild Horses and Burros 

Fires would likely pose a temporary loss of resources such as forage, watering areas, and corrals. Highseverity fires in or around any of the three herd management areas/herd areas (HMA/HA) could cause 

displacement of herds and might force the herds to seek food, water, and shelter outside of the management 

areas. High-severity fires have the potential to extend the time frame and decrease the capability for the 

generation of forage on HMAs through soil sterilization and loss of the native seed bank. Fire events may also 

increase the potential for undesirable forage species to extend their distribution on an HMA. Fires could 

benefit wild horses and burros by modifying the vegetative community to more appropriate forage. Mortality 

of horses or burros can occur due to the direct effects of fire. 

Fire’s Interaction with Wilderness Characteristics 

In many cases, fire is a natural part of the wilderness character of an area (USDI and USDA 1995). Fire would 

have impacts to the resources within the eligible area (including vegetation, fish and wildlife, soils and water, 

etc). Temporary disturbances may occur to resources and values; however, these effects would be shortterm while wilderness values are assessed on a long-term scale. Fire would likely have little or no effect on 

the wilderness characteristics of an area.

Appendix I 

Biological Opinion Terms and Conditions 

November 2005 Appendix I I-1 

Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibits take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture 

or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or wildlife without a special 

exemption. "Harm" is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in 

death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (50 CFR § 17.3). "Harass" is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species 

to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR § 17.3). 

No exemption from Section 9 of the Act is granted in this biological opinion. BLM’s implementation of the 

Land Use Plan Amendment and Five Fire Management Plans is likely to adversely affect listed species. The 

likelihood of incidental take, and the identification of reasonable and prudent measures and terms and 

conditions to minimize such take, will be addressed in project level, and possibly programmatic level 

consultations. Any incidental take and measures to reduce such take cannot be effectively identified at the 

level of proposed action because of the uncertainty of wildland fire, broad geographic scope, and the lack of 

site specific information. Rather, incidental take and reasonable and prudent measures may be identified 

adequately through subsequent actions subject to section 7 consultations at the project and/or programmatic 

scale. 

Even though actual take levels are unquantifiable, take will occur through harm and harassment. Therefore, 

we are providing the following Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Terms and Conditions to 

minimize overall take. Implementation of these RPMs and Terms and Conditions during project planning will 

also expedite site-specific section 7 consultation. 

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary 

and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, Utah prairie dog, 

Southwestern willow flycatcher, California condor, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, desert tortoise, 

Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, bonytail, Virgin River chub, woundfin, Lahontan 

cutthroat trout, dwarf bear-poppy, Shivwits milk-vetch, Holmgren milk-vetch, Kodachrome bladderpod, San 

Rafael cactus, Siler pincushion cactus, shrubby reed-mustard, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Ute ladies’-tresses, 

and last chance townsendia: 

1. The Bureau of Land Management shall implement measures to minimize mortality or injury of the 

black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, Utah prairie dog, Southwestern willow flycatcher, California 

condor, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, desert tortoise, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback 

sucker, humpback chub, bonytail, Virgin River chub, woundfin, Lahontan cutthroat trout, dwarf 

bear-poppy, Shivwits milk-vetch, Holmgren milk-vetch, Kodachrome bladderpod, San Rafael 

cactus, Siler pincushion cactus, shrubby reed-mustard, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Ute ladies’-

tresses, and last chance townsendia due to proposed project activities; without placing firefighter 

personnel at risk. 

Terms and Conditions described in this appendix only apply to the 

species named in Appendix F of this document. 
I-2 Appendix I November 2005

 

2. The Bureau of Land Management shall implement measures to minimize harm to the black-footed 

ferret, Canada lynx, Utah prairie dog, Southwestern willow flycatcher, California condor, bald 

eagle, Mexican spotted owl, desert tortoise, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback 

chub, bonytail, Virgin River chub, woundfin, Lahontan cutthroat trout, dwarf bear-poppy, Shivwits 

milk-vetch, Holmgren milk-vetch, Kodachrome bladderpod, San Rafael cactus, Siler pincushion 

cactus, shrubby reed-mustard, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Ute ladies’-tresses, and last chance 

townsendia through destruction of their suitable or designated critical habitats; without placing 

firefighter personnel at risk. 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Bureau of Land Management must 

comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures 

described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are 

non-discretionary. The following terms and conditions apply to all species covered under this biological 

opinion, and are to be implemented in addition to the Applicant Committed Measures described in the 

Proposed Action: 

