Draft Environmental Assessment Virgin Land Sale DOI BLM UT C030 2019 0027 EA

United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Assessment
DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2019-0027-EA
October 2019
Virgin Land Sale
Location:
Salt Lake Meridian, Utah
T. 41 S., R.12 W.,
sec. 23, NE¼NW¼, NW¼NW¼NW¼, and S½NW¼NW¼.
Applicant/Address: N/A
St. George Field Office

345 East Riverside Drive
St. George, Utah 84790
(435) 688-3200
Table of Contents
1 PURPOSE & NEED ..................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1
1.2 Background .........................................................................................................3
1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................3
1.4 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan.............................................................3
1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans.........................................4
1.6 Identification of Issues ........................................................................................4
1.7 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis...................................5
2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION.......5
2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ........................................................................5
2.2 Alternative B – Dispose of 45 Acres...................................................................8
2.3 Alternative C – No Action ................................................................................10
2.4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis......................10
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................12
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................12
3.2 General Setting..................................................................................................12
3.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................12
3.4 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production...............................................13
3.5 Socioeconomics.................................................................................................14
3.6 Fish and Wildlife Excluding USFWS Designated Species...............................14
3.7 Lands/Access.....................................................................................................15
3.8 Recreation..........................................................................................................16
3.9 Visual Resources ...............................................................................................16
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.............................................................................17
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................17
4.2 General Analysis Assumptions and Guidelines ................................................17
4.3 Alternative A – Proposed Action ......................................................................18
4.3.1 Cultural Resources .....................................................................................18
4.3.2 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production .......................................18
4.3.3 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................18
4.3.4 Fish and Wildlife Excluding USFWS Designated Species........................19
4.3.5 Lands/Access .............................................................................................19
4.3.6 Recreation ..................................................................................................19
4.3.7 Visual Resources........................................................................................20
4.4 Alternative B – Dispose of 45 Acres.................................................................20
4.4.3 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................20
4.4.5 Lands/Access .............................................................................................21
4.4.6 Recreation ..................................................................................................21
i
4.5 Alternative C – No Action ................................................................................21
4.5.3 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................22
4.5.5 Lands/Access .............................................................................................22
4.5.6 Recreation ..................................................................................................22
4.6 Cumulative Impacts Analysis............................................................................22
4.6.1 Past and Present Actions............................................................................22
4.6.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenarios ................................................23
4.7 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................23
4.7.3 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................23
4.7.5 Lands/Access .............................................................................................23
4.7.6 Recreation ..................................................................................................24
5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .........................................................24
5.1 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted:.......................................................24
5.2 Summary of Public Participation ......................................................................25
5.3 List of Preparers ................................................................................................26
6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................27
TABLES
Table 1. Cultural Resources Discovered During Pedestrian Survey ...............................13
Table 2. State-Listed and BLM-Utah Sensitive Species..................................................15
Table 3. Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted ........................................................24
Table 4. List of Preparers.................................................................................................26
FIGURES
Figure 1. Virgin Land Sale General Location....................................................................2
Figure 2. Alternative A – Proposed Action .......................................................................7
Figure 3. Alternative B – Dispose of 45 Acres..................................................................9
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Interdisciplinary Team Checklist
Appendix B – Site Photos
Appendix C – Utah Natural Heritage Program and US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC
Data Requests
Appendix D – Scoping Comment Summary Report
ii
Virgin Land Sale
DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2019-0027-EA
1 PURPOSE & NEED
1.1 Introduction
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the
environmental consequences of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) St. George Field
Office’s proposal to sell an approximately 65-acre parcel of land (the “Proposed Action
area”) located due north of the town of Virgin, Utah, as shown on Figure 1 and described
as:
Salt Lake Meridian, Utah
T. 41 S., R.12 W.,
sec. 23, NE¼NW¼, NW¼NW¼NW¼, and S½NW¼NW¼.
This EA is a site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could occur as a result of
implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives to the Proposed Action. The EA
assists the BLM in project planning and ensuring compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in making a determination as to whether any
"significant" impacts (defined under 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.27)
could result from the Proposed Action. If it is determined that the Proposed Action would
have no significant impacts on the human or natural environment, then a "Finding of No
Significant Impact" statement would be prepared and included in the Decision Record,
which briefly presents the reasons why implementation of the Proposed Action would not
result in "significant" environmental impacts beyond those already addressed in the 1999
St. George Field Office Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP)), as
amended. If the decision maker determines that the Proposed Action would have
"significant" impacts, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared.
The Proposed Action would dispose of the 65-acre Proposed Action area consistent with
the management goals, objectives, and actions identified in the RMP. In its Decision
Record documenting the BLM’s decision on the Proposed Action or alternatives, the BLM
may select a combination of elements from any of the three alternatives analyzed in the
EA.
1
Figure 1. Virgin Land Sale General Location
2
1.2 Background
In 1994, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated 129,100 acres of critical
habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise in Washington County, Utah. To comply with the
Endangered Species Act, Washington County developed a habitat conservation plan
(HCP) for the Mojave desert tortoise and prepared an EIS to support implementation of
the HCP. USFWS approved the County’s HCP in 1996. The key mitigation component of
the HCP was the perpetual protective management of an approximately 62,000-acre
reserve (commonly known as the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve (RCDR), comprised of
federal, state, municipal, and undeveloped private lands, to assist in the recovery and
delisting of the Mojave desert tortoise. The Red Cliffs National Conservation Area was
then designated by congress in 2009 and physically covers most of the Reserve area. The
BLM made commitments through the signing of the Implementation Agreement for the
HCP and accepted primary responsibility for the acquisition of private inholdings through
the exchange of public lands or the direct purchase of inholdings from willing sellers
within the boundaries of a multi-jurisdictional “reserve”.
