Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · This discussion...

Environmental

Assessment

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Benmore Allotment

Grazing Authorization

September

2010

Spanish Fork Ranger District

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Tooele County, Utah T9S, R6W, Sections 12, 25, 36; T9S, R5W, Sections 4-10, 17-

20, 28-33; T10S, R6W, Sections 1, 12, 13, 24; T10S, R5W,

Sections 5-9, 16-20

Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................................................. i

Chapter I – Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

Document Structure........................................................................................................................... 1

Background........................................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose And Need For Action........................................................................................................... 2

Proposed Action ………………………………………………........................................................ 2

Current Management Direction......................................................................................................... 4

Decision Framework.......................................................................................................................... 4

Public Involvement............................................................................................................................ 4

Issues……………………………………………………………...................................................... 5

Chapter II – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action............................................................... 11

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis..................................................... 11

Alternatives Considered in Detail...................................................................................................... 11

Comparison of Alternatives……………………………................................................................... 18

Chapter III - Affected Environment And Environmental Consequences...................................... 18

Past and Present Actions................................................................................................................... 18

Foreseeable Actions.......................................................................................................................... 22

Soils (Issue 1)................................................................................................................................... 25

Sage grouse (Issue 2)........................................................................................................................ 35

Consultation and Coordination......................................................................................................... 40

Literature Cited and References....................................................................................................... 41


iii

SUMMARY

The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest proposes to authorize livestock grazing on the

Benmore Allotment in a manner that that will meet or move towards the desired conditions of the

2003 Uinta National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Benmore Allotment is

located near Vernon, Utah, Tooele County and is within the Spanish Fork Ranger District, Uinta-

Wasatch-Cache National Forest.

This action is needed to meet the Forest Plan direction and provide livestock forage to the

permittee. One trough needed to improve livestock distribution.

In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives:

• No Action: No Grazing.

• Current Management: Continued grazing with no new troughs or fences.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide which alternative

will best accomplish the desired conditions for the project area while meeting the Forest Plan

goals and objectives.


1

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

The Spanish Fork Ranger District of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest has prepared this

Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the effects of continued authorization of livestock

grazing on the Benmore Allotment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental

Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would

result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five parts:

• Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the

purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and

need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and

how the public responded.

• Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a

more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for

achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on driving issues

raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation

measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences

associated with each alternative.

• Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by

driving issues. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by

the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and

comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

• Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies

consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses

presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more

detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project record located at the

Spanish Fork Ranger District Office in Spanish Fork, Utah.

The Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization EA project record is located at the Spanish Fork

Ranger District and is available for public review. It contains planning records, IDT notes,

specialist reports, and maps. The reader may want to refer to the Uinta National Forest 2003

Land and Resource Management (USDA, Forest Service, 2003) and EIS, which are available at

each District Office or at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Provo.

BACKGROUND

Benmore Allotment located near Vernon, Utah, Tooele County, T9S, R6W, Sections 12, 25, 36;

T9S, R5W, Sections 4-10, 17-20, 28-33; T10S, R6W, Sections 1, 12, 13, 24; T10S, R5W,

Sections 5-9, 16-20 and consits of 13,724 acres (See map 1).


2

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose is to authorize continued livestock grazing on the Benmore Allotment in a manner

that would meet or move towards the desired conditions of the Uinta National Forest 2003 Land

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Water developments are needed to improve

livestock distribution.

Grazing is a suitable use of Forest Service Lands and is permissible through the Multiple Use

Sustained Yield Act of 1960, as amended. The allotment contains lands identified as suitable for

domestic livestock grazing in the Forest Plan and continued domestic livestock grazing is

consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan (2003a, p. 5-43

and 5-129).

It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands

suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1; 36 CFR 222.2(c)).

It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions to the economic and social well being of

people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for

communities that depend on range resource for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1).

The Forest Plan, which directs the management of lands contained within this project area, has as

one of its desired conditions to continue to permit livestock grazing activities on allotments

within the Vernon Management Area (Forest Plan, p. 5-175).

PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action was developed at the onset of the project and is based on site-specific needs

and preliminary issues. It was used during the scoping process for individuals, groups and

organizations to review and identify additional issues. The Forest Service proposes to authorize

continued grazing and construct one water development on the Benmore Allotment. The

allotment is currently managed in accordance with the Forest Plan. Standards and guidelines

from the Forest Plan applicable to the proposed action and the proposed range improvements are

discussed in detail in Chapter II.

The proposed action would employ an adaptive management strategy, which through monitoring

would adjust the timing, intensity, frequency and management of grazing on the allotment as

needed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and that would continue to meet or

satisfactorily move Forest resources toward desired conditions and meet Forest Plan objectives.

Adaptive management would also be used to monitor water resources at the proposed Grove

Hollow water development.


3


4

CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

This analysis incorporates direction provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for

the Uinta National Forest 2003 Land and Resource and associated Record of Decision signed

April 7, 2003. The Forest Plan and its amendments guide all resource activities and desired

future condition. It establishes goals, general direction, objectives and standards for the

management of federal lands. Those applicable to the Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization

EA are listed in Alternative 2. The upper portion of the allotment lies within the Vernon roadless

area. The roadless area analysis is part of the project record. There are no Wild and Scenic

Rivers in the project area.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

The Spanish Fork District Ranger, as the Responsible Official, will decide whether or not to

authorize livestock grazing and if so under what conditions (i.e. design features, mitigation,

monitoring). If continued grazing is authorized, an allotment management plan (AMP) will be

developed to incorporate and implement the decision. The AMP will be completed and approved

as soon as practical and without further NEPA documentation.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

During the public and internal involvement process (scoping) comments were obtained to

determine the analysis needs. These comments were reviewed by the interdisciplinary team

(IDT) to determine driving issues for further analysis. Non-driving and issues outside the scope

of analysis were eliminated from detailed analysis.

