Site-Specific Environmental Assessment

Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket

Suppression Program

Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne Counties

Utah

EA Number: UT-02-18

Prepared by:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service Plant Protection and Quarantine

1860 W. Alexander Street, Suite B

West Valley City, Utah 84119

February 2018
Table of Contents

I. Need for Proposed Action ..............................................................................1

A. Purpose and Need Statement. ...........................................................................1

B. Background Discussion .....................................................................................2

C. About this Process............................................. ............................................... 4

II. Alternatives..........................................................................................................................5

A. No Action Alternative ......................................................................................6

B. Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates and Complete

Area Coverage Alternative .....................................................................................6

C. Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATs) Alternative ..................................7

III. Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 7

A Description of Affected Environment ..........................................................7

B. Site-Specific Considerations ............................................................................9

1. Human Health .............................................................................................. 9

2. Nontarget Species ..................................................................................... 10

3. Socioeconomic Issues................................................................................10

4. Cultural Resources and Events...................................................................12

5. Special Considerations for Certain Populations .......................................14

IV. Environmental Consequences................................................................................15

A. Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives......................................... 16

1. No Action Alternative.............................................................................. 16

2. Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates and Complete

Area Coverage Alternative............................................................................. 16

3. Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATs) Alternative ........................ 20

B. Other Environmental Considerations...............................................................22

1. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................22

2. Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population s .................. 23

3. Executive Order No. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks....................................................................... 24

4. Executive Order 13186,Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to protect

Migratory Birds.................................................................. 25

5. Endangered Species Act. .............................................................................25

6. Environmental Monitoring ..........................................................................26

V. Literature Cited...................................................................................................... 27

VI. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted........................................................ 30
. >

Appendices

Appendix 1: FY-2018 Guidelines for Treatment of Rangelands for

Grasshopper and Mormon Crickets, USDA APHIS PPQ Western

Region ..............................................................................................................................33

Appendix 2: Map of Affected Environment............................................................ 40

Appendix 3: FWS Correspondence ...........................................................................41

Table 1- County List of Utah's Federally Listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and

Candidate (C) species.

Table 2- Utah's State Listed Species by County

Table 3- Mitigation Measures- For listed/proposed T&E Species (T&E Spp. 

Determinations for Utah APHIS GH/MC Suppression Projects).
4

Site-Specific Environmental Assessment

Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression

Program Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne Counties

I. Need for Proposed Action

A. Purpose and Need Statement

An infestation of grasshoppers and/or Mormon crickets (hereafter referred to

collectively as grasshoppers) may occur in Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne

Counties, Utah. The Animal and Plant health Inspection Service (APHIS) is

evaluating the situation to determine if action is necessary to suppress the

infestation to protect rangeland ecosystems and to counter the potential for the

pest to spread across rangelands or into surrounding crops and communities.

APHIS and Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) are proposing a

cooperative program to suppressinfestations. This environmental assessment

(EA) analyzes potential environmental consequences of the proposed action and its

alternatives. This EA applies to a proposed suppression program that would take

place in Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne Counties, Utah. APHIS may, upon 

request by land managers or the UDAF, conduct treatments to suppress grasshopper

infestations.

Populations of grasshoppers that trigger the need for a suppression program are

normally considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no specific population

level that triggers APIDS participation. Participation here is based on potential

damage such as stressing and/or causing the mortality of native and planted

range plants or adjacent crops due to the feeding habits of large numbers of

grasshoppers and/or Mormon crickets. The benefits of treatments include the

suppressing of over abundant Mormon crickets and/or grasshopper populations

to lower adverse impacts to range plants and adjacent crops. Such would

decrease the economic impact to local agricultural operations and permit normal

range plant utilization by wildlife and livestock. Some populations that may not

cause substantial damage to native rangeland may require treatment due to the

secondary suppression benefits resulting from the high value of adjacent crops

and damage to re- vegetation programs.

The goal of the proposed suppression program analyzed in this EA is to reduce

grasshopper populations below an economic infestation level in order to protect

rangeland ecosystems and/or cropland adjacent to rangeland.

The "economic infestation level" is a measurement ofthe economic losses

caused by a particular population level of grasshoppers to the infested

rangeland. This value is determined on a case-by-case basis with knowledge

of many factors including, but not limited to, the following: economic use of 

available forage or crops; grasshopper species, age, and density present;

rangeland productivity and composition; accessibility and cost of alternative

forage; and weather patterns. In decision making, the level of economic

infestation is balanced against the cost of treating to determine an "economic
5

threshold" below which there would not be an overall benefit for the

treatment. Short-term economic benefits accrue during the years of treatments,

but additional long-term benefit may accrue and be considered in deciding the

total value gained by treatment. Additional losses to rangeland habitat and

cultural and personal values (e.g., aesthetics and cultural resources), 

although a part of decision making, are not part of the economic values in

determining the necessity of treatment.

This EA is prepared in accordance with the requirements under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code (U.S.C.)

§4321 et. seq.) and the NEPA procedural requirements promulgated by the 

Council on Environmental Quality, United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA), and APHIS.

B.Background Discussion

In rangeland ecosystem areas of the United States, grasshopper populations

can build up to levels of economic infestation despite even the best land 

management and other efforts ' to prevent outbreaks. At such a time, a rapid 

and effective response may be requested 'and needed to reduce the

destruction of rangeland vegetation. In some cases, a response is also needed to

prevent grasshopper migration to cropland adjacent to rangeland.

APHIS conducts surveys for grasshopper populations on rangeland in the 

Western United States, provides technical assistance on grasshopper

management to land owners/managers, and cooperatively suppresses

grasshoppers when direct intervention is requested by a federal land

management agency or a state agriculture department (on behalf of a state, a

local government or a private group or individual) and deemed necessary. The

need for rapid and effective suppression of grasshoppers when an outbreak

occurs limits the options available to APHIS. The application of an insecticide

within all or part of the outbreak area is the response available to APHIS to

rapidly suppress or reduce (but not eradicate) grasshopper populations and 

effectively protect rangeland.

In June 2002, APHIS completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

document concerning suppression of grasshopper populations in 17Western

States (Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program,

Environmental Impact Statement, June 21, 2002). The EIS described the

actions available to APHIS to reduce the destruction caused by Grasshopper

populations in 17 States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana,

Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South

Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming).
6

APHIS' authority for cooperation in this suppression program is based on Section

417 of the Plant Protection Act otL.000 (7 U.S.C. § 7717).

The Utah Agricultural Code, Section 4-35, provides for certain actions authorized by

this "Insect Infestation Emergency Control Act." Itauthorizes the Utah Commissioner

of Agriculture to appoint members to a Decision and Action Committee, who are 

directly affected by and involved in the current insect infestation emergency. The

committee establishes a system of priorities for any insect infestation emergency,

and members of USDA, APHIS, and PPQ in Utah currently serve on the

committee and are being asked to help address the grasshopper/Mormon cricket

problem which this document analyzes.

The Commissioner of Agriculture, with the consent of the governor of Utah, 

has declared that this infestation jeopardizes property and resources and has

designated, with the help of APHIS surveys, the areas affected. He has initiated

operations to control the problem in those designated areas and has requested

APHIS to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Utah Department of

Agriculture and Food in order to cooperatively attack the infestations and

mitigate consequences related thereto.

APHIS and the Forest Service (FS) signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) detailing cooperative efforts between the two groups on suppression of

grasshoppers and Mormon crickets on national forest system lands (Document

#08-8100-0573-MU September 08, 2008). This MOU clarifies that APHIS will

prepare and issue to the public site-specific environmental documents that

evaluate potential impacts associated with proposed measures to suppress

economically damaging grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations. The

MOU also states that these documents will be prepared under the APHIS NEPA

implementing procedures with cooperation and input from the Forest Service.

The MOU further states that the responsible FS official will request in writing

the inclusion of appropriate lands in the APHIS suppression project when

treatment on national forest land is necessary. The FS must also approve a

Pesticide Use Proposal (Form FS-2100-2) for APHIS to treat infestations.

According to the provisions o f the MOU, APHIS can begin treatments after

APHIS issues an appropriate decision document and FS approves the Pesticide

Use Proposal.

APHIS (Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service) and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Document #09-8100-0807-MU February 2009, detailing cooperative efforts

between the two groups on suppression of grasshoppers. This MOU clarifies

that APHIS will prepare and issue to the public site-specific environmental

documents that evaluate potential impacts associated with proposed measures to

suppress economically damaging grasshopper populations. The MOU also

states that these documents will be prepared under the APHIS NEPA

implementing procedures with cooperation and input from BLM.
7

Further, the MOU statesthat the responsible BLM official will request in writing the

inclusion of appropriate lands in the APHJS suppression project when treatment on

BLM land is necessary. The BLM must also approve a Pesticide Use Proposal for

APHIS to treat infestations. According to the provisions of the MOU, APHIS can

begin treatments after APHJS issues an appropriate document and BLM approves the

Pesticide Use Proposal.

In June 2010, APHJS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) signed a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) detailing cooperative efforts between the two groups

concerning suppressing of grasshoppers on BIA system lands (Document# 10-8100-

0941-MU, June 14, 2010). This MOU clarifies that APHIS would prepare and issue

to the public, site-specific environmental documentsthat evaluate potential impacts

associated with the proposed measures to suppress economically-damaging

grasshopper populations. The MOU also statesthat these documents would be

prepared under the APHIS NEPA- implementing procedures with cooperation and

input from the BIA. The MOU further statesthat the responsible BIA official would

request in writing the inclusion of appropriate lands in the APHIS suppression project

when treatment on BIA-administered lands is necessary. According to the provisions

of the MOU, APHIS can begin treatments after APHIS issues an appropriate

document and the BIA requests the project in writing.

C. About this Process:

The EA process for grasshopper management is complicated by the fact that there is

very little time between requests for treatment and the need for APHIS to take action

with respect to those requests. Fall and winter surveys help to determine general

areas, among the scores of millions of acresthat potentially could be affected, where

grasshopper infestations may occur in the spring. There is considerable uncertainty,

however, in the forecasts, so that framing specific proposals for analysis under NEPA

would waste limited resources. At the same time, the program strivesto alert the

public in a timely manner to its more concrete treatment plans and avoid or minimize

harm to the environment in implementing those plans.

The 2002 EIS provides a solid analytical and regulatory foundation; however, it

may not be enough to satisfy NEPA completely for actual treatment proposals,

and the "conventional" EA process will seldom, if ever, meet the program's

timeframe of need. The following approach to NEPA compliance for anticipated

requests to treat for grasshopper infestations will be followed: This EA will

analyze aspects of environmental quality that could be affected by grasshopper

treatment in Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne Counties. This EA and an

anticipatory finding of no significant impact (FONSI) will be made available to

the public with a comment period. When the program receives a treatment

request and determines that treatment is necessary, the specific treatment site

within Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne Counties will be extensively examined
8

To determine if environmental issues exist that were not covered i n this EA. If

no changes to the EA, FONSI or APHIS' Guidelines for Treatment of Rangelands

for Grasshopper and Mormon Crickets (treatment guidelines) (Appendix 1) are

warranted, based on the comments received and examination of the treatment

site, an addendum to the EA will be prepared stating this. If changes need to be

made to the EA, FONSI or treatment guidelines, the program will prepare a

supplement to the EA describing the changes and/or additional site-specific issues

that were not covered in the EA. Whether an addendum or supplement is

Prepared, these documents will be provided to all parties who comment on this

EA.

IL Alternatives

The alternatives presented in the 2002 EIS and considered for the proposed action in

this EA are: (A) no action; (B) insecticide applications at conventional rates and

complete area coverage, and (C) reduced agent area treatments (RAATS). Each of

these alternatives, their control methods, and their potential impacts were described

and analyzed in detail in the 2002 EIS. Copies of the complete 2002 EIS document

are available for review at USDA, APHIS, PPQ, 1860 W. Alexander St., #B, West

Valley, UT 84119.

The 2002 EIS is intended to support grasshopper suppression programs that 

could occur in 17 Western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada , New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,

South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). The 2002 EIS outlines

the importance of grasshoppers as a natural part of the rangeland ecosystem.

Grasshopper outbreaks can compete with livestock and wildlife for rangeland forage

and cause devastating damage to crops and rangeland ecosystems. Rather than opting

for a specific proposed action from the alternatives presented, the 2002 EIS

analyzes in detail the environmental impacts associated with each programmatic 

action alternative related to grasshopper suppression based on new information and

technologies.

All insecticides used by APHIS for grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression are

used in accordance with all applicable product label instructions and restrictions.

Representative product specimen labels can be accessed at the Crop Data Management 

Systems, Inc. website at www.cdms.net/manuf/manuf.asp. Labels for actual products 

used in suppression programs will vary, depending on supply issues. All insecticide 

treatments conducted by APHIS will be implemented in accordance with the APHIS'

FY-2003 Guidelines for Treatment ofRangelands for Grasshopper and Mormon 

Crickets, USDA APHIS PPQ Western Region, March 21, 2002 (Guidelines),

included as Appendix 1to this EA.
9

A. No Action Alternative

Under Alternative A, the no action alternative, APHIS would not fund or participate in

any program to suppress grasshopper infestations. Under this alternative, APHIS may

opt to provide limited technical assistance, but any suppression program would be

implemented by a Federal land management agency, a State agriculture department, a

local government, or a private group or individual.

B. Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates and Complete Area Coverage

Alternative

Alternative B. insecticide applications at conventional rates and complete area

coverage, is generally the approach that APHIS has used for many years. Under

this alternative, carbaryl, diflubenzuron (Dimilin®), or malathion will be employed.

Carbaryl and Malathion are insecticides that traditionally have been used by

APHIS. The, insect growth regulator, diflubenzuron, is also included in this alternative.

Applications would cover all treatable sites within the infested area (total or

blanket coverage) per label directions. The application rates under this alternative

are as follows:

16.0 fluid ounces (0.50 pound active ingredient (lb. a.i.)) of carbaryl spray per acre;

10.0 pounds (0.5, 0 lb. a.i.) of 5% carbaryl bait per acre;

1.0 fluid ounce (0.016 lb. a.i.) of diflubenzuron per acre; or

8.0 fluid ounces (0.62 lb. a.i.) of Malathion per acre.