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11) also authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to sell public land located within Washington County, Utah, that,
as of July 25, 2000, have been identified for disposal in appropriate resource management
plans. The Proposed Action area is identified as available for disposal in Decision LD-06
and Map 2.1 in the 1999 St. George Field Office RMP/ROD. The RMP also includes
management goals, objectives, and decisions to further implement the County’s HCP,
including land tenure actions as described above.
1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to generate revenue to acquire privately-
owned lands from willing sellers in the RCDR. This would serve to further the BLM’s
legal obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to assist in the recovery and
delisting of threatened and endangered species, as well as support the goals of the recovery
plan for the Mojave desert tortoise (USFWS 1994, revised 2011) and further support one
of the BLM’s primary responsibilities to acquire private inholdings for the purposes stated
above in conjunction with the Washington County HCP.
1.4 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan
The Proposed Action and alternatives are in conformance with the lands and realty goals,
objectives and decisions made in the RMP, dated March 1999 and amended in 2001 and
2016. The objectives under the Lands and Realty section states:
“BLM will transfer lands out of federal ownership or acquire non-federal lands where
needed to accomplish important resource management goals or to meet essential
community needs.”
3
The RMP also addresses the issue of land tenure and the Washington County HCP:
LD-06, pg 2.2: “Over the life of the Plan, it is expected that up to 18,000 acres of public
lands may be transferred out of public ownership in Washington County. Most of these
transfers will occur as a result of land exchanges needed to complete acquisition of the
state and private lands within the Washington County [Habitat Conservation Plan]
Reserve or to support the statewide inholdings exchange with the Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration [SITLA].”
1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans
Implementation of the Proposed Action would be consistent with applicable federal
environmental laws and regulations, Executive Orders, and Department of Interior and
BLM policies, including the following:
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Sections 203 and 209, and
the associated regulations at 43 CFR, Part 2710
• NEPA and the associated CEQ regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508
• Clean Water Act of 1972
• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (1966), as amended and the associated
regulations at 36 CFR Part 800
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
• Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-11; Subtitle O)
• Secretarial Order (SO) 3373, Evaluating Public Access in BLM Land Disposals
and Exchanges
• General Plan of Washington County
1.6 Identification of Issues
A BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team evaluated the Proposed Action and prepared an ID
Team Checklist (Appendix A) that identifies resource values and land uses that could
potentially be affected by implementing the Proposed Action. In addition, the public
scoping process (consisting of a public comment period, public meeting, ongoing tribal
consultation, and outreach to local and county governments) resulted in identification of
issues that should be analyzed in the EA. A total of seven resources were identified for
analysis in the EA and are summarized below.
Cultural Resources
The proposed sale of the Proposed Action area into private ownership would remove the
federal legislative mandates (e.g., NHPA) that help to protect historic properties
(archeological sites that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) on public lands). Subsequent development of the newly created
private property could damage or destroy historic properties that have been identified by
the BLM as being present on the Proposed Action area.
4
Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production
The 2019 Mineral Potential Report determined a low potential for mineral, oil and gas
resources on the Proposed Action Area.
Socioeconomics
Bringing the Proposed Action area onto the local tax rolls in the Town of Virgin, Utah,
would have a measurable impact on the local economy. If the Proposed Action area is sold
and developed, future residential and commercial development has the potential to support
tourism and recreational opportunities.
Fish and Wildlife, Excluding USFWS Designated Species
If the Proposed Action area leaves public ownership and is developed, general fish and
wildlife species may lose access to that habitat.
Lands/Access
Access to the parcel in the area adjoining the subdivision could be restricted or modified.
Recreation
The Proposed Action area experiences similar dispersed camping pressures as the
surrounding public lands. There are campsites on public lands to the east and immediately
adjacent to the Proposed Action area.
Visual Resources
Potential for impacts on Zion Scenic Corridor viewshed and views from existing
residences. Future development could also adversely impact night sky conditions.
1.7 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis
Several resources and issues were dismissed from further analysis because they are either
not present, would not be affected to a degree that requires detailed analysis, or are not
subject to Section 7 consultation. The ID Team Checklist (Appendix A) details issues and
resources considered by BLM and provides a rationale for the findings of the resource
specialists.
Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Animal Species were eliminated from further
analysis because a presence/probable absence survey for Mojave desert tortoise did not
observe any Mojave desert tortoise individuals or sign of Mojave desert tortoise activity.
Three very old burrows were recorded as Class 5 burrows (per classifications defined in
USFWS 2009). Because of the condition of the Class 5 burrows, determination of use by
Mojave desert tortoise was unable to be made. Additionally, there were no substrates (e.g.,
caliche caves, rocky substrate) observed that would offer suitable wintering burrows.
2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED
ACTION
2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action
The St. George Field Office would dispose of an approximately 65-acre parcel of land
within Washington County, Utah (the “Proposed Action Area”; Figure 2). Site photos are
provided in Appendix B.
5
Easements would be secured prior to the sale date to continue to allow public access to
the 10 acres of land under patent to the Town of Virgin for recreational use as a BMX
track, as well as to the BLM-administered lands directly north of the Proposed Action
area.
Holders of land use authorizations (see Section 3.8) would be notified prior to the sale
date that BLM is considering the sale of the land encumbered by their authorizations. Each
holder would be provided with options to allow them to protect their rights of use.