Scoping (40 CFR 1501.7) is an ongoing method used to identify issues related to the proposed

action and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment

(EA). Several activities were undertaken to solicit comments and issues concerning the proposed

action. On April 20, 2010 scoping letters were sent to individuals, tribal groups, and

organizations that expressed interest or could be affected by the proposed action. Federal, state,

and local government agencies were also included in this process. The scoping letter contained

preliminary issues developed by the Interdisciplinary Team. The notice and comment period

required by 36 CFR 215 was held concurrently with scoping. A legal notice initiating the

comment period was published in the Provo Daily Herald on April 23, 2010. Comments were

invited about the project, either in writing or through conversations with the IDT leader. The

project has been included in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Schedule of Proposed Actions since

October of 2009, which is posted on the Forest website and mailed periodically to interested

parties.

One written comment was received as a result of the scoping statement. Documentation of the

scoping process is included in the project record available at the Spanish Fork Ranger District.


5

ISSUES

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides for the IDT to identify and eliminate

from detailed study, non-driving issues, narrowing the discussion of these issues to a brief

presentation of why they would have a minor effect on the human environment. While these

concerns are important, they were: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already

decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the

decision to be made 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; 5)

comment, opinion, or position statement. Specific rationale for issue elimination is discussed

following the issues to be analyzed in this document.

Driving Issues, Measurement Parameters and Desired Conditions

Based on the assessment of internal and external comment, the IDT has identified the following

driving issues, which are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Driving Issues

Issue Issue Statement Measurement Parameter

Soils

Issue 1

Grazing could affect soil resources by

causing an unacceptable loss of soil

productivity.

S&W-3 Guideline: Maintain at least 70 percent of

potential effective ground cover

The soil loss tolerance (“T” value in tons/acre) for each

soil type

Compaction is evident but limited in depth, strength, or

extent, and does not appreciably effect root growth

Sage

grouse

Issue 2

Livestock grazing could impact sage

grouse populations and habitat.

Trampling of nests, eggs and chicks

Loss of sage grouse from fences and water troughs

Veg-7 Guideline Manage approximately 80 percent of

potential greater sage grouse breeding and winter habitat

areas

Issues Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis

The following issues and concerns did not lead to the development of specific alternatives.

These concerns are important but not considered by the IDT team to be driving issues. The

methods to address these issues are addressed below. Specific rationale for issue elimination is

also discussed in the project record.

• Water Resources

Within the project area, the largest streams have been diverted for irrigation water since the

1860’s resulting in several miles of dewatered, previously perennial, streams. Water is now


6

collected at Vernon Reservoir which was dedicated in 1977. It includes a 53 foot earthen dam

and 560 acre feet of irrigation water. The reservoir is located east of the Benmore Allotment

and is under the jurisdiction of the Vernon Irrigation Company. Both Bennion and Dutch

Creeks are diverted into an underground pipe and delivered to the reservoir. Much of the

watered portions of Bennion Creek and Vernon Creek are fenced from cattle.

Most of the aquatic habitat within the Benmore Allotment occurs in the headwater canyons

of Dutch Canyon and Bennion Canyon. Overall, livestock grazing is not substantially

affecting stream channel morphology, vegetation conditions in Riparian Habitat

Conservation Areas (RHCA) and wetlands throughout the Benmore Allotment (watershed

resource report, project record).

There is one long term riparian trend study on the upper portions of Bennion Creek. Past

studies have shown the vegetation community has improved from a mid-seral status to a late

seral-status with a substantial increase in native sedges and a reduction in non-native

Kentucky bluegrass. Willows are also increasing on the site. In 2008, a different method of

riparian study was adopted which is not comparable to the older method. Therefore trend and

seral status cannot be determined until the next time this study is read. Therefore, this

resource is minimally affected by the proposed action and its alternatives and will not be

analyzed further.

Development of Grove Hollow spring, pipeline, and trough would result in both short-term

and long-term effects. In the short-term, the spring source would be impacted through

excavation and installation of the pipeline and headbox box. Incorporation of design features

into the adaptive management plan are projected to reduce impacts of the development on

riparian resources. These include:

• Installing and maintaining an exclusionary fence around the aspen stand and spring

area would eliminate livestock impacts to the spring source.

• Designing the head box so water could only leave the spring when cattle are in the

Dutch Canyon Pasture.

• Installing a float valve (if feasible) in the trough to allow water to remain in the

spring when not used by cattle.

• The trough would not be used if water reduction dries up the spring.

• The trough would be located approximately 965 five feet southwest of the spring on

a ridge so it would be more than 100 feet from a Class III Stream.

Therefore, this resource is minimally affected by the proposed action and its alternatives and

will not be analyzed further.

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sets narrative and numeric surface

water standards for water quality based on the uses people and wildlife make of the water.

Water quality is assessed as fully supporting or impaired based on standards established to

protect each beneficial use. There are no beneficial uses of streams within the Vernon

Division. The numeric water quality standards can be found in Section R317-2, Utah

Administrative Code, Standards of Quality of Waters of the State

(http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm).


7

Although no water quality sampling has been completed on the Benmore Allotment,

generally waters within the Vernon Unit are assessed by the Utah Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) to be fully supporting their designated beneficial uses Utah’s

2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, available online at:

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/Utah305b_2006Vol1_6-30-06.pdf

No Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters are scheduled or developed

for waters within the project analysis or cumulative effects analysis areas.