In accordance with EPA regulations, these insecticides may be applied at lower rates

than those listed above. Additionally, coverage may be reduced to less than the full area

coverage, resulting in lesser effectsto non-target organisms. The potential generalized

environmental effects of the application of carbaryl, diflubenzuron, and Malathion,

under this alternative are discussed in detail in the 2002 EIS (Environmental

Consequences of Alternative 2: Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates and

Complete Area Coverage, pp.38-48). A description of anticipated site-specific impacts

from this alternative may be found in Part IV of this document.
1

C. Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATs) Alternative

Alternative C, RAATs, is a grasshopper suppression method in which the rate of

insecticide isreduced from conventional levels, and/or treated swaths are alternated

with swathsthat are not directly treated. The RAATs strategy relies on the effects of

an insecticide to suppress grasshoppers within treated swaths while conserving

grasshopper predators and parasites in swaths not directly treated. Either carbaryl,

diflubenzuron or Malathion would be considered under this alternative at the following

application rates:

• 8.0 fluid ounces (0.25 lb. a.i.) of carbaryl spray per acre,

• 10.0pounds (0.20 lb. a.i.) of 2 percent carbaryl bait per acre,

• 0.75 fluid ounce (0.012 lb. a.i.) of diflubenzuron per acre, or

• 4.0 fluid ounces (0.3 l lb. a.i.) of Malathion per acre.

• 10.0pounds of 2 or 5 percent carbaryl bait applied by skipping multiple swaths (2

or more).

• 1.0 fluid ounce of diflubenzuron applied in alternate or every third swath(s).

The area not directly treated (the untreated swath) under the RAATs approach is not

standardized. In the past, the area infested with grasshoppers that remains untreated has

ranged from 20 to 67 percent. The 2002 EIS analyzed the reduced pesticide application

rates associated with the RAATs approach but assumed pesticide coverage on 100

percent of the area as a worst-case assumption. The reason for this isthere is no way to

predict how much area will actually be left untreated as a result of the specific action

requiring this EA. Rather than suppress grasshopper populations to the greatest extent

possible, the goal of this alternative isto suppress grasshopper populations to a desired

level.

The potential environmental effects of application o f carbaryl, diflubenzuron and

malathion under this alternative are discussed in detail in the 2002 EIS (Environmental

Consequences o f Alternative 3: Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATs), pp. 49-

57). A description of anticipated site -specific impacts from this proposed treatment

may be found in Part IV of this document.

II. Affected Environment

A. Description of Affected Environment

The proposed suppression program area included in the EA encompasses 5,416,838 acres

(8,464 sq. miles) within northeastern Utah. This represents 10.3% of the land in Utah.

Approximately 71% of the land within the tri- country area as classified as federal;

8.1% of the acreage is state; and the remaining 20% of the land is private.
1

Uintah,Daggett and Duchesne Counties lie within the Uinta Basin which drains

into the Green River. This area is generally of two physiographic types: mountain

plate au (Diamond Mountain and the southern portion of the Bookcliffs Resource

Management Area-RMA) and desert plain (Coal Mine Basin,and the northern

portion ofthe Bookcliffs-RMA). Elevations range from well over 10,000 ft. inthe

mountains to a low of about 5,000 ft. along the Green River.

The area is semi-arid with an average rainfall of 6 to 10 inches in the lowlands and

averages 25 to 30 inches in the higher mountain elevations. The climate is

characterized by low relative humidity, rapid evaporation, generally clear skies

And daily and annual fluctuations in temperatures ( i.e. cold winters, hot summers).

Actual frost-free period is 120 days near Vernal.

The Uinta Basin contains some of Utah's most valuable deposits of oil, gas, oil shale

and tar sands. Eco-sites include some alkali bottoms, flats and benches, with some

badlands and rock outcrops, primarily in the northern part of the Bookcliffs RMA, and

a dominance of loams, some sandy, shallow or stony, in the southern and eastern

portion of the Bookcliffs RMA. Most of the soils are well drained, on flat to steeply

sloping grounds, and soil depth varies from very shallow to very deep. Soil erosion is

critical in some of the shallower soils.

Vegetation consists primarily of native rangeland, improved pastures and irrigated

crops. Native vegetation ranges from desert shrubs including greasewood, saltbrushes

and shad scale,with a dominance of sagebrush steppe vegetation mixed with pinyonjuniper as the elevation increases. The wet, north slopes of the mountains and higher

elevations contain stands of aspen, mountain shrubs and conifers. Riparian zones and

wetlands are probably the most important cover types for wildlife.

Surface water resources consist primarily of the Strawberry,Duchesne, White and

Green Rivers and their tributaries; some intermittent permanent streams; Starvation

and other reservoirs; Pelican and other lakes; ponds, stock tanks and troughs, seeps

and springs. Stream habitat is in generally fair to good condition, while the reservoirs

and other water resources provide adequate water for wildlife, domestic and livestock

use as well as habitat for the wildlife and excellent recreation. These and all other

waters are protected with buffer zones for water outlined in the operational

procedures. (See Appendix 2 for relevant maps.)

B. Site-SpecificConsiderations

1. Human Health

The major population centers within Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne Counties are

sparse.The total population of the three counties is approximately 40,878 (less than

two percent of the entire population of Utah).
1

Potential exposures to the general public from traditional application rates are

frequent and of low magnitude. These low exposures to the public pose no risk of

direct toxicity, carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity or

developmental toxicity. Program use of carbaryl, Malathion and Dimilin has occurred

routinely in many past programs, and there is a lack of any adverse health effects

reported from these projects. Therefore, routine safety precautions are anticipated to

continue to provide adequate protection of worker health. Immunotoxic effects from

Carbaryl and Malathion exposure are generally expected at concentrations much

higher than those from grasshopper/Mormon cricket applications, but individuals with

allergic or hypersensitive reactions to the insecticides or other chemicals in the

formulated product could be affected. These individuals will be advised to avoid

treatment areas at the time of application until the insecticide has time to dry on the

treated vegetation.

2. Nontarget Species

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) January 1992 (revised) list of native 

Utah Species of Special Concern is attached (see Table 2). Some of the species listed 

in that attachment are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asthreatened,

endangered or proposed threatened or endangered species. These species are found

In various locations throughout the state, but no distribution map is available. The

list is provided to inform the reader that there are species of concern throughout the

state (see Table 2). It also emphasizes the necessity for strict adherence to proper

application procedures and associated mitigation measures to avoid unacceptable

impacts to wildlife.

Game species known to occur within the general areas proposed for spraying include

mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, cougar, bear, sage grouse, chukar partridge, blue

grouse, mourning dove, ring-necked pheasant (only in or adjacent to cultivated areas), 

cottontail rabbit and several species of waterfowl. A number of cold and warm water

game fish occur in the various lakes and streams in the area.

A diversity of non-game wildlife occur in the area (birds, reptiles, amphibians and

mammals) including wild horses which occur in portions of Uintah County. The

greatest abundance and diversity of most species occurs in riparian and wetland

habitat types.

Candidate species for federal listing, state-listed species, and/or other sensitive

Species identified by state or federal agencies within the area include: the white-faced

ibis, long- billed curlew, mountain plover, snowy plover, Lewis' woodpecker,

burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, Swainson's hawk and Ute ladies'- tresses.

The Ouray National Wildlife Refuge and the Stewart Lake State Waterfowl

Management Area are both in Uintah County.
10

3. Socioeconomic Issues

Recreation use is moderate over most of the affected area. There are several

dispersed camping sites. Hunting seasons increase recreation use in the form of

dispersed camping and general hunting activity. Hunting season occurs later in the

year during a time when cricket populations have begun to dwindle such that

Fewer insects are present. Hunters probably will not be affected. ATV use is fairly

prevalent throughout.

The presence of high densities of grasshoppers or Mormon crickets will result in

fewer people engaging in recreational activities during the spring and summer

within the affected areas. High insect densities in a campsite detract considerably

from the quality of the recreational experience. Crickets tend to get into

unsecured tents and food.

The quality of the recreational experience for ATV users and horseback riders

also will be indirectly impaired by high densities of grasshoppers and/or crickets.

Such numbers crossing roads and trails are killed by vehicle traffic, leaving

windrows of dead insects in the travel way as well as providing a vehicular safety

hazard by leaving slick residues on local roads.

People who normally recreate in areas that are heavily infested will likely relocate

to areas that are not infested. Displacement of users will be more of an

inconvenience to the public than an actual effect on the recreational values of the

· Area. Displacement will also increase pressure on other public lands as people

move to new locations to camp and to engage in other recreational activities. Social

capacity tolerances will be impacted. The potential for user conflict will increase,

in particular as motorized recreationists displace to other already heavily used

areas. Such locations will experience more pressure and may experience site

degradation. Areas currently not impacted or used by dispersed campers may

become subjected to use and development as people look for areas for recreation

which are not infested with insects.

Small towns near the affected areas receive limited business from recreationists

who visit public lands. Many local gas stations/public stores rely fairly heavily on

summer business to support their operations.

Livestock grazing is one of the main uses of most of the affected area, which

provides summer range for ranching operations. Permittees may run cattle, sheep

and/or horses for a season that runs generally from the first of June to the end of

September, weather and vegetation conditions permitting.

A substantial threat to the animal productivity of these rangeland areas is the

proliferation of grasshopper/Mormon cricket populations. These insects have

been serious pests in the Western States since early settlement. Weather

conditions favoring the hatching and survival of large numbers of insects can
11

Cause outbreak populations, resulting in damage to vegetation. The consequences

may reduce grazing for livestock and result in loss of food and habitat for wildlife.

Livestock grazing on public lands contributes important cultural and social values to

the area. Intertwined with the economic aspects of livestock operations are the

lifestyles and culture that have co-evolved with Western ranching. Rural social values

and lifestyles, in conjunction with the long heritage of ranching and farming continue

to this day, dating back to the earliest pioneers in Utah, who shaped the communities

and enterprises that make up much of the state. The rural Western lifestyle also

contributes to tourism in the area,presenting to travelers a flavor of the West through

tourist-oriented goods and services, photography of sheep bands or cattle in pastoral

settings and scheduled events.

Ranchers displaced from public lands due to early loss of forage from insect damage

will be forced to search for other rangeland, to sell their livestock prematurely or to

purchase feed hay. This will affect other ranchers (non- permittees) by increasing

demand, and consequently, cost for hay and/or pasture in the area. This will have a

beneficial effect on those providing the hay or range , and a negative impact on other

ranchers who use these same resources throughout the area. In addition, grazing on

private lands resulting from this impact will compound the effects to vegetation of 

recent drought conditions over the last six years (e.g., continual heavy utilization by

grasshoppers/crickets, wildlife and wildfire), resulting in longer-term impacts (e.g.,

decline or loss of some preferred forage species) on grazing forage production on 

these lands.

The lack oftreatment would result in the eventual magnification of grasshopper/Mormon

cricket problems resulting in increased suppression efforts, increased suppression costs

and the expansion of suppression needs onto lands where such options are limited. For

example, control needs on crop lands where chemical options are restricted because of 

pesticide label restrictions. Under the no action alternative, farmers would experience

economic losses. The suppression of grasshoppers and/Mormon crickets in the affected

area would have beneficial economic impactsto local landowner, farmers and

beekeepers. Crops near infested lands would be protected from devastating migrating

hordes, resulting in higher crop production; hence, increased monetary returns.

4. Cultural Resources and Events

Federal and state public lands that are part ofthe region's visual and cultural resources

include the Ashley National Forest, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, and 

Wasatch National forest, High Uintas Wilderness Area, Ouray National Wildlife Refuge

and the Dinosaur National Monument. State parks within the area include: Starvation

State Park, Big Sand State Park, Red Fleet State Park, and Steinaker State Park. The

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation occupies a portion of Uintah and Duchesne

Counties.

A broad variety and number of activities have occurred, are occurring or will occur

throughout the area of concern that affect cultural resources. These activities and any

cumulative impacts associated with them will occur regardless of whether or not
12

Grasshoppers/Mormon crickets are treated.

Use of motorized equipment off existing roads could impact surface artifacts by

damaging them or displacing them in their overall juxtaposition with other artifacts.

Maintaining the integrity of a historical site is important to understanding the

significance of the site and the artifacts found therein. Non-treatment of infested land

will likely later result in more intensive and extensive treatment of that infested land.

Most of the non- public lands that will be affected have already been heavily disturbed

and any artifacts on them likely impacted. Consequently, it is unlikely that additional

Sevin XLR bait treatments will result in additional impacts on cultural properties.

With no treatment of grasshoppers or crickets on public lands, aerial application of 

insecticides off public lands will likely increase. Though this should not disturb or

displace cultural artifacts, carrying agents in the spray could damage artifacts (USDA,

APHIS EIS, 2002, p. 71). However, most if not all of the areas likely to be treated

have been heavily disturbed in the past, and any artifacts on them likely impacted.

Consequently, it is unlikely that these aerial treatments will result in additional impacts

on cultural properties.

Motorized vehicles (pick-up trucks and/or ATV's) may be used to treat portions of the

affected areas. This will create a risk of impacting cultural properties. The risk is

small given that the off-road use of vehicles will create only minor soil disturbance,

and the areas involved are not likely to contain significant sites of which public

officials are not already aware. Known sites will be avoided to mitigate impacts. Any

sites located during treatment activities will be reported, then avoided during

continuing operations. Past similar grasshopper/cricket treatments throughout the state

have not resulted in any known impacts to cultural properties.

In addition to the treatments proposed under this alternative, a broad variety and

number of activities throughout the project area could affect, or have affected, cultural

resources. These activities and any cumulative impacts associated with them will

occur, regardless of whether or not grasshoppers/crickets are treated. No direct,

indirect or change in cumulative impacts on cultural resources in the area will occur

due to implementation of the treatment alternative.