General Terms and Conditions 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: 

a. Before the beginning of each fire season, a threatened and endangered species education 

program will be presented to all personnel anticipated to be within federally listed 

species habitats during suppression activities. This program will contain information 

concerning the biology and distribution of listed species throughout the Fire Management 

Plan Planning Area, their legal status, fire suppression goals and restrictions within 

suitable and critical habitat. Following training, each individual will sign a completion 

sheet to be placed on file at the local BLM office. 

b. All project employees (including fire fighting personnel) shall be informed as to the 

definition of "take", the potential penalties (up to $200,000 in fines and one year in 

prison) for taking a species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and the terms and 

conditions provided in this biological opinion. 

c. A qualified Resource Advisor will be assigned to each wildfire that occurs in or threatens 

listed species habitat. The Resource Advisor’s role is help define goals and objectives for 

fire suppression efforts and informs the Incident Commander (IC) of any restrictions, but 

does not get involved in specific suppression tactics. Resource advisors shall oversee fire 

suppression and suppression rehabilitation activities; to ensure protective measures 

endorsed by the Incident Commander are implemented. 

d. For pre-planned projects, the Authorized Officer shall designate an individual as a contact 

representative who will be responsible for overseeing compliance with the Applicant 

Committed Measures and terms and conditions contained in this biological opinion, and 

providing coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The representative will 

have the authority to halt activities which may be in violation of these conditions, unless 

human health and safety or structures are at risk, in which case the Incident Commander 

overseeing the wildfire suppression actions will have the final decision making authority. 

e. Project related personnel shall not be permitted to have firearms or pets in their 

possession while on the project site. The rules on firearms and pets will be explained to 

all personnel involved with the project. 
November 2005 Appendix I I-3 

f. If available, maps shall be provided to local dispatch centers showing general locations of 

listed species. Local BLM or UDWR biologists shall be consulted for specific locations if 

fires occur within or near the general locations delineated on the map. 

g. Conduct pre- and post- monitoring of the response to the treatments by federally listed 

species. 

2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: 

a. Fingers or patches of unburned vegetation within burned areas shall not be burned out 

as a fire suppression measure unless required for safety concerns. 

b. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation efforts must focus on areas in the spread of 

non-native species particularly within suitable habitat for federally listed species. The 

specific seed mix for use within suitable habitat for federally listed and sensitive species 

will be determined through coordination and section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

c. Recovery of vegetation shall be monitored, including establishment and monitoring of 

paired plots, inside and outside of the burned area unless the BLM and the Service 

concur that monitoring is not required. 

d. Site-specific projects under the Land Use Plan Amendment and Fire Management Plans 

shall specifically recognize the primary constituent elements necessary for functional 

critical habitats to ensure consistent application of measures to maintain these features in 

all implementation activities. 

e. The effectiveness of suppression activities and threatened and endangered species 

conservation measures shall be evaluated after a fire in coordination with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Procedures shall be revised as needed. 

f. Conduct pre- and post-monitoring of threatened or endangered species’ habitat 

conditions. 

g. Temporarily close off highway vehicle (OHV) trails after a fire event until vegetation and 

soils recover. 

h. Obscure decommissioned trails and roads and illegal OHV trails after a fire event to 

prevent re-opening. 

Black-Footed Ferret and Utah Prairie Dog 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measures 1 and 2: 

a. Wildfires will be suppressed before they reach a prairie dog colony1 or after they exit a 

colony. Active suppression efforts will not occur within a colony unless human health 

and safety or structures are at risk. 

b. Only hand lines will be authorized within colonies. 

c. Normally, only water shall be used on fires that occur within prairie dog colonies. If the 

fire Incident Commander decides that the situation requires use of chemical retardants 

in order to protect life and property, they may be used. The chemical composition will 

be supplied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during formal consultation. 

d. All vehicles shall stay on existing roads within colonies, except as stated in (e). Storage 

of equipment and materials shall not occur within 1⁄4 mile of colonies. Vehicle 

maintenance shall not occur within these areas. 

e. If the situation would require vehicles to travel cross country within prairie dog colonies, 

this activity shall be cleared by an on-site biologist prior to occurring. Vehicles shall not 

exceed a speed of 10 miles per hour (cross country) in occupied Utah prairie dog 

colonies unless a higher speed is determined to be prudent for safety reasons. 