6
Figure 2. Alternative A – Proposed Action
7
2.2 Alternative B – Dispose of 45 Acres
Under this alternative, the BLM would dispose of 45 acres of the Proposed Action area
(Figure 3) with similar access provisions discussed in Alternative A. The western-most
20 acres would be retained under public ownership. This alternative responds to the
following concerns identified during the public scoping period: preference for a buffer
between existing residences and potential future development, and continued use of
existing trails to access BLM-administered lands north of the Proposed Action area, and
the existence of a historic site on those acres.
8
Figure 3. Alternative B – Dispose of 45 Acres
9
2.3 Alternative C – No Action
Under this alternative, the Proposed Action would not be approved. The Proposed Action
area would continue to be managed by the BLM St. George Field Office per the RMP, if
and until subsequent NEPA analysis deems otherwise. The No Action Alternative is
evaluated to provide a baseline to compare the other alternatives.
2.4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis
As required by 40 CFR 1502.14, a range of alternatives was considered by the BLM ID
Team during scoping of the issues. Alternatives were determined to be reasonable if they
provide means of meeting the purpose and need and/or resolve conflicts among competing
land uses or provide higher levels of resource protection. Federal NEPA regulations state
that a decision maker must not consider alternatives beyond this range of alternatives (40
CFR 40 1502.14). BLM is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible,
ineffective, or inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for management of the public
lands.
Based on input received during the public scoping period, the BLM ID Team considered
the following range of alternatives; they were dismissed from further analysis for the
following reasons:
Alternative D: Retain lands managed as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II in
public ownership.
Under this alternative, the BLM would only dispose of the 25 acres of VRM Class III
lands that constitute the 500-foot buffer around Kolob Terrace Road. The remainder of
the Proposed Action area, which is managed as VRM Class II, would be retained in public
ownership. This alternative was dismissed from further analysis because the portion of the
Proposed Action area remaining under public ownership would become oddly shaped and
disconnected from the Kolob Terrace road, leaving it more difficult to manage. Further,
the remaining acreage would be small and unlikely to be sold thus not meeting the purpose
and need. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis.
Alternative E: Utilize a conservation easement for non-governmental organization
Under this alternative, the Proposed Action area would not be sold, but the BLM would
issue a conservation easement to a willing non-governmental organization to manage the
Proposed Action area for the long term. This alternative does not meet the purpose and
need because it would not raise funds to acquire private inholdings from willing sellers
within wilderness and NCAs to further the goals of the HCP.
Alternative F: Exchange the Proposed Action area with land owned by SITLA
The St. George RMP allows for lands identified for disposal to be “exchanged” if the
exchange is used toward acquisition of habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive
species. The BLM considered using the exchange process for the Proposed Action area.
However, the small size of the Proposed Action area, a lack of a specific exchange
proposal from SITLA, make the Proposed Action area not ripe for exchange. Therefore,
the alternative to use the exchange process to dispose of this property was not analyzed in
detail.
10
Alternative G: Dispose of riparian area south of Kolob Terrace Road
The BLM considered including approximately 5 acres of public lands south of Kolob
Terrace Road in the Proposed Action. Within these 5 acres is an approximately 1.8-acre
riparian area. Because this riparian area contains potential foraging and dispersal habitat
for the Southwestern willow flycatcher, it was determined that disposal of the riparian
area would be inconsistent with the RMP, which contains the following action:
“FW-33 BLM will protect potential flycatcher habitat through implementation of land use
prescriptions for riparian resources described earlier in this Plan. Among other things,
the prescriptions will allow no surface occupancy for fluid mineral leasing, limit off-road
travel, discourage right-of-way construction, and prohibit sales of fuelwood and mineral
materials. The prescriptions also call for retention and acquisition of prospective
habitat.”
Because the disposal would be inconsistent with the RMP, this alternative was not
analyzed in detail.
11
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the potentially affected existing environment (i.e., the physical,
biological, social, and economic values and resources) of the Proposed Action area as
identified in the ID Team Checklist found in Appendix A and presented in Chapter 1. This
chapter provides the baseline for comparison of impacts described in Chapter 4.
3.2 General Setting
The Proposed Action area is a 65-acre parcel located along the western edge of the Grand
Staircase Section of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province (Stokes 1986). The
parcel is located on a flat alluvial terrace at the western base of Hurricane Mesa, a
relatively steep-sided landform bound to the west by the Hurricane Cliffs, Gooseberry
Mesa to the south, and Cougar Mountain to the east. The terrace trends gently south and
is dissected by numerous shallow and ephemeral south-trending washes and rills. No
permanent water sources occur within the parcel. North Creek trends generally north to
south along the east margin of the parcel and the Virgin River trends east to west, south
of the Town of Virgin; the elevation averages approximately 3,640 feet above mean sea
level.
Upper Sonoran community vegetative species cover the Proposed Action area and include
pinyon pine, Utah juniper, blackbrush, rabbitbrush, prickly pear cactus, and various
bunchgrasses.
The regional climate is characterized by a wide daily temperature range, with high summer
temperatures and mild to moderate winters. Storm types near Virgin are high intensity,
short duration in the summer months, and low intensity, long duration in the winter
months. In late summer, heavy thunderstorms can produce local flash flooding.
Primitive roads, double-track, and single-track trails intersect or cross the Proposed Action
area. The west side and portions of the south side of the Proposed Action area are bordered
by residential developments, while public lands managed by the BLM bound the
remainder of the Proposed Action area.
3.3 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include archaeological sites, historic structures, sacred sites, and
traditional cultural properties that are important to a community’s practices and beliefs
and are necessary to maintain a community’s identity.