• Fisheries and Aquatic Resources




and 560 acres feet of irrigation water. The reservoir is located east of the Benmore Allotment

and is under the jurisdiction of the Vernon Irrigation Company. Both Bennion and Dutch

Creeks are diverted into an underground pipe and delivered to the reservoir.

Most of the aquatic habitat within the Benmore Allotment occurs in the headwater canyons

of Dutch Canyon and Bennion Canyon. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has no

record of fish occurring and they do not suspect any to be present within these streams (Mike

Slater, personal communication, 2010). Therefore, this resource is not affected by the

proposed action and its alternatives and will not be analyzed further.

Dutch and Bennion Creeks host invertebrates that have a two year larval aquatic stage,

indicating enough water is present on the surface or in the stream sediments to support these

animals. Herpetofaunal surveys were performed in the Dutch Canyon area by Forest Service

crews in 2010. Surveys did observe some Greater Short-Horned Lizards (Phrynosoma

hernandes) near some the identified wetlands. Some of the observed wetland habitats

(watershed resource report, project file) contain habitat suitable for breeding by some

amphibians. Western chorus frogs, tiger Water Resource Report salamanders, and other less

sensitive species may also inhabit these areas. This resource is minimally affected by the


Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES): Threatened or endangered

aquatic species are not known to occur within the Benmore Allotment or the Vernon

Management Area. Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) likely were

extirpated from the Vernon Management Area as the ancient Lake Bonneville receded. The

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) is a sensitive species that historically inhabited the

Sheeprock Mountains. A small population of Columbia Spotted Frogs was recently found on

private land within the Vernon Management Area (USFWS 2002). Boreal toads (Anaxyrus

boreas boreas) may occur in the headwater canyons of the Sheeprock Mountains, but this

species has yet to be documented in the area. Therefore, this resource is not affected by the


Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS): Bonneville cutthroat trout is the aquatic

management indicator species (MIS) whose historic range overlapped with the Vernon


8

Management Area. However, it does not occur in this area. Therefore, this resource is not

affected by the proposed action and its alternatives and will not be analyzed further.

• Other Terrestrial Wildlife than Sage Grouse

Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife Species (TES) : There are no

threatened, endangered, or proposed species within the Vernon Management Area due to lack

of suitable habitat (biological assessment project record). Of the nine sensitive terrestrial

wildlife species potentially occurring on the Uinta National Forest, only three have suitable

habitat or occur within the Vernon Management Area and/or within the project area. One (the

western big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), has suitable habitat within the

Vernon Management Area, but not within the project area. Two species, the bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), have

suitable habitat within the Vernon Management Area and within the project area. The bald

eagle is migratory and only found in the Vernon Management Area in the winter when the

project area is not being grazed (biological evaluation/management indicator species project

record). The proposed action and its alternatives would have little or no effect on most

terrestrial TES wildlife species, and thus these will not be analyzed further. Effects to sage

grouse are discussed in Chapter III.

Terrestrial Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS): None of the three terrestrial

wildlife management indicator species listed in the Forest Plan (northern goshawk, three-toed

woodpecker or beaver) are found in the Vernon Management Area due to lack of suitable

habitat (biological evaluation/management indicator species report project record). This

resource is unaffected by the proposed action and its alternatives and will not be analyzed

further.

• Cultural Resources

The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest has determined the reissuance of livestock grazing

permits without modification does not necessitate the initiation of new heritage resource field

inventories. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this

determination in December, 2008. While the Forest Service acknowledges livestock grazing

has the potential to adversely affect heritage resources, it has determined monitoring heritage

resources that may be susceptible to damage is a more efficient way to identify and mitigate

adverse affects, versus a large scale or sample surveys, in advance of the decision to reissue

the permit. If an adverse affect to a cultural resource is noted, the Forest Service is compelled

to mitigate those adverse affects in keeping with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2360:

Heritage Program Management.

The proposed Grove Hollow water development would result in one area of new ground

disturbance. The area of disturbance is less than 10 square meters. On July, 28, 2010, the

Forest Archaeologist performed a Class III intensive pedestrian survey of the area of

potential effect including a 100 meter buffer around the area of proposed disturbance.

The Class III Heritage Resource Inventory did not result in the identification of any newly

identified or previously identified heritage resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE).


9

The Forest Service has made the determination of No Historic Properties Affected as per

36CFR800.4(d).

• Vegetation

There are seven long term upland range trend studies in the project area. All of these studies

were reread in 2008. All but two are seeded sites primarily dominated by crested wheat. One

non-seeded site represents a onetime dry farm that was not reseeded. It is fenced from

livestock. This area was protected to see what would happen with plant succession. This site

is still in an early-seral status. Some of the non-native grasses have also moved into the site.

However, the amount of bare ground has decreased over time. The second non-seeded site is

located in the upper part of the allotment in Bennion Canyon. This site is in mid-seral status

with an upward trend.

The remaining five crested wheat sites, show a stable (2 sites) or upward (3 sites) trend

because there is abundant crested wheat and they exhibited good vigor. On the upward

trending sites the frequency of grasses and forbs is increasing. Although crested wheat is not

a desired species because it is not native, it is very effective at keeping the small isolated

patches of cheat grass in check and reducing bare ground.

All trend studies show a stable or an upward trend in the amount of ground cover since they

were last read. All studies have ground cover that meets the S&W-3 Guideline: Maintain at

least 70 percent of potential effective ground cover, with the exception of the study in Pasture

26 of the Benmore Pastures. This pasture was one of those that was harrowed and reseeded in

the fall of 2009. With this treatment the amount of bare ground should decrease. If not, when

grazing does occur utilization would be lowered to 40 percent.