To ensure that historical or cultural sites, monuments, buildings or artifacts of special

concern are not adversely affected by program treatments, APHIS will confer with

BLM, Forest Service or other appropriate land management agency on a local level to

protect these areas of special concern. APIDS also will confer with the appropriate

tribal authority and with the BIA office at a local level to ensure that the timing and

location of planned program treatments do not coincide or conflict with cultural events

or observances, such as sundances, on tribal lands.
13

5. Special Considerations for Certain Populations

a. Executive Order No. 12898,Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898,Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, was signed by President Clinton on

February 11, 1994 (59 Federal Register (FR) 7269). This E.O. requires each Federal

agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations

and low-income populations. Consistent with this E.O., APHIS will consider the

potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects

on minority populations and low-income populations for any of its actions related to

grasshopper suppression programs.

The human population at most sites in grasshopper programs is diverse and lacks any

special characteristics that implicate greater risks of adverse effects for any minority or

low-income populations. A demographic review in the APHIS EIS 2002 revealed

certain areas with large populations, Spanish-speaking populations and some with large

American Indian tribal populations. Low-income farmers and ranchers would comprise,

by far, the largest group affected by APHIS program efforts in this area of concern.

When planning a site-specific action related to grasshopper/Mormon cricket

infestations, APHIS considers the potential for disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental impacts of its actions on minority and

Low-income populations before any proposed action. In doing so, APHIS program

managers will work closely with representatives of these populations in the locale of 

planned actions through public meetings.

APHIS intervention to locally suppress damaging insect infestations will stand to

greatly benefit,rather than harm, low-income farmers and ranchers by helping them to

control insect threats to their livelihood. Suppressing grasshopper or Mormon cricket

infestations on adjacent public or private rangelands will increase inexpensive available

forage for their livestock and will significantly decrease economic losses to their crop

lands by invading insects. Such would obviate the need to perform additional

Expensive crop pesticide treatments or to provide supplemental feed to their livestock

which would further impact low-income individuals.

In past grasshopper programs, the U.S. Department of the Interior's (USDI)

Bureau of Land Management or Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) have notified the

appropriate APHIS State Plant Health Director when any new or potentially

threatening grasshopper infestation is discovered on BLM lands or tribal lands held in

trust and administered by
20

BIA. Thus, APHIS has cooperated with BIA when grasshopper programs occur on

Indian tribal lands. For local Indian populations,APHIS program managers will work

with BIA and local tribal councils to communicate information to tribal organizations

and representatives when programs have the potential to impact the environment of 

their communities, lands or cultural resources. In past grasshopper/cricket programs,

APHIS has worked cooperatively with American Indian groups and will continue to

do so in the future.

b. Executive Order No. 13045,Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks

The increased scientific knowledge about the environmental health risks and safety

risks associated with hazardous substance exposures to children and recognition of

these issues in Congress and Federal agencies brought about legislation and other

requirements to protect the health and safety of children. On April 21, 1997,

President Clinton signed E.O. 13045,Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885). This E.O. requires each Federal

agency, consistent with its mission, to identify and assess environmental health risks

and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and to ensure that its

policies,programs, activities and standards address disproportionate risks to children

that result from environmental health risks or safety risks. APHIS has developed

agency guidance for its programs to follow to ensure the protection of children

(USDA,APHIS, 1999).

Treatments used for grasshopper programs are primarily conducted on open

rangelands where children would not be expected to be present during treatment or

enter during the restricted entry period after treatment. Based on review of the

insecticides and

their use in programs, the risk assessment concludes that the likelihood of children

being exposed to insecticides from a grasshopper or Mormon cricket program is very

slight and that no disproportionate adverse effects to children are anticipated over

the negligible effects to the general population.

IV. Environmental Consequences

Each alternative described in this EA potentially has adverse environmental

effects. The general environmental impacts of each alternative are discussed in

detail in the 2002 EIS. The specific impacts of the alternatives are highly

dependent upon the particular action and location of infestation. The principal

concerns associated

With the alternatives that include insecticide application are: (1) the potential

effects of the three pesticide options on human health (including subpopulations

that might be at increased risk); and (2) impacts of

Pesticides on non-target organisms (including threatened and endangered

species). Assessments of the relative risk of each pesticide option are discussed

in detail in the 2002 EIS document.
21

A. Environmental Consequences oftheAlternatives

Site-specific environmental consequences of the alternatives are discussed in this

section.

1.No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, APHIS would not fund or participate in any program to

suppress grasshoppers. IfAPHIS does not participate in any grasshopper suppression

program, Federal land management agencies, State agriculture departments, local

governments or private groups orindividuals, may not effectively combat outbreaks in

a coordinated effort. In these situations, grasshopper outbreaks could develop and

spread unimpeded.

Grasshoppers in unsuppressed outbreaks would consume agricultural and

nonagricultural plants. The damage caused by grasshopper outbreaks could also pose a

risk to rare, threatened or endangered plants that often have a low number of

individuals and limited distribution. Habitat loss for birds and other wildlife and

rangeland susceptibility to invasion by nonnative plants are among the consequences

that would likely occur should existing vegetation be removed by grasshoppers.

Loss of plant cover due to grasshopper consumption will occur. Plant cover may

protect the soil from the drying effects of the sun, and plant root systems hold the soil

in place that may otherwise be eroded or lost to erosion.

Another potential scenario, if APHIS does not participate in any grasshopper

suppression programs, is that some Federal land management agencies, state agriculture

departments, local governments or private groups or individuals may attempt to conduct

widespread grasshopper programs. Without the technical assistance and program

coordination that

APHIS can provide to grasshopper programs, it is possible that a large amount of 

insecticides, including those APHIS considers too environmentally harsh but labeled

for rangeland use, could be applied, reapplied, and perhaps misapplied in an effort to

suppress or even locally eradicate grasshopper populations . It is not possible to

accurately predict the environmental consequences of the no action alternative

because the type and amount of insecticides that could be used in this scenario are

unknown.

2. Insecticide Applications at Conventional Rates and Complete Area

Coverage Alternative

Under Alternative 2, APHIS would participate in grasshopper programs with the

option of using one of the insecticides Carbaryl, diflubenzuron, or Malathion,

depending upon the various factors related to the grasshopper outbreak and the sitespecific characteristics. The use of an insecticide would occur at the conventional

rates. With only rare exceptions, APHIS would apply a single treatment in an
22

outbreak year that would blanket affected rangeland areas in an attempt to suppress

grasshopper outbreak populations by a range of 35 to 98 percent, depending upon the

insecticide used.

Carbaryl

Carbaryl is of moderate acute oral toxicity to humans. The mode of toxic action of 

carbaryl occurs through inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) function in the

nervous system. This inhibition is reversible over time if exposure to carbaryl ceases.

The Environmental Protection Agency (BPA) has classified carbaryl as a possible

human carcinogen (EPA, 1993). However, it is not considered to pose any mutagenic

or genotoxic risk.

Potential exposures to the general public from conventional application rates are 

infrequent and of low magnitude. These low exposures to the public pose no risk of

direct toxicity,carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity or

developmental toxicity. The potential for adverse effects to workers are negligible if

proper safety procedures are followed, including wearing the required protective

clothing. Carbaryl has been used routinely in other programs with no reports of

adverse health effects. Therefore, routine safety precautions are expected to provide

adequate worker health protection.

Carbaryl is of moderate acute oral toxicity to mammals (McEwen et al., 1996a).

Carbaryl applied at Alternative 2 rates is unlikely to be directly toxic to upland birds,

Mammals, or reptiles. Field studies have shown that carbaryl applied as either ultralow- volume (ULV) spray or bait at Alternative 2 rates posed little risk to killdeer

(McEwen

et al., 1996a), vesper sparrows (McEwen et al., 1996a;Adam et al., 1994), or golden

eagles (McEwen et al., l 996b) in the treatment areas. AChE inhibition at 40 to 60

percent can affect coordination, behavior, and foraging ability in vertebrates. Multi-year

studies conducted at several grasshopper treatment areas have shown AChE inhibition

at levels of no more that 40 percent with most at less than 20 percent (McEwen et al.,

1996a). Carbaryl is not subject to significant bioaccumulation due to its low water

solubility and low octanol- water partition coefficient (Dobroski et al., 1985).

Carbaryl will most likely affect non-target insects that are exposed to ULV carbaryl

spray or that consume carbaryl bait within the grasshopper treatment area. Field

studies have shown that affected insect populations can recover rapidly and generally

have suffered

No long-term effects, including some insects that are particularly sensitive to carbaryl,

such as bees (Catania et al., 1996). The use of carbaryl in bait form generally has

considerable environmental advantages over liquid insecticide applications: bait is

easier than liquid spray applications to direct toward the target area, bait is more

specific to grasshoppers, and bait affects fewer non-target organisms than sprays

(Quinn, 1996).

Should carbaryl enter water,there isthe potential to affect the aquatic invertebrate

assemblage, especially amphipods. Field studies with carbaryl concluded that there

was no biologically significant effect on aquatic resources, although invertebrate
23

Downstream drift increased for a short period after treatment due to toxic effects

(Beyer’s

Et al., 1995). Carbaryllbs. moderately toxic to most fish (Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986).

Diflubenzuron

The acute oral toxicity of diflubenzuron formulations to humans ranges from very

slight to slight. The most sensitive indicator of exposure and effects of diflubenzuron 

in humans is the formation of methemoglobin (a compound in blood responsible for

the transport of oxygen) in blood.

Potential exposures to the general public from Alternative 2 rates are infrequent and

of low magnitude. These low exposures to the public pose no risk of 

methemoglobinemia (a condition where the heme iron in blood is chemically oxidized

and lacks the ability to properly transport oxygen), direct toxicity, neurotoxicity,

genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, or developmental toxicity. Potential worker

exposures are higher than the

general public but are not expected to pose any risk of adverse health effects.

Because diflubenzuron is a chitin inhibitor that disrupts insects from forming their

exoskeleton, organisms without a chitinous exoskeleton, such as mammals, fish, and

plants are largely unaffected by diflubenzuron. In addition, adult insects, including

wild and cultivated bees,would be mostly unaffected by diflubenzuron applications

(Schroeder et al., 1980;Emmett and Archer, 1980). Among birds, nestling growth

rates, behavior data, and survival of wild American kestrels in diflubenzuron treated

areas showed no significant differences among kestrels in treated areas and untreated

areas (McEwen et al., 1996b). The acute oral toxicity of diflubenzuron to mammals

ranges from very slight to slight. Little, if any, bioaccumulation of diflubenzuron

would be expected (Opdycke et al., 1982).

Diflubenzuron is most likely to affect immature terrestrial insects and early life stages

of aquatic invertebrates (Eisler, 2000). While this would reduce the prey base within

the treatment area for organisms that feed on insects, adult insects, including

grasshoppers, would remain available as prey items. Many of the aquatic organisms

most susceptible to diflubenzuron are marine organisms that would not be exposed to

rangeland

Treatments.

Freshwater invertebrate populations could be reduced if exposed to diflubenzuron, but

these decreases would be expected to be temporary given the rapid regeneration of many

aquatic invertebrates.

Malathion

Malathion is of slight acute oral toxicity to humans. The mode of toxic action of

Malathion occurs through inhibition of AChE function in the nervous system. Unlike

carbaryl, AChE inhibition from Malathion is not readily reversible over time if

exposure ceases. However, strong inhibition of AChE from Malathion occurs only
24

when chemical oxidation results in formation of the metabolite malaoxon. Human

metabolism of Malathion favors hydroxylation and seldom produces much malaoxon. 

Potential exposures to the general public from conventional application rates are

infrequent and of low magnitude. These low exposures to the public pose no risk of

direct toxicity, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, or developmental

toxicity. Potential worker exposures are higher, but still have little potential for adverse

health effects except under accidental scenarios. Malathion has been used routinely in

other programs with no reports of adverse health effects. Therefore, routine safety

precautions are expected to continue to provide adequate protection of worker health.

EPA has recently reviewed the potential for carcinogenic effects from Malathion. EPA's

classification describes Malathion as having a suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but

not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential (EPA, 2000). This indicates that

Any carcinogenic potential of Malathion cannot be quantified based upon EPA's weight

of evidence determination in this classification. The low exposures to Malathion from

program applications would not be expected to pose carcinogenic risks to workers or to

the general public.

Malathion is of slight acute oral toxicity to mammals. There is little possibility of

toxicity-induced mortality of upland birds, mammals, or reptiles, and no direct toxic

effects have been observed in field studies. Malathion is not directly toxic to vertebrates

at the concentrations used for grasshopper suppression, but it may be possible that sub 

lethal effects to nervous system functions caused by AChE inhibition may lead directly

to decrease survival. AChE inhibition at 40 to 60 percent affects coordination, behavior,

and foraging ability in vertebrates. Multi-year studies at several grasshopper treatment

areas have shown AChE inhibition at levels of no more than 40 percent with most at less

than 20 percent (McEwen et al., 1996a). Field studies of birds within Malathion

treatment areas showed that, in general, the total number of birds and bird reproduction

were not different from untreated areas (McEwen et al., 1996a). Malathion does not bio 

accumulate HSDB, 1990; Stud et al., 1989).

Malathion will most likely affect non-target insects within a treatment area. Large

reductions in some insect populations would be expected after a Malathion treatment

under Alternative 2. While the number of insects would be diminished, there would be

some insects remaining. The remaining insects would be available prey items for

Insectivorous organisms, and those insects with short generation times may soon increase.

Malathion is highly toxic to some fish and aquatic invertebrates; however, malathion

concentrations in water, as a result of grasshopper treatments, are expected to be low

presenting a low risk to aquatic organisms, especially those organisms with short

generation times.

The implementation of pesticide label instructions and restrictions and the APHIS

treatment guidelines will reduce potential impacts from the program use of insecticides

(see Appendix 1 treatment guidelines).
25

1. Reduced Area Agent Treatments (RAATs) Alternative

Under Alternative 3, either the insecticide carbaryl, diflubenzuron or Malathion would be

used at a reduced rate and/or over reduced areas of coverage. Rarely would APHIS apply

more than a single treatment to an area per year.The insecticide application rate under the

RAATs strategy may be reduced 50 - 67 percent from the conventional rates for carbaryl

and Malathion and from the Alternative 2 rates for diflubenzuron. Although this strategy

involves leaving variable amounts of land not directly treated, the risk assessment

conducted for the 2002 EIS assumed I00percent area coverage because not all possible

scenarios could be analyzed. However, when utilized in grasshopper suppression, the

amount of untreated area in RAATs often ranges from 20 to 67 percent of the total infested

area but can be adjusted to meet site-specific needs.