The proposed sale of public lands must comply with the requirements of Section 106 of
the NHPA (54 USC 300101) and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Parts 60 and
800. The NHPA requires that federal agencies make a “reasonable and good faith” effort
to identify cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing to the NRHP (aka historic
properties) within the area of potential effects (APE) for undertakings that they carry out,
fund, or authorize. Federal agencies must also take into account the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties and take actions to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to
historic properties through appropriate treatments.
12
For the proposed land sale, the BLM, in consultation with the Utah State Historic
Preservation Office (USHPO) defined the APE as the Proposed Action area (65-acres).
The BLM determined that a literature review, Class III intensive pedestrian survey of the
APE, and consultations with the USHPO and other interested parties were necessary to
identify historic properties that might by affected by this project.
Identification efforts were conducted in November 2018 by professional archeological
consultants (EnviroSystems, Report No. U18ES0910). Approximately 72 acres were
inventoried at Class III level, with pedestrian transects spaced at 15 meter intervals. A
total of 5 sites were documented. One previously documented archeological site was
relocated and the site record updated, and four previously undocumented sites were
recorded. All of the sites identified within the APE date to the historic period and include
an abandoned segment of the Virgin Canal in poor preservation, three historic period trash
dumps, and segments of the Pocketville/Kolob Terrace Road.
Table 1. Cultural Resources Discovered During Pedestrian Survey
Site Number Site Description Eligibility Determination
42WS6313 Historic Artifact Scatter Eligible
(dump)
42WS6314 Historic Artifact Scatter Not Eligible
(dump)
42WS6315 Historic Artifact Scatter Not Eligible
with features (dump)
42WS6316 Historic Road Not Eligible
42WS2253 (revisit) Virgin Canal Newly recorded segment
recommended Not Eligible
The BLM engaged in Section 106 consultation with the USHPO, after determining that
one of sites (42WS 6313) within the APE was eligible for listing to the NRHP as it retained
integrity and satisfied eligibility criterion d, as described at 36 CFR 60.4 (a-d). The
USHPO concurred with the BLM’s determinations of site eligibility for NRHP listing and
project effects, through correspondence dated September 16, 2019.
3.4 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production
Mineral resources and the potential for mineral resource occurrence within the Proposed
Action area were analyzed in 1996 as part of the Mineral Potential Report for Five Parcels
North of the Virgin River Between Hurricane and Rockville, Washington County, Utah
(BLM 1996). The report concluded that the Proposed Action area has a low potential for
oil or gas, geothermal, precious and base metals, uranium, nonmetallic industrial minerals,
and common variety salable minerals. The report also noted that there is no potential for
coal and no record of any geothermal or coal exploration or production occurring in the
area (BLM 1996).
13
A new mineral report was completed in 2019 and the BLM geologist visited the Proposed
Action area to assess and document current conditions. Through this process it was
determined that the Proposed Action area’s mineral resources and their potential to occur
are unchanged from those described in the 1996 Mineral Potential Report.
Because the Proposed Action area is located within the Virgin town limits, it is closed to
fluid mineral leasing per the RMP.
Per Section 209 of FLPMA, the BLM would retain the federal mineral estate underlying
the Proposed Action area except when a) there is no known mineral value or b) the mineral
rights would interfere with surface development and the surface development is a more
beneficial use.
3.5 Socioeconomics
According to the US Census Bureau’s 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates, Virgin has a population of 542 with household median income of $53,000
compared to $65,325 for the state of Utah. Approximately 8.1 percent of individuals in
Virgin are below the poverty level compared to the statewide average of 11.0 percent.
Virgin has a higher unemployment rate (6.3 percent) than Washington County (5.2
percent) or the State of Utah (4.4 percent). Twenty-three percent of Virgin residents are
age 60 or older (US Census 2017).
Local businesses include restaurants, resorts, gift stores, and a mobile home park. Virgin
is located on the Zion Scenic Byway (SR 9) on the way to the south entrance of Zion
National Park. In 2018, Zion National Park was the fourth most-visited national park in
the country (National Park Service 2018). Tourism and recreation are two major business
sectors for the Town of Virgin and Washington County.
3.6 Fish and Wildlife Excluding USFWS Designated Species
The Proposed Action area and adjacent lands provide habitat for a variety of resident small
mammals, birds, and reptiles that use vegetation communities in the 90,242-acre
Ecoregion 20h Sand Deserts in Washington County. Wildlife may use the Proposed
Action area year-round or for a portion of the year. The more common of these species
may include: badgers (Taxidea taxus), antelope ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus
leucurus), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys ordii), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), desert
wood rats (Neotoma lepida), Gambel’s quail (Lophortyx gambelii), mourning doves
(Zenaida macroura), common ravens (Corvus corax), wrens (Catherpes mexicanus,
Salpinctes obsoletus), side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana), and Western whiptail
(Cnemidophorus tigris). Infrequently, larger animals such as raptors, coyotes (Canis
latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
may use the Proposed Action area year-round or for a portion of the year.
A desktop review of the Utah State Wildlife Action Plan and the Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, Utah Natural Heritage Program indicated six terrestrial, state-listed wildlife
species may occur within 0.5 miles of the Proposed Action area (Table 1; Appendix C).
There are no observation records for these terrestrial species within 0.5 miles of the
Proposed Action area.
14
Table 2. State-Listed and BLM-Utah Sensitive Species
Species Group Common Name Latin Name
Mammals Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis
Allen’s Big-eared Bat Idionycteris phyllotis
Herpetofauna Zebra-tailed Lizard Callisaurus draconoides
Common Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater
Sidewinder Crotalus cerastes
Arizona Toad Anaxyrus microscaphus
In addition, the following BLM-Utah Sensitive Species may use the Proposed Action area
year-round or for a portion of the year: Western banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus,
permanent resident, uncommon), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, winter resident,
uncommon), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis, transient, fairly common), Big free-tailed
bat (Nyctinomops macrotis, summer resident, rare), Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes,
permanent resident, uncommon), Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum, permanent resident,
rare), Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii, permanent resident, very rare), and
Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii, permanent resident, fairly
common).