The effects to vegetation from grazing are usually expressed in terms of seral status or the

composition of the species. Grazing could alter the composition by reducing more

ecologically desirable species in favor of less desirable or non-native species. Since the

majority of the upland areas grazed by livestock were seeded long ago to non-native crested

wheat grass, it is not possible to evaluate the effects of the alternatives with this criterion.

This is why the soils resource (ground cover) has been selected to monitor the effects of the

alternatives and livestock grazing. Therefore, this resource is minimally affected by the


There are few noxious weeds in the area; however whitetop Cardaria draba and squarrouse

knapweed Centaurea virgata squarrosa have begun to invade the area. These weeds have

been chemically controlled over the last several years (vegetation project record).

There are no threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species in the project area (plant

biological assessment and evaluation project record). Therefore, this resource is not affected

by the proposed action and its alternatives and will not be analyzed further.

• Recreation

The Benmore Allotment area is a traditional area for recreation activities. These activities

include dispersed camping, sightseeing, ATV riding, snowmobiling, and hunting. The


10

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for the Benmore Allotment is Roaded Natural. The

recreation use in this area is Moderate. There are no developed trails within the project area.

This project would have no long term negative impacts to recreation (recreation project

record). Therefore, this resource is minimally affected by the proposed action and its

alternatives and will not be analyzed further.


11

CHAPTER II – ALTERNATIVES,

INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the proposed action and its alternatives considered to wholly or in part

achieve the purpose and need discussed in Chapter I. Alternatives were developed in response to

those issues identified during scoping and determined to be important to the decision. These

alternatives are designed to clearly display differences in comparative form providing a clear

basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

The disclosure of environmental effects in Chapter III provides the basis for the decision maker

to choose between alternatives. To achieve Forest Plan goals, site specific desired conditions for

affected resources with driving issues have been developed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT).

These desired conditions will also be used to measure each alternative's merit and to monitor the

effectiveness of the proposed action.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

One alternative was considered but dropped from further study. This alternative would analyze

the effects of fencing off the lower portion of Vernon Creek from livestock grazing. Upon field

inspection, it was determined the majority of Vernon Creek was dewatered into a ditch and water

delivered to the town of Vernon for irrigation purposes. A remainder of approximately 2175 feet

of the creek is unfenced. However, use by cattle was well below utilization levels. This is due

largely because this portion of the stream is intermittent. It was concluded that this portion of the

creek could be improved by sagebrush removal adjacent to the creek and seeding of riparian

vegetation. At that time the creek would be fenced from livestock and this project became a

foreseeable action in Chapter III.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

This section describes the features of three alternatives considered in detail. The alternatives

analyzed include the required “No Action”, which analyzes no grazing (Alternative 1) and

“Current Management” (Alternative 2), which represents the current grazing situation. The third

alternative is the “Proposed Action". This alternative analyzes current grazing, adaptive

management and the proposed addition of one trough which address the needs within the project

area.

Alternative 1: No Action

The “no action” alternative is included to meet requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act [40 CFR 1502.14 (d)] and the Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, FSH

2209.13, Chapter 90, Section 92.31 which stipulates that “in addition to the proposed action, the

no action alternative shall always be fully developed and analyzed in detail.” “No action” is


12

synonymous with “no grazing” and means livestock grazing would not be authorized within the

project area. If alternative 1 were selected, grazing would not be authorized after a two-year

notification to the permittees from the date the decision is made.

Alternative 2: Current Management

Under this alternative, no changes would be made to the current grazing management on the

Benmore Allotment. The allotment is permitted to graze 297 cow/calf pairs from May 1 to

November 10. The allotment would continue to be managed with a rest-rotation grazing system

and in accordance the direction of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines applicable to the

proposed action are listed below:

Graze-4 Standard: Limit grazing to meet the following utilization levels on non-riparian

vegetation types based on the annual average of the current year’s growth. However,

through June 15 at Strawberry Reservoir Management Area and through June 1 at the

Vernon Management Area, minimum canopy cover and height requirements for

greater sage grouse habitat take precedence over the forage utilization standards in the

following table.

Forage Utilization Standards

Vegetation Type

Forage Utilization

Very Early –

Early Seral

Mid – Late

Seral

General Uplands and Winter Range

Upland shrublands (sagebrush, snowberry, mountain mahogany

species, cliffrose, bitterbrush, saltbrush, and mountain brush) 40% 60%

Grasslands 45% 65%

Veg-7 Guideline: Manage approximately 80 percent of potential greater sage grouse

breeding and winter habitat areas in the Vernon and Strawberry Reservoir

Management Areas to support the percentages and heights of canopy cover listed in

the table below. Breeding habitat should retain the given height levels of grasses and

a diversity of forbs annually through June 1 in the Vernon Management Area and

June 15 in the Strawberry Reservoir Management Area. Vegetation should be

maintained in a mosaic of openings and shrubs.


13

Vegetation Requirements in the Vernon and Strawberry Reservoir Management Areas

Vegetation Type Minimum %

Canopy Cover

Minimum Height Canopy Cover1

Vernon Management

Area

Strawberry Reservoir

Management Area

Greater Sage Grouse Breeding Habitat (Maintain through June 15 - Strawberry

Vernon- maintain through June 1)*

Sagebrush 15-25% 16-32 inches 16-32 inches

Grasses ≥ 15% ≥ 6 inches ≥ 7 inches

Forbs ≥ 10% ≥ 6 inches ≥ 7 inches

Greater Sage Grouse Winter Habitat

Sagebrush 10-30%2 10-14 inches

2 10-14 inches

2

Grasses N/A N/A N/A

Forbs N/A N/A N/A

Graze-9 Guideline: Implement intensive grazing management that provides periodic rest

designed to achieve and maintain desired vegetation community composition and

structure.

S&W-1 Standard: Maintain or improve long-term soil productivity and hydrologic function

of the soil by limiting activities that would cause detrimental soil disturbance.