 

1

 “Prairie dog colony” refers to any occupied Utah prairie dog colony or any prairie dog colony within the range of the 

black footed ferret. 
I-4 Appendix I November 2005

 

f. Within colonies, precautions shall be taken to ensure that contamination of the site by 

fuels, motor oils, grease, etc. does not occur and that such materials are contained and 

properly disposed of off-site. Inadvertent spills of petroleum based or other toxic 

materials shall be cleaned up and removed immediately. 

g. Camps associated with fire suppression activities shall be situated outside suitable habitat. 

h. If a dead or injured Utah prairie dog is located, initial notification must be made to the 

Service's Division of Law Enforcement, Cedar City, Utah at telephone 435-865-0861 or 

to the Cedar City office of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources at telephone number 

435-865-6100. Instruction for proper handling and disposition of such specimens will be 

issued by the Division of Law Enforcement. Care must be taken in handling sick or 

injured animals to ensure effective treatment and care and in handling dead specimens to 

preserve biological material in the best possible state. 

i. For the black-footed ferret, avoidance and minimization measures that should be 

followed are included within the Cooperative Plan for the Reintroduction and Management of 

Black-Footed Ferrets in Coyote Basin, Uintah County, Utah published by the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources in September, 1996. These measures may be updated based on the 

best available scientific data as it becomes available. 

Canada Lynx 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measures 1 and 2: 

a. The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) shall be incorporated into 

project plans as appropriate, and any applicable standards, guidelines, and objectives 

specifically related to linkage habitat would be followed during implementation of fire 

management activities. 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

1. To implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: 

a. Prior to planned project activities, action areas will be surveyed according to U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service protocol. 

b. Except where fires are active in occupied habitat, minimize unnecessary low-level 

helicopter flights during the breeding season (April 1 – September 30). If safety allows, 

approach bucket dip sites at a 90-degree direction to rivers to minimize flight time over 

the river corridor and occupied riparian habitats. Locate landing sites for helicopters at 

least 1⁄4 mile from occupied flycatcher habitat unless human safety or property dictates 

otherwise. 

c. Minimize use of chainsaws or bulldozers to construct fire lines through occupied or 

suitable habitat except where necessary to reduce the overall acreage of occupied 

habitat or other important habitat areas that would otherwise be burned. 

d. Implement activities to reduce hazardous fuels or improve riparian habitats (prescribed 

burning or vegetation treatments) within occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat for 

southwestern willow flycatchers only during the non-breeding season (October 1 to 

March 31). 

2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: 

a. Riparian fuel reduction actions shall be considered as experimental, and initially 

conducted only in unoccupied habitats until the success and ramifications are better 

understood. Efficacy of these actions as a fire management tool, and effects on bird 

habitat quality, shall be tested in a scientifically explicit, controlled fashion (Appendix L in 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

b. In occupied or suitable flycatcher habitat, creation of fire breaks might render the habitat 

unsuitable (Appendix L in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Therefore, fire breaks 
November 2005 Appendix I I-5 

shall first be conducted only in unoccupied sites, outside of proposed critical habitat, or 

within the following situations, as long as human safety and property allows: 

i. Along grass-edged roadways; 

ii. Where large areas of fire-prone vegetation, unsuitable for flycatcher breeding, 

separate a breeding site from potential ignition sources or high frequency fire 

areas; and 

iii. Between agricultural “burn areas” and flycatcher sites to prevent brush-pile fires 

from spreading into breeding sites (Appendix L in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2002). 

c. Controlled burns shall be avoided in occupied habitat and considered only as 

experimental management techniques if dealing with suitable unoccupied habitat 

(Appendix L in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

d. Fires in occupied habitat and adjacent buffer zones shall be rapidly suppressed. 

California Condor and Bald Eagle 

1. To implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: 

a. If California condors or bald eagles are found inhabiting (nesting) within the action area, a 

buffer of 1 mile surrounding the nesting area will be designated as non-treatment zones 

(Romin and Muck 2002). 

b. Open water sources such as “pumpkin” inflatable water storage tanks will be covered 

when not in use. 

Mexican Spotted Owl 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: 

a. Pre-planned fuels reduction projects within Mexican spotted owl primary activity centers 

(PAC) shall be designed to enhance habitat requirements for the Mexican spotted owl as 

well as for the valuable prey species they rely upon. Any project within a PAC requires 

additional section 7 consultation. 

2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: 

a. Fire suppression shall be considered for wildfires in PACs. 