3.7 Lands/Access
The Proposed Action area is surrounded on three sides by private property, two of which
contain rural development in the form of homes and small plots of agriculture. Like all
BLM-administered lands within the Virgin municipal boundary, the Proposed Action area
is currently zoned as Open Space. All of the surrounding private lands are zoned as Rural
Residential.
Currently, 6 Rights-of-Way (ROWs) intersect the Proposed Action area:
• UTU-20197 to Virgin Canal Company for a subsurface water line
• UTU-71708 to Pacificorp for an aerial power line
• UTU-84111 to Town of Virgin for a water pipeline
• UTU-85675 to Rocky Mountain Power for a subsurface distribution line
• UTU-90267 to Town of Virgin for a portion of the Kolob Terrace Road
• UTU-84247 to Town of Virgin for a residential area road
Primary vehicular access to the Proposed Action area is provided by county-maintained
Kolob Terrace Road and Road 385 East (Pocketville Road). Pedestrians can also access
the parcel through an existing gate located adjacent to the subdivision. The Proposed
Action area itself includes a network of primitive roads, double-track, and single-track
trails.
15
3.8 Recreation
The Highway 9 corridor between the City of Laverkin and the west entrance to Zion
National Park has limited developed camping opportunities. Those opportunities are well
below the number required to accommodate the number of visitors seeking an overnight
campsite. This has resulted in large numbers of visitors pursuing dispersed camping
opportunities on public lands along this corridor, and the volume of dispersed camping
use has resulted in significant impacts to public lands. Just south of Highway 9 and less
than a mile from the Proposed Action area is Sheep Bridge Road, which connects
Highway 9 with Highway 59 to the south. The BLM recently implemented a designated
dispersed camping plan in order to control the overuse that was occurring due to the large
number of campers flooding the area. Residents of Virgin have expressed a desire to see
this plan expanded, including the area that lies within the Proposed Action area.
The Proposed Action area is exposed to similar dispersed camping pressures as the
surrounding public lands. There are additional campsites on public lands to the east and
immediately adjacent to the Proposed Action area.
3.9 Visual Resources
As identified in the RMP, the Proposed Action area contains 40 acres of VRM Class II
and 25 acres of VRM Class III. The management objectives for Class II are:
1) The level of change to the landscape should be low.
2) Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the
casual observer.
3) Any changes must repeat the basic elements found in the natural landscape - form,
line, color, & texture.
The management objectives for Class III are:
1) The level of change to the landscape can be moderate.
2) Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of
the casual observer.
3) Any changes should repeat the basic elements found in the natural landscape -
form, line, color and texture.
The Class III portion of the Proposed Action area is the result of the Kolob Terrace Road
being buffered by 500 feet to either side of centerline. The Class III classification
anticipated and allows for additional development along this transportation corridor. The
remainder of the property is Class II, as are the majority of public lands along the Highway
9 corridor. This classification is in place to protect the viewshed along the routes to Zion
National Park.
Sources of night-time light include the Virgin Regional BMX Track and private
residences.
16
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter analyzes the impacts of Alternative A (Proposed Action), Alternative B (45-
Acre Sale), and Alternative C (No Action) on the resources and issues described in
Chapter 3.
4.2 General Analysis Assumptions and Guidelines
Resource impacts that are likely to occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed
Action within Washington County, Utah, were analyzed under the BLM's ID team review
process in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. Impacts to each
resource were examined by a BLM Resource Specialist to achieve a comprehensive
scientific analysis, and impacts were quantified to the extent possible.
The resource impacts identified in this EA are largely based on the reasonably foreseeable
assumption that if the Proposed Action area leaves federal jurisdiction, all or a portion of
it would be developed into uses consistent with Town of Virgin zoning and similar in
scale and intensity to the existing commercial and residential land uses on adjacent lands.
Impacts to air quality, water quality, and visual resources would depend largely on exactly
how the Proposed Action area is developed after conveyance; however, the specific nature
of the impacts associated with the possible future development of the Proposed Action
area are not reasonably foreseeable by the BLM and will not be analyzed in this EA.
Quantifying impacts can be difficult due to the lack of monitoring data for many resources.
In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. Impacts are
sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts, or in qualitative terms, if
appropriate. The intensities of impacts are also described, using the following guidance:
Negligible: No noticeable changes to the resource would occur, and any impacts would
be at or below the level of detection. If detected, the impacts would be considered slight.
For negligible negative impacts, mitigation measures would not be necessary.
Minor: Changes to the resource would be measurable, although the changes would be
small and localized. For minor negative impacts, mitigation measures would not be
necessary.
Moderate: Changes to the impacted resource would be measurable, may have appreciable
consequences, and would be noticeable. For moderate negative impacts, mitigation
measures may be necessary.
Major: Changes to the impacted resource would be measurable, have substantial
consequences, and be readily noticeable. For major negative impacts, mitigation measures
would be required.
Short Term is defined as less than one year.
Long Term is defined as more than one year.
17
4.2.1.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts
Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect
effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are
still reasonably foreseeable.