Carbaryl

Potential exposures to the general public and workers from RAATs application rates are

lower than those from conventional application rates, and adverse effects decrease

commensurately with decreased magnitude of exposure. These low exposures to the

public pose no risk of direct toxicity, carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity,

reproductive toxicity, or developmental toxicity. The potential for adverse effects to

workers is negligible if proper safety procedures are followed, including wearing the

required protective clothing. Routine safety precautions are expected to provide

adequate protection of worker health at the lower application rates under RAATs.

Carbaryl will most likely affect non-target insects that are exposed to liquid carbaryl or 

that consume carbaryl bait. While carbaryl applied at a RAATs rate will reduce

susceptible insect populations, the decrease will be less than under Alternative 2 rates.

Carbaryl ULV applications applied in alternate swaths have been shown to affect

terrestrial arthropods less than Malathion applied in a similar fashion.

Direct toxicity of carbaryl to birds, mammals, and reptiles is unlikely in swaths treated

with carbaryl under a RAATs approach. Carbaryl bait also has minimal potential for

direct effects on birds and mammals. Field studies indicated that bee populations did not

decline after carbaryl bait treatments, and American kestrels were unaffected by bait

applications made at a RAATs rate. Using alternating swaths will furthermore reduce

adverse effects because organisms that are in untreated swaths will be mostly unexposed

to carbaryl.

Carbaryl applied at a RAATs rate has the potential to affect invertebrates in aquatic

ecosystems. However, these affects would be less than effects expected under

Alternative 2. Fish are not likely to be affected at any concentrations that could be

expected under Alternative 3.

Diflubenzuron

Potential exposures and adverse effects to the general public and workers from RAATs

application rates are commensurately less than conventional application rates. These low
26

exposures to the public pose no risk of methemoglobinemia, direct toxicity, neurotoxicity,

genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity or developmental toxicity. Potential worker exposures

pose negligible risk of adverse health effects.

Because diflubenzuron is a chitin inhibitor that disrupts insects from forming their

exoskeleton, organisms without a chitinous exoskeleton, such as mammals, fish and

plants are largely unaffected by diflubenzuron . Diflubenzuron exposures at Alternative 3

rates are not hazardous to terrestrial mammals, birds and other vertebrates. Insects in

untreated swaths would have little to no exposure, and adult insects in the treated swaths

are not susceptible to diflubenzuron’s mode of action. The indirect effects to insectivores

would be negligible as not all insects in the treatment area will be affected by

diflubenzuron.

Diflubenzuron is most likely to affect immature terrestrial insects, and if it enters water,

will affect early life stages of aquatic invertebrates. While diflubenzuron would reduce

insects within the treatment area, insects in untreated swaths would have little to no

exposure. Many of the aquatic organisms most susceptible to diflubenzuron are marine

organisms that would not be exposed to rangeland treatments. Freshwater invertebrate

populations could be reduced if exposed to diflubenzuron, but these decreases should be

temporary given the quick dilution rate of Dimilin in water bodies and the rapid

regeneration time of many aquatic invertebrates.

Malathion

Potential exposures to the general public and workers from RAATs application rates are

of a commensurately lower magnitude than conventional rates. These low exposures to

the public pose no risk of direct toxicity, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, reproductive

toxicity, or developmental toxicity.

Potential risks to workers are negligible if proper safety procedures are adhered to,

including the use of required protective clothing. Malathion has been used routinely in

other programs with no reports of adverse health effects. The low exposures to malathion

from program applications are not expected to pose any carcinogenic risks to workers or

the general public.
21

Malathion applied at a RAATs rate will cause mortalities to susceptible insects.

Organisms in untreated areas will be mostly unaffected. Field applications of Malathion

at a RAATs rate and applied in alternate swaths resulted in less reduction in non-target

organisms than would occur in blanket treatments. Birds in RAATs areas were not

substantially affected. Should Malathion applied at RAATs rates enter water,it may

affect aquatic invertebrates. However, these effects would soon be compensated for by

The surviving organisms given the rapid generation time of most aquatic invertebrates

and the rapid degradation of Malathion in most water bodies.

The implementation of pesticide label instructions and restrictions and the APHIS

treatment guidelines will reduce potential impacts from the program use of insecticides

(see Appendix 1 treatment guidelines).

B. Other Environmental Considerations

1.Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impact, as defined in the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations

(40 CFR § 1508.7) "Isthe impact on the environment which results from the incremental

impact of the action when added to the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such

actions? Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time."

The Bureau of Land Management could apply herbicides for the control of federal

Noxious weeds throughout some of the potential grasshopper/Mormon cricket

suppression areas. The timing of such treatments should not coincide, so there would be

little reason to suspect that any adverse synergistic chemical effects would occur. Inany

event, before any APHJS program, discussions will be held with land-managing officials

to ensure that the two programs would not cause increased injurious effects to any

treatment area.

Private agricultural entities could apply herbicides or insecticides to their cropland during

times which could coincide with APHIS programs. APHIS' policy requires that

grasshoppers/crickets may only be treated on private rangelands, so that cumulative

impacts would not result.

2. Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The human population at most sites in grasshopper programs is diverse and lacks

any special characteristics that implicate greater risks of adverse effects for any

minority or low-income populations . A demographic review in the APHIS EIS

2002 revealed certain areas with large populations, Spanish-speaking populations

and some with large American, Indian tribal populations. Low-income farmers
22

And ranchers would comprise, by far, the largest group affected by APHIS

program efforts in this area of concern.

When planning a site-specific action related to grasshopper/Mormon cricket

infestations, APHIS considers the potential for disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental impacts of its actions on minority and

Low-income populations before any proposed action. In doing so, APHIS program

managers will work closely with representatives of these populations in the locale of

planned actions through public meetings.

APHIS intervention to locally suppress damaging insect infestations will stand to

greatly benefit, rather than harm, low-income farmers and ranchers by helping them

to control insect threats to their livelihood. Suppressing grasshopper or Mormon

cricket infestations on adjacent public or private range lands will increase

inexpensive available forage for their livestock and will significantly decrease

economic losses to their crop lands by invading insects. Such would obviate the

need to perform additional expensive crop pesticide treatments or to provide

supplemental feed to their livestock which would further impact low- income

individuals.

In past grasshopper programs, the U.S. Department of the Interior's (USDI) Bureau of

Land Management or Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) have notified the appropriate APHIS

State Plant Health Director when any new or potentially threatening grasshopper infestation

is discovered on BLM lands or tribal lands held in trust and administered by BIA. Thus,

APHIS has cooperated with BIA when grasshopper programs occur on Indian tribal lands. 

For local Indian populations, APHIS program managers will work

With BIA and local tribal councils to communicate information to tribal organizations and

representatives when programs have the potential to impact the environment of their

communities, lands or cultural resources. In past grasshopper/cricket programs, APHIS has

worked cooperatively with American Indian groups and will continue to do so in the future.

3. Executive Order No. 13045,Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks

and Safety Risks

Treatments used for grasshopper programs are primarily conducted on open rangelands

where children would not be expected to be present during treatment or enter during the

restricted entry period after treatment. Based on review of the insecticides and their use in 

programs, the risk assessment of the 2002 APHIS EIS concludes that the likelihood of

children being exposed to insecticides from a grasshopper or Mormon cricket program is

very slight and that no disproportionate adverse effects to children are anticipated over the

negligible effects to the general population.
23

• Impacts on children will be minimized by the implementation of the

Guidelines: Aerial Broadcast Applications of Liquid Insecticides notify all

residents in treatment areas, or their designated representatives, prior to 

proposed operations. Advise them of the control method to be used, the

proposed method of application, and precautions to be taken (e.g., advise

parents to keep children and pets indoors during ULV treatment). Refer to

label recommendations related to restricted entry period.

• No treatments will occur over congested urban areas. For all flights over

congested areas, the contractor must submit a plan to the appropriate FAA

District Office and this office must approve of the plan; a letter of

authorization signed by city or town authorities must accompany each plan. 

Whenever possible,plan aerial ferrying and turnaround routes to avoid

flights over congested areas, bodies of water, and other sensitive areas that

are not to be treated.

Aerial Application of Dry Insecticidal Bait

• Do not apply within 500 feet of any school or recreational facility.

Ultra-Low-Volume Aerial Application of Liquid Insecticides

• Do not spray while school buses are operating in the treatment area.

• Do not apply within 500 feet of any school or recreational facility.

Based on the analysis and the protection measures, we have determined that there will be

no impact on children within any potential treatment zones in the areas of concern.

4. Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities ofFederal Agencies toProtect Migratory

Birds.

In accordance with various environmental statutes, APHIS routinely conducts programs

in a manner that minimizes impact to the environment, including any impact to

Migratory birds. In January 2001, President Clinton signed E.O. 13186 to ensure that

all government programs protect migratory birds to the extent practicable. To further its

purposes, the E.O. requires each agency with a potential to impact migratory birds to

enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS). In compliance with the E.O., APHIS is currently working with FWS to

develop such an MOU.

5. Endangered Species Act

APHIS is consulting with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to discuss

Section 7 consultation as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The

mitigation measures from the consultations are listed in the appendix tables.

APHIS has also consulted with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR).
24

Included in Appendix 3 is the listing of "Federally Listed and Proposed

Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and Habitat in Utah by County"

(Table I). Also included are "Utah's State Listed Species by County" (Table 2).

The 2005 biological opinion issued by the USFWS in Utah lists the mitigations to

be followed by APHIS when conducting a program to suppress grasshoppers with

insecticides other than diflubenzuron.This list is included in Appendix 3 (Table 3).

Mitigation measures for the use of malathion, carbaryl and Diflubenzuron for new

listings (since 2005) of endangered, threatened and proposed species that have not

been included in formal Section 7 consultation are also included in Appendix 3

(Table 3).

APHIS is not required to develop mitigation measures for candidate or other species of

concern but will follow the requesting land managing agency's sensitive species

Policy. Local program consultation with the requesting agency will determine if and 

when mitigation measures might be implemented during a suppression program

The most recent national biological opinion on the grasshopper program 

issued by FWS was for the 1996 program. APHIS prepared a biological 

assessment for the 1998program, but no biological opinion was prepared 

because control programs were not anticipated that year. In following years,

no biological assessment was prepared since control programs were not

anticipated that year. 

 

A biological assessment for the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon 

Cricket Suppression Program is currently under way, but the process for its

completion and consideration by FWS will not be concluded in time for the 2015

season. In order to comply the section 7 requirements APHIS or the cooperating

Federal land managing agency will conduct ongoing informal consultations with

FWS, locally. The 1996 biological opinion and 1998 biological assessment

will be used as a basis for these local consultations and are incorporated into

this EA by reference.

6. Environmental Monitoring

Monitoring involves the evaluation of various aspects of the grasshopper suppression

programs. There are three aspects of the programs that may be monitored. The first is

the efficacy of the treatment. APHIS will determine how effective the applications of an

insecticide has been in suppressing the grasshopper population within a treatment area

and will report the results in a Work Achievement Report to the Western Hub.

The second area included in monitoring is safety. This includes ensuring the safety of

the program personnel through medical monitoring conducted specifically to determine

risks of a hazardous material. (See APHIS Safety and Health Manual (USDA, APHIS,

1998) available online at: www.aphis.usda.gov/m b/asset /she’s/ shes-manual.html).
28

The third area of monitoring is environmental monitoring. APHIS Directive 5640.l

commits APHIS to a policy of monitoring the effects of Federal programs on the

environment. Environmental monitoring includes such activities as checking to make

sure the insecticides are applied in accordance with the labels, and that sensitive sites

and organisms are protected. The environmental monitoring recommended for

grasshopper suppression programs involves monitoring sensitive sites such as bodies of

water used for human consumption or recreation or which have wildlife value, habitats

of endangered and threatened species, habitats of other sensitive wildlife species,

edible crops and any sites for which the public has expressed concern or where

humans might congregate (e.g., schools, parks, hospitals).
28

V. Literature Cited

Adams, J.S., Knight, R.L., McEwen, L.C., and George, T.L., 1994. Survival and

growth of nestling vesper sparrow exposed to experimental food reductions. The

Condor 96:739 -748.

Beyer’s, D.W ..,Farmer, M.S., and Sadoski, P.J., 1995.

Effects of rangeland aerial application of Sevin-4-0il® on fish and aquatic

invertebrate drift in the Little Missouri River, North Dakota. Archives of

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:27-34.

Catania, M.A., Fuller, B.W., and Waltz, A.W., 1996. Impact of Dimilin® on nontarget arthropods and its efficacy against rangeland grasshoppers. In U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1996.

Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management User Handbook, Tech. Bui. No. 1809.

Sec.

VII.3. Washington, DC.

Dobroski, C.J., O'Neill, E.J., Donohue, J.M., and Curley, W.H., 1985. Carbaryl a

profile of its behavior in the environment. Roy F.Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA, and

V.J. Ciccone and Associates, Inc.,Woodbridge, VA.

Eisler, R., 2000.

Handbook of chemical risk assessment: health hazards to humans, plants, and

animals. Lewis Publishers, New York.

Emmett, B.J., and Archer, B.M, 1980. The toxicity of diflubenzuron to honey bee

(Apes melifera

L.) Colonies in apple orchards. Plant Pathology 29:637- 183.

EPA-seeU.S.Environmental Protection Agency

Hazardous Substances Database, 1990. On-line database. National Library of

Medicine,Bethesda, MD.

HSDB-seeHazardous SubstancesDatabase

Mayer, F .L. Jr, and Ellersieck, M.C., 1986. Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation

and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. Resource

Publication 160 .

Department ofthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
28

McEwen, L.C., Althouse, C.M., and Peterson, B.E., 1966a.

Direct and indirect effects of grasshopper integrated pest management (GHIPM)

chemicals and biologicals on non-target animal life. In U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1996. Grasshopper Integrated Pest.

Management User Handbook, Tech. Bui. No. 1809. Sec.IIl.2. Washington, D.C.