Desert Tortoise 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: 

a. Campsites, aircraft landing and fueling areas, staging areas, and helicopter dip sites shall 

either be located outside of desert tortoise habitat or cleared by the Resource Advisor 

or tortoise biologist. 

b. Hand crews shall be used to build and defend fire lines. Engines can be used for support 

from roads. Wherever practical, fire engines must remain on roads and lay fire hose 

only along hand lines. 

c. The Resource Advisor, tortoise biologist, or biological monitor (someone who is either 

qualified with a biological background or has been trained by the Resource Advisor) 

ensures that tortoises, burrows, and shelter sites are protected or avoided by walking in 

front of engines, tracked vehicles, or other fire fighting related vehicles within the critical 

habitat. 

d. On-road travel shall be restricted to speeds (25 mph) that allow drivers to distinguish 

obstacles such as a rocks and tortoises. 

e. Firefighters shall note locations and condition of desert tortoises and carcasses, but must 

not attempt to touch or move them unless the animal is in immediate danger from fire 

or is on a road that is receiving traffic use. Firefighters shall be encouraged to provide 

notes to tortoise Resource Advisor or tortoise biologist. 

f. Garbage and trash must not be left in project vicinity. 
I-6 Appendix I November 2005

 

2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: 

a. Wildfires that occur in tortoise habitats shall be suppressed as soon as possible due to 

the habitat changes associated with wildfire that alter food availability and the availability 

of plants for protection from thermal extremes and predators. 

b. Tracked vehicles have long-lasting impacts on desert soils and vegetation, and therefore 

their use shall be restricted to improving roads or constructing lines where a short 

distance of line might save a large area from fire. 

c. Rehabilitation of suppression related actions must be coordinated with the Resource 

Advisor to avoid further impacts. For example, the rehabilitation of lines created on the 

sensitive desert soils may cause more damage than the initial suppression actions. 

Obliterate vehicle tracks at the point they leave existing roads to prevent those tracks 

from becoming future trails and roads. 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measures 1 and 2, we recommend full implementation of the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the BLM, Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and 

Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. The purpose of this MOU is to provide a framework of 

cooperation for interagency fire management between the Bureau of Land Management (Salt Lake and Elko 

Field Offices), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 1 and Region 6), and the Utah Department of Natural 

Resources (Division of Wildlife Resources and Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands), within the 

Bettridge and Morrison Creek drainages of the Pilot Mountains. This MOU contains Standard Operating 

Procedures to be used for the protection of the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout and their habitat 

during fire suppression and rehabilitation activities in these two drainages. The Standard Operating 

Procedures developed through the MOU are listed below. 

1. Standard Operating Procedures for Suppression Activities: 

a. Avoid the application of retardant or foam within 600 feet of the stream channel or 

waterway. With the exception of restricting the use of retardants and foams to 600 feet 

from stream channels or waterways, aerial application and use of retardants and foams 

will be consistent with national policy guidelines established by the National Office of Fire 

and Aviation, as amended. 

i. The exceptions to this procedure are: 

1. When alternative line construction tactics are not available due to terrain 

constraints, congested area, life and property concerns or lack of ground 

personnel, it is acceptable to anchor the foam or retardant application to the 

waterway. When anchoring a retardant or foam line to a waterway, use the 

most accurate method of delivery in order to minimize placement of 

retardant or foam in the waterway (e.g., a helicopter rather than a heavy air 

tanker). 

2. Deviations from these guidelines are acceptable when life or property is 

threatened and the use of retardant or foam can be reasonably expected to 

alleviate the threat. 

3. When potential damage to natural resources outweighs possible loss of 

aquatic life, the unit administrator may approve a deviation from these 

guidelines. This determination will be made on a case-by-case basis by the 

Field Manager or the designated Field Manager representative in consultation 

with the Fire Management Officer, Incident Commander, Resource Advisor, 

and BLM Field Office Fisheries Biologist through development of the Wildfire 

Situation Analysis. 

b. Do not draft fill engines that have surfactant foam mixes in tanks, directly from the 

stream channel. 
November 2005 Appendix I I-7 

c. A containment barrier will be constructed around all pumps and fuel containers utilized 

within 600 feet of the stream channel to prevent petroleum products from entering the 

stream. The containment barrier will be of sufficient size to contain all fuel being stored 

or used on site. 

d. Do not dump engines filled with surfactant foam mixes within 600 feet of the stream 

channel. 

e. Do not conduct retardant mixing operations within 600 feet of the stream channel. 

f. Stream flow will not be impounded or diverted by mechanical or other means in order 

to facilitate extraction of water from the stream for fire suppression efforts. 

g. The intake end of the draft hose will be screened to prevent entrainment of fish species. 