4.3 Alternative A – Proposed Action
4.3.1 Cultural Resources
Direct and indirect long-term impacts to one historic property site 42WS 6313, would
result from the selection of Alternative A. The site has been determined through section
106 consultations to be eligible under criterion “d”, would lose federal legal protections
after the sale of the Proposed Action area, and would be at risk of damage or destruction
to subsequent development. Federal regulations at 36 CFR 800.6 provide processes to
resolve adverse effects to historic properties, through consultations with the USHPO and
other interested parties and the implementation of mitigations, and would be described in
an approved Treatment Plan. If Alternative A is selected, prior to the sale of the Proposed
Action area, the BLM would develop and implement mitigation treatments for 42WS
6313, in consultation with the USHPO. These treatments may include more detailed site
documentation and artifact analysis, oral histories, and archival research to create an
historic context for the site. With mitigation, impacts to this site would be minor.
However, the four other existing non-significant sites could be lost or otherwise affected
if the area were fully developed.
4.3.2 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production
The Proposed Action area has no active mineral extraction or energy production because
there is low or no potential for mineral resources.
Therefore, if the mineral estate is retained in public ownership it would be managed in
accordance with the RMP. These impacts would be negligible because low or no potential
for mineral resources, the BLM has not received interest in this area, and the Proposed
Action area is closed to fluid mineral leasing per the RMP.
4.3.3 Socioeconomics
Like all BLM-administered lands within the Virgin municipal boundary, the Proposed
Action area is currently zoned as Open Space, with all of the surrounding private lands
zoned as Rural Residential. It is assumed that Rural Residential zoning would be carried
forward on the east side of the property. The center of the Proposed Action area is adjacent
to the Virgin Regional BMX track and has been suggested as an ideal location for an RV
Park and/or campground; however, this would require the area be rezoned by the town as
a “Resort Zone” area, which would allow construction of a campground.
In the context of Washington County as a whole, the overall economic impact is expected
to be negligible. However, by bringing the Proposed Action area onto the local tax rolls
in the Town of Virgin, a long term, minor, beneficial impact to the local economy can be
expected, regardless of how the final zoning is determined.
18
4.3.4 Fish and Wildlife Excluding USFWS Designated Species
The sale of the Proposed Action area would not directly impact fish and wildlife species
or their habitat because it would not immediately result in any change to existing
conditions.
Indirect impacts would occur if the Proposed Action area or a portion of it is developed.
These impacts would include habitat loss and fragmentation; the loss of up to 65 acres of
habitat would disrupt individual species and result in the loss of burrowing and foraging
habitat for the individuals of species that may occupy the Proposed Action area.
Individuals of species that use the Proposed Action area could be killed or injured by
development activities and increased human presence. Impacts from development
activities would be limited to the time during which the Proposed Action area is
developed; displacement from increased human presence and associated loss of habitat
would occur over the long term.
Overall, impacts would be adverse, long-term, and minor because of the relatively small
acreage of habitat that could be affected compared to the availability of suitable habitat in
Ecoregion 20h. Impacts could be long term or short term depending on the timing of future
development.
4.3.5 Lands/Access
Direct impacts on public access from implementing the Proposed Action would occur if
the potential private owner limits access to adjacent public lands through the Proposed
Action area or undeveloped land within the parcel. Impacts would be minimized by
permanent easements to the Virgin Regional BMX Track and adjacent BLM lands north
of the Proposed Action area. Access via the existing gate at the western subdivision could
be prohibited by a new potential landowner, resulting in residents to utilize alternate routes
to access adjoining public lands.
Further, holders of land use authorizations within the Proposed Action area would be
notified that BLM is considering the sale of the land encumbered by their authorizations
and each right-of-way holder would be provided with options to allow them to protect
their rights of use over the long term. This could result in a minor administrative
inconvenience to the holders.
The Proposed Action would comply with SO 3373 because access would be secured
through reservations in the patent.
4.3.6 Recreation
The Town of Virgin recently passed a camping ordinance that would go into effect upon
completion of the Proposed Action area sale. The ordinance states that camping is allowed
only by a guest of the property owner or by the owner of the Proposed Action area in the
absence of a dwelling. Any of the likely development scenarios would be subject to this
ordinance, which would effectively eliminate the dispersed camping in this location as
visitors accessing the site would not have permission from the land owner.
19
4.3.7 Visual Resources
No direct impacts on visual resources would occur, as implementation of the Proposed
Action would not change its scenic values, unless developed.
Long-term indirect impacts would occur if the Proposed Action area is developed. The
Proposed Action area is surrounded on three sides by private property, two of which
contain rural development in the form of homes and small plots of agriculture. Like all
BLM-administered lands within the Virgin municipal boundary, it is currently zoned as
Open Space. However, all of the surrounding private lands are zoned as Rural Residential
and it is assumed that this zoning would be carried forward. Having the Proposed Action
area pass into private hands would have little impact on the overall character of the
landscape and, given the current zoning, would be consistent with the surrounding
development. Impacts to visual resources are expected to be long term and negligible. It
is also possible that the town could rezone the property or a portion of it as “Resort Zone”
which would allow for the development of a campground. Were campground
development to occur, potential adverse impacts would increase from negligible to minor.
There could be long term adverse impacts on night sky conditions if future development
includes lighting in the vicinity of nearby residences. These impacts could be minor to
moderate depending on the type, location, and timing/frequency of night lighting.
4.4 Alternative B – Dispose of 45 Acres
This section analyzes the impacts of Alternative B to those resources described in Chapter
3. Under Alternative B, the BLM would dispose of 45 acres of the Proposed Action area
and retain the western-most 20 acres under public ownership (Figure 3).