McEwen, L.C., Petersen, B.E., and Althouse, C.M., 1996b.

Bio indicator speciesfor evaluation potential effects of pesticides on threatened and endangered

wildlife, InU.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

1996. Grasshopper Integrated Pest Management User Handbook, Tech. Bui. No. 1809. Sec

II.7. Washington, D.C.

Opdycke,J.C., Miller,R.W., and Menzer, R.E., 1982. Metabolism and fate of diflubenzuron in

swine. Journal of Agricultural Food and Chemistry 30:1223-1227.

Quinn, M.A., 1996. Impact of control programs on non-target arthropods. Jan U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1996. Grasshopper Integrated Pest

Management User Handbook, Tech. Bui. No. 1809. Sec. Ill.3. Washington, DC.

Schroeder, W.J., Sutton, R.A., and Beavers, L.B., 1980. Dipareses abbreviates: Fate of

diflubenzuron and effect on non-target pest and beneficial species after application to citrus for

weevil control. J. Econ. Enstool. 73:637-638.

Stud, T., Aoki, S.,Kojima, M., and Harada,H., 1989. Bio concentration and excretion of diazinon,

IBP, malathion, and fenitrothion by willow shiner. Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry

24:185- 190.

USDA –U.S. Department ofAgriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998. Safety and

health manual. Safety, Health, and Environmental Staff , Riverdale,MD. February 28, 1998.

[online] available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/mb/aseu/shes/shes-rnanua I.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999. APHIS

Directive 5600.3, Evaluating APHIS programs and activities for ensuring protection of

children from environmental health risks and safety risks. September 3, 1999. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, MD. 

[online] available: http://www.aph is.usda.gov/library/directives.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2002.

Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression program. Final environmental 96

Impact Statement -2002. Literature referenced but not cited listed in 2002 FEIS

http://www.aph is.usda.govI library/directives.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Carcinogenicity peer review of carbaryl, 1-napthyl nmethylcarbamate. MRID 421889-01 , 02. Memorandum from Ray Landolt, Toxicological Branch
28

II, October 7, 1993, 35 pp

U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Cancer Assessment Document #2. Evaluation of the

carcinogenic potential of Malathion. Report of the 12April 2000 meeting and its 29

attachments. April 28, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
28

VI. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted

A. Bureau of Land Management

Bonebrake, Becky, Wildlife Biologist, Cedar City, UT Field Office

Brown, Jack, Emergency Stabilization Rehab Coordinator, UT State Office

Bass, Alan, Rangeland Management Specialist, UT State Office

Curtis, Paul, Range Management Specialist, Monticello, UT Field Office

Dragt, William, Lead Rangeland Management Specialist, Salt Lake, UT Field Office

Egerton, Craig, Renewable Resources Team Leader, Cedar City, UT Field Office

Ivory, Karl, Rangeland Management Specialist, Price, UT Field Office

Leany, Kim, Rangeland Management Specialist, Saint George, UT Field Office

Nebeker, Glenn, Assistant Field Manager, Fillmore, UT Field Office

Smith, Verlin, Resource Manager, UT State Office

Williams, Burke, Former Natural Resource Specialist, Richfield, UT Field Office

B. Utah Department of Agriculture and Food

Burfitt, Clint, Former State Survey Entomologist

Blackham, Leonard, Former Commissioner of Agriculture

Hougaard, Robert, Director of Plant Industry

C. USDA,APHIS

Brown, Charles L., National Grasshopper Program Manager

King, Former Robert, Utah State Plant Health Director

Wild, Alana, Utah State Plant Health Director

McNary, Timothy, Former Senior Western Regional Program Manager
29

D. USDA, Forest Service

Karp, Peter, Uinta National Forest Supervisor

DePietro, Marlene, Uinta N.F. Rangeland Mgmt. Specialist

Erickson, Mary, Fishlake National Forest Supervisor

Gardner, Robert, Fillmore District Ranger

Barnhurst, Dale, Fillmore District Supervisor

Pope, Reese, Uinta N.F. Ecosystem Group Leader

E. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service

Converse, Yvette, Fisheries Biologist

England, Larry, Threatened & Endangered Species Specialist

Romin, Laura, T. and E. Supervisor

Waddell, Bruce, Environmental Contaminants Specialist

F. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Bonebrake, Bruce, Upland Game Manager, Southern Region

Olsen, David, Former State Upland Game Program

Director Southerland, Dennis, Central Region Biologist

G. Utah State University Extension Service

Nelson, Mark -BeaverCounty Cooper,

Troy-DuchesneCounty

Reid, Chad -Iron County

Banks, Jeff -Juab County

Wilde, Trent-Millard County

Gale,Jody-SevierCountyAgricultureAgent
30

Greenhalgh, Linden -Tooele County

I. Utah County Commissioners

Whatcott, Bart, Millard County

Topham, Gordon, Sevier County

Rees, Suzanne, Box Elder County

I. State Legislators

Okerlund,Ralph, Senator, District 24

Noel, Michael, Representative, District 73

.Federal Legislators

Bishop, Robert, Representative, District 1
31

APPENDIX I

APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program FY-2018 

Treatment Guidelines Version 2/9/2018 

The objectives of the APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression 

Program are to 1) conduct surveys in 17 Western States; 2) provide technical assistance to land 

managers and private landowners; and 3) when funds permit, suppress economically damaging 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on Federal, Tribal, State, and/or private rangeland. 

The Plant Protection Act of 2000 provides APHIS the authority to take these actions. 

General Guidelines for Grasshopper / Mormon Cricket Treatments 

1. All treatments must be in accordance with: a. the Plant Protection Act of 2000; 

b. applicable environmental laws and policies such as: the National Environmental Policy Act, 

the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the 

Clean Water Act (including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements – if 

applicable); 

c. applicable state laws; 

d. APHIS Directives pertaining to the proposed action; 

e. Memoranda of Understanding with other Federal agencies. 

2. Subject to the availability of funds, upon request of the administering agency, the agriculture 

department of an affected State, or private landowners, APHIS, to protect rangeland, shall 

immediately treat Federal, Tribal, State, or private lands that are infested with grasshoppers or 

Mormon crickets at levels of economic infestation, unless APHIS determines that delaying 

treatment will not cause greater economic damage to adjacent owners of rangeland. In carrying 

out this section, APHIS shall work in conjunction with other Federal, State, Tribal, and private 

prevention, control, or suppression efforts to protect rangeland. 

3. Prior to the treatment season, conduct meetings or provide guidance that allows for public 

participation in the decision making process. In addition, notify Federal, State and Tribal land 

managers and private landowners of the potential for grasshopper and Mormon cricket 

outbreaks on their lands. Request that the land manager / land owner advise APHIS of any 

sensitive sites that may exist in the proposed treatment areas. 

4. Consultation with local Tribal representatives will take place prior to treatment programs to 

fully inform the Tribes of possible actions APHIS may take on Tribal lands. 

5. On APHIS run suppression programs, the Federal government will bear the cost of treatment 

up to 100 percent on Federal and Tribal Trust land, 50 percent of the cost on State land, and 33 

percent of cost on private land. There is an additional 16.15% charge, however, on any funds 

received by APHIS for federal involvement with suppression treatments. 

6. Land managers are responsible for the overall management of rangeland under their control 

to prevent or reduce the severity of grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks. Land 

managers are encouraged to have implemented Integrated Pest Management 
32

APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program FY-2018

Treatment Guidelines 

2 

Systems prior to requesting a treatment. In the absence of available funding or in the place of 

APHIS funding, the Federal land management agency, Tribal authority or other party/ies may 

opt to reimburse APHIS for suppression treatments. Interagency agreements or reimbursement 

agreements must be completed prior to the start of treatments which will be charged thereto. 

7. There are situations where APHIS may be requested to treat rangeland that also includes 

small areas where crops are being grown (typically less than 10 percent of the treatment area). 

In those situations, the crop owner pays the entire treatment costs on the croplands. 

NOTE: The insecticide being considered must be labeled for the included crop as well as 

rangeland and current Worker Protection Standards must be followed by the applicator and 

private landowner. 

8. In some cases, rangeland treatments may be conducted by other federal agencies (e.g., Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, or Bureau of Indian Affairs) or by non-federal entities 

(e.g., Grazing Association or County Pest District). APHIS may choose to assist these groups 

in a variety of ways, such as: a. loaning equipment (an agreement may be required): 

b. contributing in-kind services such as surveys to determine insect species, instars, and 

infestation levels; 

c. monitoring for effectiveness of the treatment; 

d. providing technical guidance. 

9. In areas considered for treatment, State-registered beekeepers and organic producers shall be 

notified in advance of proposed treatments. If necessary, non-treated buffer zones can be 

established. 

Operational Procedures 

GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR ALL AERIAL AND GROUND APPLICATIONS 

1. Follow all applicable Federal, Tribal, State and local laws and regulations in conducting 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression treatments. 

2. Notify residents within treatment areas, or their designated representatives, prior to proposed 

operations. Advise them of the control method to be used, proposed method of application, and 

precautions to be taken. 

3. One of the following insecticides that are labeled for rangeland use can be used for a 

suppression treatment of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets: A. Carbaryl a. solid bait 

b. ultra-low volume (ULV) spray 

B. Diflubenzuron ULV spray 

C. Malathion ULV spray
33

APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program FY2018Treatment Guidelines 

3 

4. Do not apply insecticides directly to water bodies (defined herein as reservoirs, lakes, ponds, 

pools left by seasonal streams, springs, wetlands, and perennial streams and rivers). 

Furthermore, provide the following buffers for water bodies: 

• 500-foot buffer with aerial liquid insecticide. 

• 200 foot buffer with ground liquid insecticide. 

• 200-foot buffer with aerial bait. 

• 50-foot buffer with ground bait. 

5. Instruct program personnel in the safe use of equipment, materials and procedures; supervise 

to ensure safety procedures are properly followed. 

6. Conduct mixing, loading, and unloading in an approved area where an accidental spill would 

not contaminate a water body. 

7. Each aerial suppression program will have a Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) 

OR a Treatment Manager on site. Each State will have at least one COR available to assist the 

Contracting Officer (CO) in GH/MC aerial suppression programs. 

NOTE: A Treatment Manager is an individual that the COR has delegated authority to oversee 

the actual suppression treatment; someone who is on the treatment site and overseeing / 

coordinating the treatment and communicating with the COR. No specific training is required, 

but knowledge of the Aerial Application Manual and treatment experience is critical; 

attendance to the Aerial Applicators Workshop is very beneficial. 

8. Each suppression program will conduct environmental monitoring as outlined in the current 

year’s Environmental Monitoring Plan. 

APHIS will assess and monitor rangeland treatments for the efficacy of the treatment, to verify 

that a suppression treatment program has properly been implemented, and to assure that any 

environmentally sensitive sites are protected. 

9. APHIS reporting requirements associated with grasshopper / Mormon cricket suppression 

treatments can be found in the APHIS Grasshopper Program Guidebook: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/domestic/downloads/grasshopper.pdf 

SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR AERIAL APPLICATIONS 

1. APHIS Aerial treatment contracts will adhere to the current year’s Statement of Work 

(SOW).
34

APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program FY2018Treatment Guidelines 

4 

2. Minimize the potential for drift and volatilization by not using ULV sprays when the 

following conditions exist in the spray area: 

a. Wind velocity exceeds 10 miles per hour (unless state law requires lower wind speed); 

b. Rain is falling or is imminent; 

c. Dew is present over large areas within the treatment block; 

d. There is air turbulence that could affect the spray deposition; 

e. Temperature inversions (ground temperature higher than air temperature) develop and 

deposition onto the ground is affected. 

3. Weather conditions will be monitored and documented during application and treatment will 

be suspended when conditions could jeopardize the correct spray placement or pilot safety. 

4. Application aircraft will fly at a median altitude of 1 to 1.5 times the wingspan of the aircraft 

whenever possible or as specified by the COR or the Treatment Manager. 

5. Whenever possible, plan aerial ferrying and turnaround routes to avoid flights over 

congested areas, water bodies, and other sensitive areas that are not to be treated.
35

APPENDIX 2: Map of Affected Environment

2017 Rangeland Grasshopper Hazard Map
APPENDIX 3: FWS Correspondence

Table 1-County List of Utah's Federally Listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and

Candidate (C) Species.

Table 2- Utah's State-Listed Species by County

Table 3- Mitigation measures- For listed/proposed species (T&E Species

Determinations for Utah APHIS GH/MC Suppression Projects- from 2005·2018

APHIS/USFWS Local Consultation).
TABLE 1 

Utah's Federally (US F&WS) Listed

Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and Candidate (C) Plant Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status County of Occurrence

Monocot Plants:

Family Cyperaceae

Navajo Sedge Carex specuicola T San Juan.

Family Orchidaceae

Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis T Daggett, Duchesne, Juab, Garfield, Tooele,

Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, & Wayne.

Formerly Salt Lake & Weber.

Dicot Plants:

Family Apocynaceae

Jones Cycladenia

Cycladenia humilis var

jonesii T Emery, Garfield, Grand, & Kane.

Family Asclepiadaceae

Welsh's Milkweed Asclepias welshii T Kane.

Family Asteraceae

Last Chance Townsendia Townsendia aprica T Emery, Sevier, & Wayne.

Family Brassicaceae

Barneby Ridge-cress Lepidium barnebyanum E Duchesne.

Kodachrome Bladderpod Lesquerella tumulosa E Kane.

Clay Reed-mustard Schoenocrambe argillacea T Uintah.

Barneby Reed-mustard Schoenocrambe barnebyi E Emery & Wayne.

Shrubby Reed-mustard Glaucocarpum suffrutescens E Duchesne & Uintah.

Ostler Peppergrass Lepidium ostleri C Beaver.

Family Cactaceae

Despain Pincushion Cactus Pediocactus despainii E Emery & Wayne.

Siler Pincushion Cactus Pediocactus sileri T Kane & Washington.

Winkler Pincushion Cactus Pediocactus winkleri T Emery & Wayne.

Pariette Cactus Sclerocactus brevispinus T Duchesne & Uintah.

Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Sclerocactus wetlandicus T Carbon, Duchesne, & Uintah.