Detrimental soil disturbance consists of severely burned soils, loss of ground cover,

or detrimental soil displacement, erosion, puddling, or compaction, as defined in

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.18 and applicable Intermountain Region

supplements.

S&W-2 Guideline: Avoid land use practices that reduce soil moisture effectiveness, increase

average erosion, cause invasion of exotic plants, and reduce abundance and diversity

of forbs in the long-term (some short-term practices that would seem to contradict

this direction may be beneficial in the long-term).

S&W-3 Guideline: Maintain at least 70 percent of potential effective ground cover to provide

nutrient cycling and protect the soil from erosion in excess of soil loss tolerance

limits.

WL&F-2 Standard: Provide wildlife escape ramps in all developed water sources.

WL&F-3 Guideline: Provide for wildlife movement through and/or around structures or

project sites such as fences, spring developments, guzzlers, roads, and ditches.

Graze-3 Standard: Limit grazing to meet the following utilization levels within Riparian

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) based on the average current year’s growth.


14

Utilization Standards by RHCA Class

RHCA Class

Minimum

Percent of

Stream Length

Utilization Standard by Season of Use

Very Early – Early Mid – Late Seral

Early Late Early Late

Minimum Greenline Stubble Height1

Class I 90% 5” 6” 4” 5”

Class II 80% 4” 5” 3” 4”

Class III 70% 3” 4” 2” 3”

Forage Utilization Limits2

Class I 90% 45% 35% 55% 45%

Class II 80% 50% 40% 60% 50%

Class III 70% 60% 50% 65% 55%

Willow Utilization2

Class I 90% N/A 35% N/A 50%

Class II 80% N/A 35% N/A 50%

Class III 70% N/A 35% N/A 50%

Note: There are no willow utilization standards for early season use. 1 Height of key species (palatable, hydrophytic species indicative of mid to late seral riparian plant communities, or

as indicated in the site-specific Allotment Management Plan). If acceptable “key species” are absent from a site,

only utilization standards shall be used. 2 Percent of total average annual growth.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA)

Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and

management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. RHCAs include

traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and other areas that

help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. There are three RHCA classes of varying

widths offering varying levels of protection: class I with widths extending 300 feet from each

edge of the waterbody (600 feet total); class II with widths extending 200 feet from each edge of

the waterbody (400 feet total); and class III with widths extending 100 feet from each edge of the

waterbody (200 feet total).

S&W-4 Guideline: Maintain adequate ground cover to filter runoff and prevent detrimental

erosion in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs).


15

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Ground Cover Requirements

RHCA Minimum Ground

Cover Requirement

Minimum Percent of RHCA

to Meet Requirement

Class I 90% of Potential 90%

Class II 80% of Potential 80%

Class III 80% of Potential 70%

Graze-5 Standard: Locate new livestock troughs, tanks, and holding facilities out of Riparian

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). For existing livestock handling facilities inside

RHCAs, assure that facilities do not prevent attainment of aquatic Forest Plan

management direction. Modify, relocate, or close existing facilities where aquatic

Forest Plan management direction cannot be met.

Graze-6 Standard: Locate livestock salt grounds outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation

Areas (RHCAs).

Graze-8 Guideline: Minimize trailing livestock through Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

(RHCAs). Close or relocate livestock driveways to minimize impacts to RHCAs.

Aqua-9 Guideline: Subject to valid existing rights, free-flowing water and associated riparian

vegetation communities should be retained at developed spring sites. If possible,

existing spring developments should be modified to return water to riparian

ecosystems within the source drainage.

Alternative 3: Proposed Action

Benmore Allotment would continue to be managed under the Forest Plan standards and

guidelines applicable to the proposed action and listed under are under Alternative 2.

In addition, the Grove Hollow water development would be installed in the summer of 2011. The

water development consists of a fiberglass headbox and trough connected with pipe. The

headbox would be designed so water could only leave the spring when cattle are in the Dutch

Canyon Pasture. In addition, a float (if feasible) would be installed in the trough to allow water

to remain in the spring when not used by cattle. The spring would be fenced from cattle with a

four wire barbed wire fence, 42 inches in height. The trough would be located approximately 965

five feet southwest of the spring on a ridge so it would be more than 100 feet from this Class III

Stream.

There are two possible methods for the Grove Hollow water development installation which are

discussed below.


16

Mechanized Equipment Installation

With this method, small equipment would be used for installing the spring box and a possibly a

portion of the pipeline. This would require entry of machinery for approximately 0.25 miles to

access the spring area. Of the 0.25 miles approximately 100 yards would require soil excavation

(cut and fill) to provide machinery access. Any cuts and fills would be restored to contour and

seeded with native vegetation. Pipeline installation would be accomplished using a small tracked

trencher that would bury the pipe in an approximate one-foot diameter trench below the soil

surface. Trenches would be backfilled with excavated soils and seeded if necessary.

Hand Tool Installation of spring and Some Pipe

Hand tool installation would be used to excavate the spring box. There would be no need for

machinery and soil excavation to access the spring. The pipeline would be installed at ground

level on steep slopes parallel to the stream. On more level areas pipeline installation would be

accomplished using a small tracked trencher that would bury the pipe in an approximate one-foot

diameter trench below the soil surface. Trenches would be backfilled with excavated soils and

seeded if necessary.

Adaptive Management

The proposed action would employ an adaptive management strategy, which through monitoring

with allotment inspections and long-term trend studies would adjust the timing, intensity,

frequency and management of grazing on the allotment as needed to meet Forest Plan standards

and guidelines, and that would continue to meet or satisfactorily move Forest resources toward

desired conditions and meet Forest Plan objectives. Adaptive management would also be used to

monitor water resources at the proposed Grove Hollow water development.