The impacts to the four non-significant cultural sites under Alternative B would be the
same as Alternative A. However, with Alternative B, no direct impacts would affect
42WS6313, which is the one site found to be significant and eligible for the National
Register. The public lands upon which the site is located would be retained in public
ownership and managed in compliance with NHPA and other federal historic preservation
legislation. Should developments on the adjacent private lands result in changed or
increased recreational uses of the public lands, 42WS 6313 could be indirectly impacted
by these activities. The BLM would continue to monitor the condition of this site to ensure
that the eligibility characteristics of this property would be retained.
Impacts on mineral resources would be the same as under Alternative A.
Impacts on socioeconomics would be similar to Alternative A, but if the Proposed Action
area is developed, the benefits of increasing the tax base would be slightly lower due to
only adding 45 acres of land and not 65 acres. In addition, by disposing of fewer acres,
there could be fewer funds raised through the sale of this property for purchase of private
inholdings for the desert tortoise reserve.
20
Impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A except they could occur on 20
fewer acres.
4.4.5 Lands/Access
Impacts on lands and access would be similar as described under Alternative A. However,
access to existing trails by adjacent landowners on the 20 western most acres would be
retained, resulting in minor improvement to terrestrial access as compared to Alternative
A.
4.4.6 Recreation
Impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A except they could occur on 20
fewer acres.
Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except that the BLM
would dispose of 25 acres of land managed as VRM Class II (15 fewer acres than under
Alternative A) and 20 acres of land managed as VRM Class III (5 fewer acres than under
Alternative A). Because the scale and type of future development would likely be similar
to that under Alternative A, impacts would be negligible where the Proposed Action area
may be zoned as Rural Residential and minor where it has the possibility of being re-
zoned as “Resort Zone”.
Night sky impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except that
they would be further removed from existing residences because the BLM would retain
the 20 western-most acres of the Proposed Action area in public ownership. As a result,
impacts would be minor to negligible.
4.5 Alternative C – No Action
This section analyzes the impacts of the No Action alternative to those resources described
in Chapter 3. Under the No Action alternative, no transfer of lands out of public ownership
would take place and management practices would remain unchanged. Because the
Proposed Action area would not be sold, it would not result in raising funds to meet HCP
objectives as described above, this alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for
the Proposed Action.
Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B: no direct impacts would result to
42WS 6313, as the public lands upon which the site is located would be retained in public
ownership and managed in compliance with NHPA and other federal historic preservation
legislation. Should developments on the adjacent private lands result in changed or
increased recreational uses of the public lands, 42WS 6313 could be indirectly impacted
by these activities. The BLM would continue to monitor the condition of this site and take
appropriate actions to ensure that the eligibility characteristics of this property be retained.
21
There would be negligible, indirect, beneficial impacts if the mineral estate is retained in
public ownership and managed in accordance with the RMP because there is low or no
potential for mineral resources, the BLM has not received recent mineral development
interest in this area, and the Proposed Action area is closed to fluid mineral leasing per the
RMP.
The Proposed Action area would not be brought onto the local tax rolls in the Town of
Virgin, so no economic benefit to the town would be realized.
The Proposed Action area would continue to be managed in accordance with the RMP.
4.5.5 Lands/Access
Continued management of land use authorizations and access to adjacent public lands
would occur. Over the long-term there could be minor impacts with the Proposed Action
area because the BLM could grant future land use authorizations that would be considered
on a case-by-case basis and subject to separate site specific NEPA analysis.
4.5.6 Recreation
Under the No Action Alternative, for the foreseeable future, access would remain public
and dispersed camping could continue. This would be a direct, beneficial, and long-term
impact on recreation options for the public. The impact would be negligible because of
the small amount of dispersed camping that occurs on the Proposed Action area.
There would be long-term impacts on visual resources because BLM management of the
Proposed Action area would continue to be consistent with VRM Class II and III
objectives. Impacts would be minor because the Proposed Action area is surrounded by
private property on two sides that has rural development and therefore the Proposed
Action area provides only a minor contribution to the overall character of the landscape.
4.6 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Cumulative impacts are those impacts resulting from the incremental impact of an action
when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what
agency or person undertakes such other actions.
Unless otherwise specified, the geographic scope of analysis includes the Proposed Action
area and adjacent lands within one mile of the Proposed Action area. Land uses within
one mile of the Proposed Action area include nearby homes, local and state roads, North
Creek, and the BLM-administrated lands to the north of the Proposed Action area.
4.6.1 Past and Present Actions
Past and present actions include development of the Virgin Regional BMX Track, land
use authorizations, rural residential development to the south and west of the Proposed
22
Action area, and dispersed recreation (including hiking, biking, horseback riding, and
camping) that occurs within the Proposed Action area and on BLM-administered lands to
the north.
4.6.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenarios
Reasonably foreseeable actions that could result in cumulative impacts on resources and
uses in the Proposed Action area or adjacent lands include the following:
• Continued rural residential development in Virgin.
• Increased demand for recreational opportunities associated with local residents
and those visiting Zion National Park and other public lands in Washington
County.
4.7 Cumulative Impacts
No nearby development projects or activities were identified that would affect cultural
resources. No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated. BLM would continue to
manage cultural resource sites on BLM-administered lands.
There would be no cumulative impacts because there is low to no mineral potential, no
recent interest, and no energy production in the Proposed Action area.
The cumulative impact analysis area for socioeconomics is the Town of Virgin and the
Springdale area along Highway 9 because this boundary captures local and regional
socioeconomic trends. Sale of the Proposed Action area would have a minor, beneficial
cumulative impact by increasing property tax revenue if the Proposed Action area is
developed and by likely providing additional residential, commercial, and/or recreational
opportunities for residents and/or visitors.
Future development of the Proposed Action area could result in the permanent loss of 65
acres of habitat. This would be a small percentage of similar habitat found on nearby
BLM-administered lands. As a result, cumulative adverse impacts are expected to be
indirect and negligible.