Wright Fishhook Cactus Sclerocactus wrightiae E Emery, Sevier, & Wayne.

Family Fabaceae

Deseret Milkvetch Astragalus desereticus T Utah.

Shivwits or Shem Milkvetch Astragalus ampullarioides E Washington.

Paradox Milkvetch Astragalus holmgreniorum E Washington.

Heliotrope Milkvetch Astragalus montii T Sanpete & Sevier.

Frisco Clover Trifolium friscanum C Beaver & Millard.

Family Hydrophyllaceae

Clay Phacelia Phacelia argillacea E Utah.

Family Malvaceae

Gierisch Mallow Sphaeralcea gierischii E Washington.

Family Papaveraceae

Dwarf Bearclaw-poppy Arctomecon humilis E Washington.

Family Polygonaceae

Frisco Buckwheat Eriogonum soredium C Beaver.

Family Primulaceae

Maguire Primrose Primula maguirei T Cache.

Family Ranunculaceae

Autumn Buttercup Ranunculus aestivalis E Garfield.
Utah's Federally Listed

Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and Candidate (C) Invertebrate Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status County of Occurrence

Mollusks:

Kanab Ambersnail Oxyloma kanabense E Kane.

Utah's Federally Listed

Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and Candidate (C) Vertebrate Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status County of Occurrence

Fishes:

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

Oncorhynchus clarkii

henshawi T Introduced in Box Elder.

Humpback Chub Gila cypha E Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan,

Uintah, & Wayne. Possibly Duchesne.

Formerly Daggett & Kane.

Bonytail Gila elegans E Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan,

Uintah, & Wayne. Possibly Duchesne.

Formerly Daggett & Kane.

Virgin Chub Gila seminuda E Washington.

Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius E Carbon, Daggett, Emery, Garfield, Grand,

San Juan, Uintah, & Wayne. Possibly

Duchesne. Formerly Kane.

Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus E Washington.

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus E Utah. Introduced in Box Elder, Salt Lake,

Cache & Weber.

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus E Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan,

Uintah, & Wayne. Possibly Duchesne.

Formerly Daggett & Kane.

Reptiles:

Mojave Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii T Washington.

Birds:

California Condor Gymnogyps californianus E Experimental Visits Southern Utah from Northern Arizona.

Formerly Beaver & Iron.

Whooping Crane Grus americana E Extirpated Formerly passed through E Utah.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

occidentalis T Occurs or possible in all counties.

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida T Garfield, Iron, Kane, San Juan,

Washington, & Wayne.

Possibly Carbon, Emery, & Grand.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E Kane, San Juan & Washington.

Gunnison Sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus T Grand & San Juan.

Mammals:

Utah Prairie Dog Cynomys parvidens T Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard,

Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, Washington & Wayne.

Gray Wolf Canis lupus E Formerly found throughout Utah.

Brown (Grizzly) Bear Ursus arctos T Extirpated Formerly found throughout Utah.

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes E Experimental Unconfirmed sightings persist from Carbon,

Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Rich,

San Juan, & Summit. Introduced as

experimental non-essential in Uintah.

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis T Daggett, Duchesne, Summit, Uintah, &

Wasatch. Formerly Sanpete. Possibly

Cache, Emery, Morgan, Rich, Salt Lake,

Sevier, Utah, & Weber.
DEFINITIONS

E A taxon that is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "endangered" with the possibility of

worldwide extinction.

E Experimental An "endangered" taxon that is considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be "experimental

and non-essential" in its designated use areas in Utah.

E, T, or C Extirpated An "endangered," "threatened," or "candidate" taxon that is "extirpated" and considered by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to no longer occur in Utah.

E or T Proposed A taxon "proposed" to be listed as "endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

T A taxon that is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "threatened" with becoming

endangered.

C A taxon for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological

vulnerability and threats to justify it being a "candidate" for listing as endangered or threatened.

Note: Please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (801-975-3330) for the purpose of consultation under the

Endangered Species Act.
TABLE 2 

State of Utah

Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Wildlife Resources

Utah Sensitive Species List

November 1, 2017

This list has been prepared pursuant to Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Administrative 

Rule R657-48. By rule, wildlife species that are federally listed, candidates for federal 

listing, or for which a conservation agreement is in place automatically qualify for the Utah 

Sensitive Species List. The additional species on the Utah Sensitive Species List, “wildlife 

species of concern,” are those species for which there is credible scientific evidence to 

substantiate a threat to continued population viability. It is anticipated that wildlife species 

of concern designations will identify species for which conservation actions are needed, 

and that timely and appropriate conservation actions implemented on their behalf will 

preclude the need to list these species under the provisions of the federal Endangered 

Species Act. Please see Appendix A for the rationale behind each wildlife species of 

concern designation.
Fishes

Federal Candidate Species

(None)

Federally Threatened Species

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (introduced) Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi

Federally Endangered Species

Humpback Chub Gila cypha

Bonytail Gila elegans

Virgin Chub Gila seminuda

Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius

Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus

Conservation Agreement Species

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii utah

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus

Virgin spinedace Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis

Roundtail Chub Gila robusta

Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus

Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis

Least Chub Iotichthys phlegethontis

Wildlife Species of Concern

Northern Leatherside Chub Lepidomeda copei

Southern Leatherside Chub Lepidomeda aliciae

Desert Sucker Catostomus clarkii

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri

Bear Lake Whitefish Prosopium abyssicola

Bonneville Cisco Prosopium gemmifer

Bonneville Whitefish Prosopium spilonotus

Bear Lake Sculpin Cottus extensus
Amphibians

Federal Candidate Species

(None)

Federally Threatened Species

(None)

Federally Endangered Species

(None)

Conservation Agreement Species

Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris

Wildlife Species of Concern

Western Toad Bufo Anaxyrus

Arizona Toad Bufo microscaphus

Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus
Reptiles

Federal Candidate Species

(None)

Federally Threatened Species

Mojave Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii

Federally Endangered Species

(None)

Conservation Agreement Species

(None)

Wildlife Species of Concern

Zebra-tailed Lizard Callisaurus draconoides

Western Banded Gecko Coleonyx variegatus

Desert Iguana Dipsosaurus dorsalis

Gila Monster Heloderma suspectum

Common Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater

Desert Night Lizard Xantusia vigilis

Sidewinder Crotalus cerastes

Speckled Rattlesnake Crotalus mitchellii

Mojave Rattlesnake Crotalus scutulatus

Cornsnake Elaphe guttata

Smooth Greensnake Opheodrys vernalis

Western Threadsnake Leptotyphlops humilis
Birds

Federal Candidate Species

(None)

Federally Threatened Species

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida

Gunnison Sage-grouse* Centrocercus minimus

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Federally Endangered Species

California Condor (experimental) Gymnogyps californianus

Whooping Crane (extirpated) Grus americana

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus

Conservation Agreement Species*

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles

Wildlife Species of Concern

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Black Swift Cypseloides niger

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus

*Gunnison sage-grouse is a Federal Threatened Species and a Conservation Agreement 

Species.
Mammals

Federal Candidate Species

(None)

Federally Threatened Species

Utah Prairie Dog Cynomys parvidens

Brown/Grizzly Bear (extirpated) Ursus arctos

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis

Federally Endangered Species

Black-footed Ferret (experimental, non-essential Mustela nigripes

in Duchesne and Uintah counties)

Gray Wolf Canis lupus

Conservation Agreement Species

(None)

Wildlife Species of Concern

Preble’s Shrew Sorex preblei

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum

Allen’s Big-eared Bat Idionycteris phyllotis

Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii

Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes

Big Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops macrotis

Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Cynomys gunnisoni

White-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys leucurus

Silky Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavus

Dark kangaroo Mouse Microdipodops megacephalus

Mexican Vole Microtus mexicanus

Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis
Mollusks

Federal Candidate Species

(None)

Federally Threatened Species

(None)

Federally Endangered Species

Kanab Ambersnail Oxyloma kanabense

Conservation Agreement Species

(None)

Wildlife Species of Concern

California Floater Anodonta californiensis

Western Pearlshell Margaritifera falcata

Southern Tightcoil Ogaridiscus subrupicola

Eureka Mountainsnail Oreohelix eurekensis

Lyrate Mountainsnail Oreohelix haydeni

Brian Head Mountainsnail Oreohelix parawanensis

Deseret Mountainsnail Oreohelix peripherica

Yavapai Mountainsnail Oreohelix yavapai

Cloaked Physa Physa megalochlamys

Utah Physa Physella utahensis

Wet-rock Physa Physella zionis

Longitudinal Gland Pyrg Pyrgulopsis anguina

Smooth Glenwood Pyrg Pyrgulopsis chamberlini

Desert Springsnail Pyrgulopsis deserta

Otter Creek Pyrg Pyrgulopsis fusca

Hamlin Valley Pyrg Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis

carinate Glenwood Pyrg Pyrgulopsis inopinata

Ninemile Pyrg Pyrgulopsis nonaria

Bifid Duct Pyrg Pyrgulopsis peculiaris

Bear Lake Springsnail Pyrgulopsis pilsbryana

Black Canyon Pyrg Pyrgulopsis plicata

Sub-globose Snake Pyrg Pyrgulopsis saxatilis

Southern Bonneville Pyrg Pyrgulopsis transversa

Northwest Bonneville Pyrg Pyrgulopsis variegate
TABLE 3 

THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES DETERMINATIONS FOR UTAH APHIS 

2018 GRASSHOPPER/MORMON CRICKET SUPPRESSION PROJECTS

1. California condor (Gymnogyps californianus): California condors were released as part of 

Recovery Program efforts in northern Arizona beginning in the late 1990’s. Sightings of the 

birds that were released have since been made almost statewide. Condors prefer mountainous 

country at low and moderate elevations, especially rocky and brushy areas near cliffs. 

California condors eat carrion, usually feeding on large items such as dead sheep, cattle and 

deer. Due to their foraging habits and preferences, the proposed APHIS grasshopper/Mormon 

cricket suppression program is unlikely to affect California condors. In addition, condors to 

date are occasional and temporary visitors to the state and are unlikely to contact suppression 

activities.

2. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis): The preferred habitat of the Canada lynx is montane 

coniferous forest. The proposed APHIS suppression program will have no effect on or cause 

no jeopardy to any population of Canada lynx since projects will avoid known or historic 

species habitat areas. 

3. Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Possibly found in Carbon, Daggett, 

Duchesne, Emery, Grand, Rich, San Juan, Summit and Uintah Counties. Black-footed ferrets 

live in underground prairie dog burrows and eat prairie dogs as their primary food source. The 

black-footed ferret is, therefore, closely associated with prairie dog towns. For this reason, the 

major threat to the species is the decimation of prairie dog colonies through plague, poisoning 

and habitat loss. The only known population occurs in Coyote Basin, Uintah County. Direct 

toxic effects from carbary bait are low since plant-based baits are not sought-after food items 

for ferrets. Indirect effects by consumption of contaminated insects or prairie dogs might 

occur. Though prairie dogs may ingest carbaryl bait, and therefore, transfer that consumed 

carbaryl to a predator like the ferret, the potential for adverse effects remains low due to the 

unlikelihood of encountering significant quantities. Ten pounds of 2 percent active ingredient 

per acre maximum application rates preclude ingestion of sufficient toxin by insects or prairie 

dogs, themselves, to cause undesirable effects to ferrets. Direct toxic effects from Dimilin are 

low since diflubenzuron is slightly to very slightly toxic to mammals (Maas et al., (1981). 

There would be few if any indirect effects from the use of Dimilin. The proposed APHIS 

suppression program is not likely to adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES: No aerial application of Dimilin within 1 mile and no ground applications 

within 0.25 mile of the edge of identified habitat..

4. Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens): Found in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, 

Sanpete, Sevier and Wayne Counties. Direct toxic effects from carbaryl bait are moderate 

since prairie dogs may ingest it. However, 10 pounds per acre maximum application rates 

preclude ingestion of sufficient toxin to create behavioral anomalies, let alone mortality, due 

to the unlikelihood of encountering significant quantities. Since prairie dogs may consume 

insects, indirect effects from carbaryl bait are possible, but large quantities of contaminated 

insects would have to be consumed for such to occur. Rapid decomposition rates of dead 

insects, quickly making them unpalatable as food items, coupled with low application rates, 

minimize the risk of adverse effects on prairie dogs from carbaryl bait treatments. Direct toxic 
effects from Dimilin are low since diflubenzuron is slightly to very slightly toxic to mammals 

(Maas et al., (1981). There would be no indirect effects from the use of Dimilin. The 

proposed APHIS suppression program would not likely adversely affect this species. 

PROTECTIVE MEASURES: Avoid using any pesticide within 1 mile of occupied and 

historic habitat.

5. Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus): Found in Grand and San Juan Counties. 

Male Gunnison sage-grouse conduct an elaborate display when trying to attract females on 

breeding grounds, or leks in the spring. Nesting begins in mid-April and continues into July. 

Gunnison sage-grouse require a variety of habitats such as large expanses of sagebrush with a 

diversity of grasses and forbs and healthy wetland and riparian ecosystems. It requires 

sagebrush for cover and fall and winter food. Direct toxic effects from carbaryl bait are low 

(Peach et al., 1994), but there may be minimal indirect effects since the young of this species 

depend upon arthropod groups for food. The use of carbaryl baits temporarily may lower the 

insect food base in the immediate area, though certainly not sufficiently to create adverse 

consequences to immature sage-grouse. Direct toxic effects from Dimilin are low since 

diflubenzuron is slightly to very slightly toxic to birds, but there may be minimal indirect 

effects such as a slight reduction in available prey items. The proposed APHIS suppression 

program will not likely adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE MEASURES: No 

ground/aerial application will occur within 1 mile of known leks between March and July. 

Otherwise, no ground/aerial applications within 100/500 ft. of the edge of occupied habitat.

6. Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida): Possibly found in Carbon, Emery, Grand, 

Garfield, Iron, Kane, San Juan, Washington and Wayne Counties. In Utah spotted owls 

occupy and nest in rocky canyon habitats. Nests are located on cliffs and in caves. Mexican 

spotted owls feed mainly on small rodents, but also consume rabbits and other small 

vertebrates, including birds, reptiles and insects. Direct toxic effects from carbaryl bait are 

low since owls do not directly ingest it and since they do not depend on arthropod groups for 

food or seed dispersal. (George et al., 1992). Indirect toxic effects from carbaryl bait are low 

due to low application rates (10 pounds per acre or less) and small bait particle sizes, which 

preclude birds and small mammals from encountering sufficient quantities of toxin to cause 

adverse consequences to them or to owls which might consume them. APHIS only applies 

baits to areas of high grasshopper or Mormon cricket densities (8 or more per square yard), so 

any bait treatment is quickly and nearly totally consumed by the insects. Any remaining bait 

rapidly degrades from exposure to the elements (dew and higher soil pH’s). Birds and rodents 

may prey upon debilitated insects, but rapid decomposition rates quickly make dead insects 

unpalatable. That, coupled with low application rates, makes it unlikely that spotted owls 

would be adversely affected by eating birds or small mammals that may prey upon insects 

debilitated by carbaryl bait treatments. APHIS ground baiting protocol excludes treatment 

near the canyon habitats that spotted owls use for nesting. Direct and indirect toxic effects 

from Dimilin are also low since diflubenzuron is slightly to very slightly toxic to birds 

(Wilcox and Coffey, 1978). The proposed APHIS suppression program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE MEASURES: No aerial application will occur 

within 1 mile of suitable nesting habitat, and ground applications will be no closer than 0.25 

mile to nesting habitat.

7. Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus): Possibly found in Kane, San 

Juan and Washington Counties. The southwestern willow flycatcher utilizes dense riparian 
habitats. Forage items include insects, seeds and berries. Direct toxic effects from carbaryl 

bait are low (Peach et al., 1994), but there may be minimal indirect effects since this species 

depends on arthropod groups for food. The use of carbaryl baits may temporarily lower the 

insect food base in the immediate area, though certainly not sufficiently to create adverse 

consequences to flycatchers. Direct toxic effects from Dimilin are low since diflubenzuron is 

slightly to very slightly toxic to birds, but there may be minimal indirect effects such as a 

slight reduction in available prey items. The proposed APHIS suppression program will not 

likely adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE MEASURES: No aerial application will 

occur within 1 mile of suitable nesting habitat, and ground applications will be no closer than 

0.25 mile to nesting habitat.

8. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): Found throughout Utah. The yellow-billed 

cuckoo uses wooded habitat with dense cover and water nearby. Its nests in the West are often 

placed in willows along streams and rivers, with nearby cottonwoods serving as foraging sites. 

They sometimes lay their eggs in other birds’ nests. Cuckoos feed on insects (especially 

caterpillars), spiders, frogs, lizards, fruits and seeds. Direct toxic effects from carbaryl bait are 

low (Peach et al., 1994), but there may be minimal indirect effects since this species depends 

upon arthropod groups for food. The use of carbaryl baits may temporarily lower the insect 

food base in the immediate area, though certainly not sufficiently to create adverse 

consequences to cuckoos. Direct toxic effects from Dimilin are low since diflubenzuron is 

slightly to very slightly toxic to birds, but there may be minimal indirect effects such as a 

slight reduction in available prey items. The proposed APHIS suppression program will not 

likely adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE MEASURES: No aerial application will 

occur within 1000 ft. and no ground application will occur within 500 ft. of the edge of known 

locations of yellow-billed cuckoos or their critical habitat.

9. Bonytail (Gila elegans): Found in Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Kane, San Juan, Tooele, 

Uintah, Wayne and possibly Duchesne and formerly Daggett Counties. Bonytail are 

opportunistic feeders, eating insects, zooplankton, algae and higher plant matter. Although 

bonytail spawning in the wild is now rare, spawning occurs in the spring and summer over 

gravel substrate. Most bonytail are now produced in hatcheries and released into the wild as 

adults. Direct toxic effects from carbaryl bait are low since APHIS ground applicators remain 

at least 50 feet from water which precludes any bait from entering a water body, even during 

and after heavy rains. Carbaryl rapidly decomposes in the presence of water and soils with 

higher pH’s. Indirect effects from carbaryl bait are also low. Insects that ingest the bait are 

incapacitated by it within a matter of a minute or so; therefore, few could hop or fly into water 

bodies after bait consumption (APHIS personal experience). The use of bait near streams 

would not likely create an unnatural influx of contaminated grasshoppers or crickets into the 

water, so that fish might prey on them. Direct toxic effects from diflubenzuron are also low 

since it is only slightly toxic to fish (Willcox and Coffey, 1978; Julin and Sanders, 1978). 

Indirect effects from either carbaryl bait or Dimilin are minimal due to APHIS’s standard 

practice of maintaining 50 foot buffers with ground applications of bait and 500 foot buffers 

with aerial sprays around water. The proposed APHIS suppression program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE MEASURES: No aerial applications within 1 

mile of habitat or no ground treatments within 500 feet of habitat.

10. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius): Found in Carbon, Daggett, Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Wayne and possibly Duchesne and formerly Kane Counties. 
Colorado pikeminnows are primarily piscivorous (they eat fish), but smaller individuals also 

eat insects and other invertebrates. The species spawns during the spring and summer over 

riffle areas with gravel or cobble substrate. Eggs are randomly broadcast onto the bottom, and 

usually hatch in less than one week. The proposed APHIS suppression program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES same as # 10.

11. Greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias): Found in San Juan County. The 

greenback cutthroat trout is a member of the Salmonidae family and is a subspecies of O. 

clarki. The subspecies feeds on aquatic insects as well as terrestrial invertebrates. It spawns 

in the spring in riffle areas when water temperatures reach 5-8 degrees C. It requires clear, 

swift-flowing mountain streams with cover such as low, overhanging banks and vegetation. 

The proposed APHIS suppression program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct 

and indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 10. 

12. Humpback chub (Gila cypha): Found in Carbon, Daggett, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne and possibly Duchesne and formerly Kane Counties. Humpback chub 

primarily eat insects and other invertebrates, but algae and fishes are occasionally consumed. 

The species spawns during the spring and summer in shallow, backwater areas with cobble 

substrate. Young humpback chub remain in these slow, shallow, turbid habitats until they are 

large enough to move into white-water areas. The proposed APHIS suppression program will

not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES same as # 10.

13. Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi): The Lahontan 

cutthroat trout is a race of the cutthroat trout native to the Lahontan Basin of Oregon, 

California, and western Nevada. It has been introduced and become established in the Pilot 

Peak Range of western Box Elder County, Utah. Like other cutthroat races, the Lahontan 

cutthroat is an opportunistic feeder, with the diet of small individuals dominated by 

invertebrates, and the diet larger individuals composed primarily of fish. The proposed APHIS 

suppression program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect toxic 

effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 10.

14. June sucker (Chasmistes liorus): Found in Box Elder, Salt Lake, Utah and Weber Counties. 

June suckers are members of the sucker family, but they are not bottom feeders. The jaw 

structure of the June sucker allows the species to feed on zooplankton in the middle of the 

water column. June sucker adults leave Utah Lake and swim up the Provo River to spawn in 

June of each year. Spawning occurs in shallow riffles over gravel or rock substrate. Fertilized 

eggs sink to the stream bottom, where they hatch in about four days. The proposed APHIS 

suppression program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect toxic 

effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 10.

15. Virgin chub (Gila seminuda): Found in Washington County. Virgin chub are opportunistic 

feeders, consuming zooplankton, aquatic insect larvae, other invertebrates, debris and algae. 

Interestingly, the diet of many adults is composed primarily of algae, whereas the diets of 

younger fish contain more animal matter. The species spawns during late spring and early 

summer over gravel or rock substrate. The proposed APHIS suppression program will not 
likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES same as # 10.

16. Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus): Found in Washington County, the species is now 

restricted to the Virgin River system. Woundfin diets are quite varied, consisting of insects, 

insect larvae, other invertebrates, algae, and detritus. The species spawns during the spring in 

swift shallow water over gravel substrate. The proposed APHIS suppression program will not 

likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES same as # 10.

17. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus): Found in Carbon, Daggett, Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne and possibly Duchesne and formerly Kane Counties. The razorback 

sucker eats mainly algae, zooplankton and other aquatic invertebrates. The species spawns 

from February to June, and each female may deposit over 100,000 eggs during spawning. The 

proposed APHIS suppression program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and 

indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 10.

18. Desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii): Found in Washington County. Within its range, the 

desert tortoise can be found near water in deserts, semi-arid grasslands, canyon bottoms and 

rocky hillsides. Desert tortoises often construct burrows in compacted sandy or gravelly soil. 

Females nest under a large shrub or at the mouth of a burrow and lay one to three clutches of 

two to fourteen eggs from May to July; eggs hatch in late summer or fall. Burrows, which may 

contain many tortoises at once, are used for hibernation during cold winter months. The 

typical diet of the desert tortoise consists of perennial grasses, cacti, shrubs and other plant 

material. Historically APHIS has never received a request to treat in areas inhabited by desert 

tortoises, but if asked to do so, there would exist the threat of direct take by running over small 

tortoises with ground equipment. Direct toxic effects from the use of carbaryl bait are 

unknown, but the tortoises would not likely consume the bait at low application rates (10 

pounds per acre) and given the small size and consistency of bait particles. Indirect effects are 

low since they do not depend on insects for food. No information was located about 

diflubenzuron’s toxicity to reptiles, but it is likely that it is low, based on the selective nature 

of its toxic mode of action (i.e., it interferes with the synthesis of chitin in those organisms that 

produce exoskeletons). The relative toxicity of diflubenzuron to reptiles is expected to be 

similar to that of mammals and birds (APHIS EIS, 2002). Indirect effects are also expected to 

be low since desert tortoises do not depend on insects for food. It is unlikely that grasshoppers 

or Mormon cricket populations would ever reach outbreak levels and require APHIS 

treatments in desert tortoise habitat. The proposed APHIS suppression program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE MEASURES: No aerial or ground applications 

will occur in the Beaver Dam Slope, the Tortoise Preserve or other occupied habitats of 

Washington County. If APHIS does receive a request to treat using ground equipment, then 

APHIS would re-consult with the USFWS.

19. Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma kanabense): Found in Kane County. Pilsbry (1948), in the type 

description of this taxon, noted that it was found "on a wet ledge among rocks and 

cypripediums." Clarke (1991) reported the habitat of the Three Lakes population as a marsh 

dominated by Typha in its wettest portion. Grasses, Carex, violets, plantains and alders were 

also present. The densest snail aggregations were found under fallen Typha stalks, at the edges 

of thick Typha stands. The snails were also frequently observed just within the mouths of vole 
burrows. The presence of standing water appeared to be important to their local distribution. 

Clarke (1991) found that the habitat of the small population that existed along Kanab Creek 

also included Mimulus guttatus, Dodocatheon pauciflorum, Aquilegia micrantha, a tall grass 

species and Juncus. Direct toxic effects of carbaryl bait are high, but mitigation measures 

would insure that this species would not come in contact with the toxin. Indirect effects are 

low since the susceptible insects are not likely food items. Direct toxic effects from Dimilin 

are none to slight - the median lethal concentration of diflubenzuron in water to the snail is 

greater than 125 mg/L (Willcox and Coffey, 1978) - especially given the low application rates 

and the self-imposed water/spring buffers of APHIS programs. Indirect effects are also 

expected to be low since susceptible insects are not likely food items. The proposed APHIS 

suppression program will not likely adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES: No aerial applications within 1 mile of occupied habitat, and no ground 

treatments within 500 feet of occupied habitat.

20. Autumn buttercup (Ranunculus aestivalis): Found in Garfield County. Autumn buttercup 

produces abundant yellow flowers that can be seen from late-July to early October. It is found 

in low, herbaceous, wet meadow communities on islands of drier peaty hummocks, and 

sometimes in open areas, at elevations ranging from 1940 to 1965 meters. There are no direct 

toxic effects from carbaryl bait to this species. Indirect effects to plant pollinators from the use 

of carbaryl bait are low since insects must consume the bait in order to succumb to it. Target 

insects are unlikely pollinators of this species. There are no direct toxic effects from Dimilin, 

and the indirect effects to pollinators from the use of diflubenzuron are low since it is not toxic 

to adult insects. APHIS’s low application rate of one ounce per acre, coupled with the practice 

of treating not more than every other swath, preclude significant adverse impacts to larval 

insects as well. Only insect nymphs that undergo incomplete metamorphosis (i.e., 

grasshoppers/crickets) manifest significant adverse effects at the low doses of APHIS projects. 

The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES: No aerial applications within 3 miles of occupied habitat, and no ground 

treatments within 300 feet of occupied habitat.

21. Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyi): Found in Emery and Wayne Counties. 

Specimens have a branched woody base that gives rise to purple veined, white, or lilac flowers 

from late April to early June. Barneby reed-mustard grows in xeric, fine textured soils on steep 

eroding slopes of the Moenkopi and Chinle formations. It grows in sparsely-vegetated sites in 

mixed desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities, at elevations ranging from 1460 to 1985 

meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and 

indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

22. Barneby ridge-cress (Lepidium barnebyanum): Found in Duchesne County. This species 

grows in cushion-shaped tufts, has a thickened, branched woody base and produces abundant 

white to cream colored flowers that bloom in May and June. It grows along semi-barren 

ridges in pinyon-juniper woodlands, at elevations ranging from 1860 to 1965 meters. The 

proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect toxic 

effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

23. Clay phacelia (Phacelia argillacea): Found in Utah County. It is a narrow endemic to 

Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah County, Utah. A member of the waterleaf family, it has a scorpion 

tale-like inflorescence that continues, as it unrolls, to produce blue to violet flowers from June 
to August. This species is a winter annual and is found in fine textured soil and fragmented 

shale derived from the Green River Formation. It grows on barren, precipitous hillsides in 

sparse pinyon-juniper and mountain brush communities, at elevations ranging from 1840 to 

1881 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. 