If additional sage grouse breeding habitat is established in the lower (northern) portion of the

Allotment, then adjustments in the timing of grazing could result in reduction of the grazing

season or a reduction in permitted livestock or both.

Forest Plan standards for 70 percent of the potential effective ground cover are currently met on

the Benmore Allotment. If identified through monitoring, any areas falling below this standard,

upland utilization would be lowered to 40 percent.

Monitoring Plan

The monitoring plan for the proposed action is located in Table 2.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 3, provides a summary of the environmental effects to driving issues of implementing each

alternative.


17

Table 2. Monitoring Plan

Desired Conditions Resource Indicators

from proposed

action

How Monitoring Would be

Accomplished

Protocol Management Action if threshold is met

S&W-3 Guideline: Maintain

at least 70 percent of potential

effective ground cover

Percent ground

cover

Long term range trend studies

and variable length step

transect

Forest Service Nested

Frequency protocol.

Variable length step

transect as describe in the

EA page 25-26.

When monitoring indicates that grazing

is resulting in areas not meeting the

desired condition, utilization would be

lower in that area to 40 percent

utilization.

Veg-7Guideline: Manage

approximately 80 percent of

potential greater sage grouse

breeding and winter habitat

areas in the Vernon and

Management Areas to support

the percentages and heights of

canopy cover listed the Forest

Plan.

Height level of

grasses before

June 1

Annual spring monitoring of

sage grouse leks by UWDR

and West Desert Adaptive

Resource Management Local

Working Group

State of Utah Observation

Protocol

If new leks are established grazing would

be adjusted within a two mile area

around the lek. This would be

accomplished by

1. No cattle would graze within 2 miles

of the lek before June 1.

2. Cattle would only use the area

leaving a six inch stubble height for

forbs and grasses before June 1

Aqua-9 Guideline: Subject to

valid existing rights, free-

flowing water and associated

riparian vegetation

communities should be

retained at developed spring

sites. If possible, existing

spring developments should be

modified to return water to

riparian ecosystems within the

source drainage.

Presence of surface

water at Grove

Hollow Spring

when it would

normally occur.

Annul visual observation Annul visual observation When monitoring indicates that trough

use is resulting in absence of surface

water at Grove Hollow Spring when it

would normally occur then the trough

would not be used.


18

Table 3. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives

Driving Issue

or Resource

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Current Grazing

Alternative 3

Proposed Action

Soils

(Issue 1)

All sample sites would meet S&W-3

Guideline: Maintain at least 70 percent of

potential effective ground cover.

Erosion rates for all sample sites are below

the allowable soil loss tolerance (“T” value

in tons/acre) for each soil type. Erosion

rates would proportionally improve with

increased ground cover.

There are no soil platelets or signs of

limited or deflected root growth from

compacted soil layers observed within the

Dutch Creek riparian area

Same as Alternative 1

Erosion rates for all sample sites are below the

allowable soil loss tolerance (“T” value in

tons/acre) for each soil type.

Same as Alternative 1

Same as Alternative 1 and 2.

Same as Alternative 2.


Sage grouse

(Issue 2)

No chance of direct loss to nests, eggs and

chicks through trampling by livestock.

There would be no maintained troughs.

With the lack of water sage grouse would

be less likely to remain in the project area.

There would be less fences, however there

is no evidence that fences in the project

area have caused a loss of sage grouse.

This alternative meets Veg-7 Manage

approximately 80% of breeding and winter

habitat areas to support the appropriate

heights of canopy cover.


There has been no evidence troughs or fences

have caused a loss of sage grouse. Sage grouse

numbers have been slowly increasing since

1995.



With the addition of more water troughs,

there could be more sage grouse in the

project area. There would be more fences,

however there is no evidence that fences in

the project area have caused a loss of sage

grouse.



19

CHAPTER III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the

affected project area and the potential changes to driving or legal issues due to implementation of

the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives

presented in Table 3.

Effects to various resources are described as direct effects of a proposed alternative, which occur

at the same time and place. Indirect effects of a proposed alternative occur later in time or are

removed in distance. Cumulative effects result from the incremental effect of alternatives when

added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions (described below). Cumulative

effects could result from individually minor, but collectively important, actions taking place over

a period of time. The analysis area for which the effects are determined is described under the

affected resources discussed in this chapter.

PAST AND PRESENT ACTIONS

Land Use Patterns

The Vernon Division of the Wasatch National Forest has its origins from many different sources.

The primary sources are the Central Utah Dry Land Adjustment Project and former Public

Domain lands (BLM). A smaller amount comes from the original Forest Reserve established in

1907.

In 1910, the Desert Homestead Entry Law opened up the Vernon area to dry farming. During

years of average rainfall, grain yields were good, but the low precipitation years were frequent,

particularly from 1928 to 1935. The dry farms failed and were purchased by the government in

order to prevent resettlement and desertion. A total of 46,445 acres in the Vernon area were

purchased and the project was started under the supervision of the Agricultural Adjustment

Administration in March of 1935. Administration of the project was subsequently transferred to

the Resettlement Administration, then to the Land Utilization Program of the Bureau of

Agricultural Economics, then in 1939 to the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). On January 1,

1954, administration of the project area came under the United States Forest Service.

In addition to the Central Utah Dry Land Adjustment Project, the land ownership was roughly

forty percent public domain (this became BLM land). On January 1, 1954, the public domain

lands also came under the Administration of the Forest Service. Sixty three percent of the

Benmore Allotment is comprised of former public domain and failed dry land farms. The upper

two pastures (Bennion and Dutch Canyon) or 37 percent of the allotment were part of the

original Forest Reserve established in 1907.