Screen opening size will be a maximum of 3/16 inch. 

h. Before each fire assignment in the Elko and Salt Lake Districts, all fire suppression 

equipment utilized to extract water from stream or spring sources (i.e. helicopter 

buckets, draft hoses and screens) will be thoroughly rinsed to remove mud and debris 

and disinfected with a chlorine solution (one part bleach to 32 parts water, or stronger). 

Rinsing equipment with disinfectant solutions will not occur within 600 feet of natural 

water sources (streams or springs). 

i. Only water sources identified as specified dip sites will be used to control and/or contain 

fire with the Bettridge and Morrison Creek drainages. Water may be obtained from the 

pond on the TL Bar Ranch (Donner Springs). The coordinates of this dip site are: N 41 

01 22.6 X W 113 58 04.3. 

j. Water extraction from streams currently occupied by LCT (including beaver ponds) is 

restricted. 

k. Fire control lines will not cross or terminate at the stream channel. Control lines will 

terminate at the edge of the riparian zone at a location determined appropriate to meet 

fire suppression objectives based on fire behavior, vegetation/fuel types, and fire fighter 

safety. 

l. Access roads and/or fords will not be constructed across the stream channel. 

m. New roads or mechanical fire control lines will not be constructed and existing roads 

will not be improved within 600 feet of the stream channel unless authorized by the Field 

Manager or the designated Field Manager representative. 

2. Standard Operating Procedures for Rehabilitation Measures: 

a. An assessment of the impacts of fire and fire suppression activities to LCT habitat will be 

completed by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists, including the Elko and Salt 

Lake BLM Field Office Fisheries Biologists and Hydrologists, representatives from the 

Service, representatives from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and 

representatives from Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. Based on this 

assessment, appropriate rehabilitation measures will be identified consistent with 

Departmental Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook guidance, including 

but not limited to some or all of the following: 

i. Where determined necessary by the interdisciplinary review team, a post-fire 

contingency plan for immediate and effective protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of, 

and minimization of risk of injury to LCT populations and their habitat will be 

created. 

ii. Close the affected watershed and/or stream channel to livestock grazing for two or 

more growing seasons to allow for recovery of riparian vegetation. The appropriate 

length of time for closure to livestock grazing will be determined on a site specific 

basis based on resource data, scientific principles, and experience. Site specific 

monitoring will determine when resource objectives have been achieved on specific 

burned areas. Site specific vegetative recovery objectives will be identified by the 
I-8 Appendix I November 2005

 

interdisciplinary review team and included in the Notice of Closure to Livestock 

Grazing issued in accordance with 43 CFR 4110.3-3. 

iii. Reconstruct damaged fences and/or construct new fences to ensure protection of 

the stream channel from grazing. In Wilderness Study Areas, fence construction 

and/or reconstruction will be in accordance with Interim Management Policy 

Guidelines. 

iv. Monitor stream and riparian habitats to allow for comparison of post-fire impacts to 

existing baseline information. 

v. Where determined necessary by the interdisciplinary review team, install appropriate 

erosion control structures (i.e. erosion matting and/or straw bale structures, straw 

wattles, etc.) to mitigate overland flow effects to the stream channel. 

vi. Where determined necessary by the interdisciplinary review team, reseed and/or 

replant riparian/wetland areas with native plant species to facilitate re-establishment 

of perennial vegetation, minimize potential channel erosion, and allow for recovery 

of riparian functionality. 

vii. Rehabilitate improved roads located within 600 feet of the stream channel as 

determined necessary to mitigate potential sedimentation into the stream channel. 

viii. Implement appropriate integrated noxious weed control measures where 

determined necessary by the interdisciplinary review team and/or where determined 

appropriate through post-fire monitoring. 

ix. Where determined necessary by the interdisciplinary review team, initiate temporary 

road closures for at least one year to protect and stabilize burned areas and 

associated watersheds. An interdisciplinary assessment will be conducted after the 

first year to determine if road closures are still needed. 

Threatened or Endangered Plants 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: 

a. Do not allow wildland fire use or prescribed fire activities within suitable, occupied 

habitat. 

b. When feasible (human life or property are not at risk) fire breaks shall be constructed 

down slope of plants and populations; if fire breaks must be sited upslope, buffers of 100 

feet minimum between surface disturbances and plants and populations will be 

incorporated. 