Direct and indirect toxic effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

24. Clay reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea): Found in Uintah County. It is a plant that 

occurs in the Uinta Basin, Uintah County, Utah. A member of the mustard family, this species 

is a hairless perennial with a stout, woody base. It produces lilac to white, purple-veined 

flowers that bloom from mid-April through mid-May. Shrubby reed-mustard grows on the 

Evacuation Creek Member of the Green River Formation, where it is on substrates consisting 

of at-the-surface bedrock, scree, and fine-textured soils. It occurs on precipitous slopes in 

mixed desert shrub communities, at elevations ranging from 1439 to 1765 meters. The 

proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect 

effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

25. Deseret milkvetch (Astragalus desereticus): Found in Utah County. This plant occurs at a 

single site in Utah County, Utah. A member of the bean family, this species is a perennial herb 

with gray-silvery leaves four to five cm long and white to pinkish petals with evident lilaccolored keel-tips. It blooms from late April to early June. Deseret milkvetch grows exclusively 

on sandy-gravelly soils weathered from conglomerate outcrops of the Moroni Formation. It 

likes steep south and west (rarely north) facing slopes and does well on larger, west-facing 

road-cuts. It is grows in an open pinyon-juniper-sagebrush community, at elevations ranging 

from 1645 to 1740 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this 

species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

26. Dwarf bearclaw-poppy (Arctomecon humilis): Found in Washington County. This plant is a 

narrow endemic to (occurs only in) Washington County, Utah. A member of the poppy family, 

this species is a perennial herb that produces abundant white flowers. The flowers bloom from 

mid-April through May, and are quite showy next to the red soils in which the plant grows. 

Dwarf bearclaw-poppy is found on gypsiferous clay soils derived from the Moenkopi 

Formation. It occurs on rolling low hills and ridge tops, often on barren, open sites in warm 

desert shrub communities, at elevations ranging from 700 to 1402 meters. The proposed 

APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and 

PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

27. Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii): Found in Washington County. A member of the 

mallow family, this species is a flowering perennial which is only found on gypsum outcrops 

associated with the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab Formation in northern Mojave County, 

AZ and Washington County, UT. It has a woody base and dies back to the ground during the 

winter and re-sprouts from the base during late winter and spring depending on daytime 

temperatures and rainfall. How its flowers are pollinated, seed-dispersal mechanisms and the 

conditions under which seeds germinate are not yet known. Young plants have been observed 

on reclaimed portions within gypsum mining areas. The proposed APHIS program will not 

likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES same as # 20.
28. Graham beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii): Found in Carbon, Duchesne and Uintah 

Counties. It is endemic to (occurs only in) the Uinta Basin in Carbon County, Duchesne 

County and Uintah County, Utah, and in immediately adjacent Rio Blanco County, Colorado. 

A member of the figwort family, this species is a perennial herb that is 5 to 20 cm tall, with 

thick leathery leaves, and large, tubular, light to deep lavender flowers that bloom from late 

May to early June. Graham beardtongue grows on semi-barren knolls, ridges and steep slopes 

in a mix of fragmented shale and silty clay soils closely associated with the Mahogany zone 

(oil shale bearing) of the Green River Formation. It grows in sparsely vegetated communities 

of pinyon-juniper, desert shrub and Salina wildrye, at elevations ranging from 1430 to 2060 

meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and 

indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

29. Heliotrope milkvetch (Astragalus montii): Found in Sanpete and Sevier Counties. This is a 

plant that occurs on the southern Wasatch Plateau in Sanpete County and Sevier County, Utah. 

A member of the bean family, this species is a dwarf tufted perennial herb with pink purple 

petals that have white wing-tips. It blooms from June to August. Heliotrope milkvetch grows 

in barren areas on shallow and very rocky soils derived from Flagstaff Limestone, at 

elevations ranging from about 3230 to 3322 meters. It grows in subalpine communities of 

cushion plants and other low-growing species that are scattered within more extensive conifer, 

tall-forb, and grass communities. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely 

affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

30. Holmgren milkvetch (Astragalus holmgreniorum): Found in Washington County. It occurs in 

Washington County, Utah, and in immediately adjacent Mohave County, Arizona. A member 

of the bean family, this species is a dwarf, tufted, stemless perennial herb. It has pinkishpurple flowers with unique white-tipped wings; it blooms in April and May. Holmgren 

milkvetch grows in topographic sites where water runoff occurs and where the soil surface is 

covered by a stony or gravelly erosional pavement. The soils are derived from the Moenkopi 

Formation. Holmgren milkvetch grows in warm desert shrub communities, at elevations 

ranging from 805 to 914 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely 

affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

31. Jones cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii): Found in Emery, Garfield, Grand and 

Kane Counties. This plant is restricted to the canyonlands of the Colorado Plateau in Emery 

County, Garfield County, Grand County, and Kane County, Utah, as well as in immediately 

adjacent Coconino County, Arizona. A member of the dogbane family, this species is a 

rhizomatous herb with round, somewhat succulent leaves, and small rose-pink hairy flowers 

that bloom from mid-April to early June. Jones' cycladenia grows in gypsiferous soils that are 

derived from the Summerville, Cutler, and Chinle formations; they are shallow, fine textured, 

and intermixed with rock fragments. The species can be found in Eriogonum-ephedra, mixed 

desert shrub, and scattered pinyon-juniper communities, at elevations ranging from 1219 to 

2075 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. 

Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

32. Kodachrome bladderpod (Lesquerella tumulosa): Found in Kane County. It is a plant that is a 

narrow endemic to (it occurs only in) Kane County, Utah. A member of the mustard family, 

this species is a perennial herb that forms densely matted and depressed mounds. It has a 

many-branched woody base with persistent leaf bases, has star-shaped hairs, and produces 
yellow flowers that bloom in May and early June. Kodachrome bladderpod is found on 

shallow soils that are fine textured, intermixed with shale fragments, and derived from the 

Winsor Member of the Carmel Formation. Kodachrome bladderpod grows on bare shale 

knolls and slopes in scattered pinyon-juniper communities, at elevations ranging from 1719 to 

1845 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. 

Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

33. Last Chance townsendia (Townsendia aprica): Found in Emery, Sevier and Wayne Counties. 

This plant is a member of the sunflower family, and is a stemless perennial herb with flower 

heads submersed in its ground-level leaves. The flowers bloom in late April and May, and 

have yellow to golden petals. Last Chance townsendia is found in clay, clay-silt, or gravelly 

clay soils derived from the Mancos Formation; these soils are often densely covered with 

biological soil crusts. The species grows in salt desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities, 

at elevations ranging from 1686 to 2560 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES 

same as # 20.

34. Maguire primrose (Primula maguirei): Found in Cache County. plant that is a narrow 

endemic to (it occurs only in) Logan Canyon, Cache County, Utah. A member of the primula 

family, this species is a perennial herb with broad, spatula-shaped leaves. Stems are 

approximately four to fifteen cm tall, with each bearing one to three showy rose to lavendercolored flowers that bloom in late April and May. Maguire primrose is found on either northfacing or well shaded south-facing moss covered sites on damp ledges, in crevices, and on 

over-hanging rocks along the walls near the bottom of the canyon. It grows at elevations 

ranging from 1550 to 2012 meters. The propose APHIS program will not likely adversely 

affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

35. Pariete cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus): Found in Duchesne and Uintah Counties. A 

member of the cactus family, this taxon is a Uinta Basin endemic in northeast Utah, Duchesne 

County. It is known from “a series of small scattered populations...near Myton (Heil and 

Porter (1994).” It inhabits “stoney, gravelly, low hilly terrain, growing with desert grasses or 

low vegetation (Hochstätter 1993)”; the soils on which it grows are derived from the Uinta 

Formation (Specht, pers. comm. 2005). The proposed APHIS program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES 

same as # 20.

36. San Rafael cactus (Pediocactus despainii): Found in Emery and Wayne Counties. A member 

of the cactus family, this species is a small, subglobose to ovoid cactus with usually solitary 

stems; the crown of the stem is at or very near ground level. Its flowers are born near the tip of 

the stem, are yellow bronze to peach bronze, rarely pink in color, and bloom during April and 

May. San Rafael cactus is found in fine textured soils rich in calcium derived from the Carmel 

Formation and the Sinbad Member of the Moenkopi Formation. It occurs on benches, hill 

tops, and gentle slopes in pinyon-juniper and mixed desert shrub-grassland communities, at 

elevations ranging from 1450 to 2080 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES 

same as # 20.
37. Shivwitz or Shem milkvetch (Astragalus ampullarioides): Found in Washington County. It 

occurs in only Washington County, Utah. A member of the bean family, Shivwits milkvetch is 

a perennial herb. Specimens are 20 to 45 cm tall, each with an underground, branching woody 

base and an erect flower stalk bearing yellow-white flowers that bloom from late April to early 

June. Shivwits milkvetch grows on the unstable clay soil of Chinle Shale in warm desert shrub 

and pinyon-juniper communities, at elevations ranging from 872 to 1116 meters. The 

proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect 

effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

38. Shrubby reed-mustard (Glaucocarpum suffrutescens): Found in Duchesne and Uintah 

Counties. A member of the mustard family, this species is a perennial clump-forming herb 

that produces yellow flowers that bloom from May through June. Shrubby reed-mustard grows 

along semi-barren, white-shale layers of the Green River Formation (Evacuation Creek 

Member), where it is found in xeric, shallow, fine textured soils intermixed with shale 

fragments. It grows in mixed desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities, at elevations 

ranging from 1554 to 2042 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely 

affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

39. Siler pincushion cactus (Pediocactus sileri): Found in Kane and Washington Counties. It is a 

plant that occurs in adjacent Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona; the center of its 

distribution is in Mohave County. A member of the cactus family, this species is a small, 

globose cactus with solitary, occasionally clustered, stems typically 10 cm tall (as great as 45 

cm), and spines that become white with age. Its flowers are yellow with purple veins, and 

bloom during March and April. Siler pincushion cactus is found on the white, occasionally 

red, gypsiferous and calcareous sandy or clay soils derived from the various members of the 

Moenkopi Formation. It is sometimes found, however, on the nearly identical Kaibab 

Formation. Siler pincushion cactus occurs on rolling hills, often with a badlands appearance, 

in warm desert shrub, sagebrush-grass, and, at its upper limits, pinyon-juniper communities, at 

elevations ranging from 805 to 1650 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES 

same as # 20.

40. Uintah basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus wetlandicus): Found in Carbon, Duchesne and 

Uintah Counties, Utah and in Delta, Garfield, Mesa, and Montrose counties, Colorado. A 

member of the cactus family, this species is a perennial herb with a commonly solitary, eggshaped, three to twelve cm long stem that produces pink flowers late from April to late May. 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus is found on river benches, valley slopes, and rolling hills of the 

Duchesne River, Green River, and Mancos formations. It is found in xeric, fine textured soils 

overlain with cobbles and pebbles, growing in salt desert shrub and pinyon-juniper 

communities, at elevations ranging from 1360 to 2000 meters. The proposed APHIS program 

will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE 

MEASURES same as # 20.

41. Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis): Found in Daggett, Duchesne, Garfield, Juab, Salt 

Lake, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Wayne and formerly Weber County. It also occurs in 

the states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming. A 

member of the orchid family, this species is a perennial herb with a flowering stem, 20-50 cm 

tall that arises from a basal rosette of grass-like leaves. The flowers are ivory-colored, 
arranged in a spike at the top of the stem, and bloom mainly from late July through August. 

Ute ladies'-tresses is found in moist to very wet meadows, along streams, in abandoned stream 

meanders, and near springs, seeps, and lake shores. It grows in sandy or loamy soils that are 

typically mixed with gravels. In Utah, it ranges in elevation from 1311 to 2134 meters. The 

proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect 

effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

42. Welsh’s milkweed (Asclepias welshii): Found in Kane County, Utah as well as in 

immediately adjacent Coconino County, Arizona. A member of the milkweed family, this 

species is a stout, rhizomatous perennial herb with large oval leaves and spherical clusters of 

flowers that are cream-colored with pink-tinged centers. It blooms from June to August. 

Welsh's milkweed grows on dunes derived from Navajo Sandstone. It is found in sagebrush, 

juniper, and ponderosa pine communities, at elevations ranging from 1542 to 1993 meters. 

The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect 

effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

43. Winkler pincushion cactus ( Pediocactus winkleri): Found in Emery and Wayne Counties. A 

member of the cactus family, this species is a small, subglobose cactus with solitary or 

clumped stems; the crown of the stem is at or very near ground level. Its flowers are born near 

the tip of the stem, are peach to pink in color, and bloom late March to May. Winkler 

pincushion cactus is found in fine textured soils derived from the Dakota Formation and the 

Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. It occurs on benches, hill tops, and gentle 

slopes on barren, open sites in salt desert shrub communities, at elevations ranging from 1490 

to 2010 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely affect this species. 

Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES same as # 20.

44. Wright fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus wrightiae): Found in Emery, Sevier and Wayne 

Counties. A member of the cactus family, this species is a perennial herb with a solitary, 

hemispheric, ribbed, 6 to 12 cm tall stem that produces nearly-white to pink flowers from late 

April through May. Wright fishhook cactus is found in soils that range from clays to sandy 

silts to fine sands, typically in areas with well developed biological soil crusts. Wright 

fishhook cactus grows in salt desert shrub and widely scattered pinyon-juniper communities, 

at elevations ranging from 1305 to 1963 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely 

adversely affect this species. Direct and indirect effects and PROTECTIVE MEASURES 

same as # 20.

45. Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola): Found in San Juan County, Utah, and in immediately 

adjacent Coconino County, Arizona. A member of the sedge family, this species is a loosely 

tufted perennial, 25 to 40 cm tall, with grass-like leaves that droop downward. Its flowers, 

seen in late June and July, are arranged in spikes, two to four spikes per stem. Navajo sedge is 

restricted to seep, spring, and hanging garden habitats in Navajo Sandstone, at elevations 

ranging from 1150 to 1823 meters. The proposed APHIS program will not likely adversely 

affect this species. Direct and indirect effects of treatment are the same as # 20. 

PROTECTIVE MEASURES: No aerial applications within 3 miles of occupied habitat and 

no ground applications within 300 feet of springs, seeps and hanging gardens.