20

Benmore Pastures

In 1939, 3240 acres were designated experimental range which became the Benmore Pastures.

The SCS fenced and seeded 28, 100 acre pastures. Parts of some pastures with poor initial stands

were reseed in 1941 and 1945. The pastures were used for fall and spring grazing. During these

early years, the main objective was to compare results from seeded range with those for adjacent

native range in various stages of depletion.

Research was continued jointly by the Forest Service, Utah State University, the SCS and others.

In 1964 the Benmore Pastures were formally designated as an Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiential Station and research was conducted until 1984. Research results have been

documented in over 80 reports. The majority of the research was conducted on vegetation and

livestock. The livestock were those permitted on the Benmore Allotment.

Grazing History

Grazing stated on the Vernon Division in the late 1860’s or early 1870’s. Grazing built up until

large herds of transient sheep and cattle moved into and through the areas. When conditions

became poor the local settlers petitioned the Federal Government to make the Sheep Rock

mountains part of the Forest Reserve. In addition, cattle, horses and sheep from the Vernon area,

southern Skull Valley, and the homesteaders south of the Sheep rock Mountains ran livestock in

common over the entire area. Large numbers of livestock continued grazing almost year long

until about 1917, when attempts were made at better management. Gradually, as more study and

knowledge was gained, reductions in numbers and in season slowly took place. In 1917, the

grazing season was reduced to April 1 to November 15. In 1923, grazing on the Sheeprocks was

split into two allotments and the grazing seasons were reduced further.

In 1940, there were 1,268 cattle permitted to graze on the National Forest (Sheeprock Mountains

only) from May 16 to October 15 for a total of 8,419 AUMs. In 1968, 1,463 cattle and 2, 100

sheep were permitted to graze on the National Forest (Sheeprock Mountains, Central Utah Dry

Land Adjustment Project Lands, and public domain) for a total of 9,501 AUMs.

In 1963 the Little Valley and Bennion Allotments were split from the Vernon Allotment.

Throughout the 1960’s permittees that continued to participate with research on the Benmore

Pastures generally grazed the Benmore Allotment and those that did not generally remained on

the Vernon Allotment. In 1976 the Benmore and Vernon Allotments were officially split.

The Benmore Allotment is currently permitted for 336 cow/calf pairs from May 1 to

November 10.

Vegetation Management

During the Central Utah Dry Land Adjustment Project, most of the abandoned dry land farms as

well as other public lands were seeded to crested wheat grass to prevent further erosion and

prevent the spread of cheatgrass.


21

The Vernon PL 566 Project provided funds for soil and water improvement. The project was

started in 1968 and was completed in 1978. On Forest Service System lands, on the Vernon

Division, 5,967 acres of juniper were chained, 4,857 acres of sagebrush were chained, 1,810

acres of sagebrush were chemically treated and 2,465 acres of sage brush was burned. Some of

these treatments were located on the Benmore Allotment.

In 2006, the Forest Service once again began treating vegetation on the Vernon Division. These

projects are listed in Table 4 and shown on Map 2.

Table 4. Past and Present Actions

Project Description

Acres on

Benmore

Allotment

Complete

Sage Valley Sagebrush

Harrow

300 acres of sagebrush treatment and

seeding

2006

Bennion juniper lop

and scatter

1300 acres of small juniper removal

in previously chained areas

2006

Diagonal/Electric

Sagebrush Harrow


seeding

237 2008

Benmore Pastures

Sagebrush Harrow


seeding

850 2009

Sabie Juniper lop and

scatter and bull hog

treatment

120 acres of bull hog treatment



2009 and

ongoing

Sharps Valley Juniper

lop and scatter and

bull hog treatment

380 acres of bull hog treatment



2010 and

ongoing

Wildfires 10012 acres 3245 1990’s

TOTAL 4432

There are few noxious weeds in the area; however whitetop Cardaria draba and squarrouse

knapweed Centaurea virgata squarrosa have begun to invade the area. These weeds have been

chemically controlled over the last several years.

Watershed Resources




and 560 acres feet of irritation water. The reservoir is located east of the Benmore Allotment and

is under the jurisdiction of the Vernon Irrigation Company. Both Bennion Creek and Dutch are

diverted into an underground pipe and delivered to the reservoir.


22

Wildlife

In 1994, several raptor posts were erected in the Vernon Management Area to provide perching

posts for the then threatened bald eagle. The bald eagle was delisted in 2007 and given sensitive

species status in Region 4. The sage grouse and bald eagle are now given the same level of

protection under the Forest Service sensitive designation. Since then, four eagle posts that were

erected within potential sage grouse breeding habitat have been removed.

Recreation and Lands

Since the Benmore Allotment area is close to the Vernon Reservoir it is a traditional area for

recreation activities. These activities include dispersed camping, site seeing, ATV riding,

snowmobiling, and hunting. Road construction or maintenance has and continues to occur in the

project area. There are no developed trails within the project area. During wet weather the roads

can become impassable due to soil conditions. Some user created (illegal) ATV trails have been

created. Dispersed camp sites are also increasing in the area.

Cultural Resources

Ancient American Indians used this area extensively for hunting, plant gathering, and winter

camps. As a result, there are more archaeological sites from this time period in this management

area than in any other part of the Uinta National Forest. The area was also home to a number of

Goshute families during the period of early European settlement (1860-90). The Skull Valley

Goshute Reservation is located about 22 miles to the northwest of the Vernon Management Area.

European American homesteading began in this area in 1857, and there are a number of

archaeological sites that record this endeavor. Other historic sites include mines, water diversion

structures, and the camps of livestock herders, railroad workers, and recreationists.