4.7.5 Lands/Access
Sale of the Proposed Action area or a portion of it would result in negligible cumulative
effects on access because access would be maintained to adjacent public lands.
There would be a negligible impact on land use authorizations should the Proposed Action
area or a portion of it be sold because all current land use authorizations would be
permitted to continue.
23
4.7.6 Recreation
The cumulative impact analysis area for recreation is Washington County because this
boundary captures local and regional recreation opportunities and experiences. Sale of the
Proposed Action area would result in direct, negligible, adverse impacts on recreation due
to the loss of dispersed camping opportunities. The impacts would be negligible because
of the much larger amount of similar camping opportunities available in Washington
County, and more specifically near the Town of Virgin.
Sale and development of the Proposed Action area would contribute to a broader trend of
residential development on surrounding private lands. Because the Proposed Action area
is adjacent to existing development, and because new development would be consistent
with Town of Virgin regulations, adverse cumulative impacts would be negligible.
5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
5.1 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted:
Table 3. Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted
Name Purpose & Findings and Conclusions
Authorities for
Consultation or
Coordination
Utah Division of Section 106 of the The BLM engaged in Section 106 consultation
State History, Utah National Historic with the USHPO, after determining that one of
State Historic Preservation Act sites (42WS 6313) within the APE was eligible
Preservation Office for listing to the NRHP as it retained integrity and
satisfied eligibility criterion d, as described at 36
CFR 60.4 (a-d). The BLM also determined that
the proposed sale of the Proposed Action area and
potential subsequent development could
adversely affect this site, as the site could be
damaged or destroyed. The USHPO concurred
with the BLM’s determinations of site eligibility
for NRHP listing and project effects.
Town of Virgin External Scoping The BLM met with several members of the Virgin
Town Council and, separately, the Virgin Town
Mayor in 2019 to discuss the proposed land sale.
Washington County External Scoping The BLM gave a presentation to the Washington
Commissioners County Commissioners that described the
proposed land sale and provided an opportunity
to ask questions and express any concerns. No
concerns were voiced.
24
5.2 Summary of Public Participation
The BLM issued a news release on May 20, 2019, announcing the Proposed Action and
initiating the 30-day public scoping comment period, which ended on June 19, 2019.
An open house was held on June 4, 2019, from 6pm to 8pm at the Virgin Town Hall.
Approximately 25 members of the public attended the open house, of which 12 signed the
open house sign-in sheet. A reporter from the St. George News also attended and a news
article was published in the newspaper on the following day.
A total of 13 comment submissions were received at the open house and via letter, email,
and the BLM’s ePlanning website. This included nine submissions from individuals, two
submissions from organizations, and one submission from a state government agency.
Comments and a summary of the issues they identified are provided in Appendix D.
25
5.3 List of Preparers
Table 4. List of Preparers
Name Title Responsible for the Following Section(s) of
this Document
Bureau of Land Management
Shawnna Dao Realty Specialist Project Lead, Lands/Access
Callie Goff NEPA Coordinator NEPA Compliance
Dawna Ferris- Red Cliffs NCA Cultural Resources
Rowley Manager
Amber Van Alfen Archaeologist Cultural Resources
Stephanie Root Wildlife Biologist Fish and Wildlife Excluding USFWS
Designated Species; Threatened, Endangered,
and Candidate Animal Species
John Kellam Wildlife Biologist Fish and Wildlife Excluding USFWS
Dave Kiel Outdoor Recreation Socioeconomics, Visual Resources,
Planner Recreation
Kyle Voyles Outdoor Recreation Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy
Planner /Utah Cave Production
Coordinator
Rody Cox Geologist Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy
Production
Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Drew Vankat Environmental Project Manager, Visual Resources,
Planner Lands/Access, Geology/Mineral
Resources/Energy Production
Marty Marchaterre Sr. Environmental NEPA Compliance, Cultural Resources,
Planner Socioeconomics
Richard Borthwick Biologist Fish and Wildlife Excluding USFWS
26
6 REFERENCES
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999. St. George Field Office Record of Decision and
Resource Management Plan. St. George, UT. Amended in 2001 and 2016.
Ganey, Joseph L, and Balda, Russell P. 1989. Distribution and Habitat Use of Mexican
Spotted Owls in Arizona. The Condor 91:355-361.
Ganey, Joseph L, and Balda, Russell P. 1994. Habitat Selection by Mexican Spotted Owls in
Northern Arizona. The Auk 111(1):162-169.
National Park Service. 2018. National Park Service Visitation Tops 318 Million in 2018.
Available online at: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/03-05-2019-visitation-
numbers.htm. Accessed in July 2019.
Stokes, W.L. 1986. Geology of Utah: Utah Museum of Natural History and Utah Geological
and Mineral Survey, Occasional Paper #6. Salt Lake City, Utah
US Census Bureau. 2017. 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Final Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Field Manual:
(Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, Sacramento,
California.
_____. 2017. Preparing for any action that may occur within the range of the Mojave Desert
Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).
Washington County. 2012. The General Plan of Washington County, Utah (amended August
2012). Available online at: https://www.washco.utah.gov/wp-
content/uploads/cdev/pdf/gp/washco-general-plan.pdf. Accessed in July 2019.
27

Draft Environmental Assessment Virgin Land Sale DOI BLM UT C030 2019 0027 EA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Environmental Assessment Virgin Land Sale DOI BLM UT C030 2019 0027 EA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Virgin Land Sale

St. George Field Office

1 PURPOSE & NEED ..................................................................................................1

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

You might also like