2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: 

a. Do not allow wildland fire use or prescribed fire activities within suitable, occupied 

habitat. 

b. For pre-planned projects within known or potential habitat, site inventories shall be 

conducted to determine habitat suitability prior to initiation of project activities, at a 

time when the plant can be detected, and during appropriate flowering periods, and will 

include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat characteristics. 

c. For riparian/wetland-associated species, e.g. Ute ladies-tresses, avoid loss or disturbance 

of riparian habitats: 

i. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of 

hydrologic regime. 

d. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on designated routes. 

e. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

f. Place signing to limit ATV travel in sensitive areas. 

g. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species comprised of species 

indigenous to the area. 

Shivwits Milk-Vetch 
November 2005 Appendix I I-9 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measures 1 and 2: 

a. During wildland fire events, do not suppress wildland fire within the extremely sensitive 

soils (Chinle formation) unless another threatened or endangered species (i.e. desert 

tortoise), or life or property are at risk. 

b. Do not seed within the Chinle formation. 

c. Do not rehabilitate areas impacted by suppression activities, such as hand lines, areas 

that may have been trampled, or areas that may have been impacted by fire retardant 

drops. 

d. The effects of any fire or suppression activity within suitable habitat for the Shivwits milkvetch will be monitored as these measures have not been tested. These measures are 

based on the sensitive nature of the soils that support the plant. Up-dating and finetuning methods to implement during wildland fire events and post emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation activities shall rely upon adaptive management techniques. 

Siler Pincushion Cactus 

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measures 1 and 2: 

a. Follow and implement the restrictions to pesticide use within suitable Siler pincushion 

cactus habitat developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These 

limitations were excerpted from the EPA’s Pesticides: Endangered Species Protection 

Program (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/arizona/cocon.htm#brady): 

i. If the active ingredient is 2, 4-D (all forms), ATRAZINE, CLOPYRALID, 

DICAMBA (all forms), DICHLORPROP (2, 4-DP), HEXAZINONE, MCPA (all 

forms), PARAQUAT, PICLORAM (all forms), or TEBUTHIURON, then do not 

apply this pesticide in the species habitat. For ground applications do not apply 

within 20 yards of the habitat, or within 100 yards for aerial applications. 

ii. If the active ingredient is OXYFLUORFEN (granular or non-granular), then do 

not apply this pesticide in the species habitat. For ground applications do not 

apply within 100 yards of the habitat, or within 1/4 mile for aerial applications. 

iii. If the active ingredient is either METRIBUZIN or SULFOMETURON METHYL, 

then do not apply this pesticide on rights-of-way in the species habitat. 

Colorado River Fishes (Colorado Pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, bonytail) 

and Virgin River Fishes (Virgin River Chub and woundfin) 

The BLM has incorporated Applicant Committed Resource Protection Measures into their plan that will 

minimize mortality or infury to these listed fish species. 

Closing 

The Service believes that an unquantifiable amount of incidental take will occur in the form of harm and 

harassment as a result of the proposed actions. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their 

implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might 

otherwise result from the proposed actions. If, during the course of the actions, this level of incidental take 

is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review 

of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Bureau of Land Management must immediately 

provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible 

modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

Upon locating dead, injured, or sick listed species, immediate notification must be made to the Service’s Salt 

Lake City Field Office at (801) 975-3330 and the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement, Ogden, Utah, at 

(801) 625-5570. Pertinent information including the date, time, location, and possible cause of injury or 
I-10 Appendix I November 2005

 

mortality of each species shall be recorded and provided to the Service. Instructions for proper care, 

handling, transport, and disposition of such specimens will be issued by the Service’s Division of Law 

Enforcement. Care must be taken in handling sick or injured animals to ensure effective treatment and care, 

and in handling dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state. 

The BLM shall submit a report to the Service on or before (December 1) of each year in which fire 

management activities occurred within occupied habitat. For the listed and candidate species covered under 

this consultation, the report shall include: 1) the amount of potential and/or occupied habitat affected by 

wildfire (i.e. stream miles burned, percentage of drainage burned, fire severity map); 2) to the extent possible, 

the number of individuals killed from direct and indirect effects of wildfire; 3) any habitat and/or population 

monitoring efforts from past wildfire events; 4) a copy of the burned area emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation plan; 5) implementation and effectiveness monitoring of burned area emergency stabilization 

and rehabilitation treatments; 6) implementation and effectiveness monitoring of the standard operating 

procedures; 7) recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of the standard operating procedures; and 

8) any recommendations for additional standard operating procedures. The first report shall be due to the 

Service on (December 1, 2005). The address for the Utah Fish and Wildlife Office is: 

Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50 

West Valley City, Utah 84119 

Telephone: (801) 975-3330