FORESEEABLE ACTIONS

Foreseeable future actions within the analysis area include continued livestock grazing,

recreation use, wildlife use, noxious weed treatment, juniper removal, sagebrush reduction,

native vegetation seeding and possible wildfire. Defined foreseeable vegetation actions are listed

in Table 5.


23

Table 5. Foreseeable Actions

Project Description

Acres on

Benmore

Allotment

Complete

West Vernon 2500 of bull hog treatment

5700 acres of small juniper

removal in previously chained areas

( 1700 acres of the lop and scatter

and 1842 acres of the bull hog

treatment would also be prescribed

burned)

236 acres

lop and scatter

52 acres

bull hog

2011 -2015

Vernon Creek

Project

Remove sage brush adjacent to

Vernon creek, seed with riparian

vegetation and fence from

livestock. This area is located

below the last fence exclosure on

Vernon Creek to the point where

the creek is diverted into a ditch,

approximately 2175 feet.

All on

Benmore

Approximately

5 acres

2013

TOTAL 293


24


25

SOILS (Issue 1)

The existing condition and the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives will be

discussed in terms of the measurement parameters listed in Table 1 on page 5. For the soils

resource these include soil erosion measured by the soil loss tolerance (“T” value in tons/acre)

for each soil type and soil compaction. Ground cover will be measured by S&W-3 Guideline,

which is discussed in Chapter II.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Analysis Area

Because soils are sedentary, effects in a particular area only loosely influence soil conditions in

adjacent areas. Consequently, the area of consideration for effects on soil resources consists of

the Benmore Allotment.

Data Collection and Analysis

Existing inventories, monitoring, and research literature review information were used to

determine the current quality and condition of soil resources and to analyze the effects of the

proposed project and alternatives. Information on the distribution and properties of soil types

within the analysis area are included in the Soil Survey of Tooele Area, Utah (USDA - NRCS,

2000). Several field visits were made to the project area in May of 2010 to confirm the accuracy

of the soil survey data, and to review watershed soil conditions in the areas proposed for grazing.

A suitably/capability analysis for grazing is part of the soils project record.

Soil Erosion: Soil productivity is impacted from loss of topsoil associated with hill slope

erosion. The USFS WEPP model (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/) was used to predict

hill slope soil erosion and sedimentation estimates for the Benmore allotment. Modeled values

are estimates only for predicted soil erosion with a ±50% error (Elliot, et al. 2000).

Ground Cover: To determine soil ground cover the survey method used was the variable length

step transect. Transects were conducted within capable range portions of the allotment, and were

located and oriented to encounter/cross a representative number of grazed vegetation

communities. The longer transect length ensured a large amount of samples would be taken, and

that all ground cover conditions would be encountered. Descriptions and maps of transect

location, length, and vegetation types are contained in a separate report (Flood, P. 2010a).

An observation was made at every second step along a transect that ranged from one-quarter to

one-half mile in length. The observation was made at the point where the front center part of the

boot contacted the ground. Tie breaker rules were used where this point contacted more than one

ground cover type. The presence of any of the following ground cover characteristics were noted

at each sample point:

• Vegetation or Litter


26

• Rock

• Bare soil associated with gopher activity. Gopher activity is defined here as either

visible gopher holes, mounds, eskers, or recently deflated casts.

• Bare soil resulting from other causative agents

Compaction: Potential soil compaction hazard is qualitatively assessed for the Dutch Creek

riparian areas based upon assessments made in the field. Soil structure was evaluated at several

locations within this riparian area for soil platelets or signs of limited or deflected root growth

from compacted soil layers.

Current Resource Status

Information about the type of soils in the Benmore Allotment can be found in the Tooele Area

Soil Survey. The majority of the allotment contains soil map units 6, 7, 19, 35, 47, 48, 64, 65,

and 71. Soil map unit, acreages and their soil properties associated with soil erosion measured by

the soil loss tolerance (“T” value in tons/acre) are listed in Table 6.

Existing Erosive Soil

Soil erodibility is a measure of the susceptibility of a soil to particle detachment and transport by

rainfall. Soil properties that influence rainfall erosion are (1) those that affect infiltration rate,

movement of water through the soil, and water storage capacity; and (2) those that affect

dispersion, detachability, abrasion, and mobility of soil particles by rainfall and resultant runoff.

Some of the properties that are most important are texture and organic matter content of the

exposed layer, size and stability of structural aggregates in the exposed layer, permeability of the

subsoil, and depth to slowly permeable layers. Antecedent soil moisture and presence of frozen

soil also influence rainfall erosion. As seen in Table 6, nearly all of the soil types in the allotment

have a moderate Kf soil erodibility factor between 0.25 and 0.5 tons/acre/year. Kf factors greater

than 0.5 would have relatively high soil erodibility. Only the Birdow loam (major component of

map unit 6) and the Broad loam (minor component of map unit 47) have a low Kf soil

erodibility factor (less than 0.25 tons/acre/year), together these two soil types make up less than

four percent of the allotment area.

Soil erosion hazard is the susceptibility of a bare soil to erosion, or the potential inherent in the

soil itself to erode if the forces that cause erosion are applied to an area that is not adequately

protected. The two main forces for determining soil erosion include soil erodibility and slope,

both degree and length of slope. There are three ratings: (1) slight – problems of soil erosion

control are unimportant; (2) moderate – some attention must be given to prevent unnecessary soil

erosion; and (3) severe –methods of operation and disturbance must be planned to minimize soil

erosion. None of the soil types found in the allotment have a severe erosion hazard. It should be

noted that the erosion hazard ratings disclosed in this technical report were developed for roads

and trails. These are watershed features that have an assumed low vegetative ground cover.

When applying these ratings to grazing related uses, it is important to consider that vegetative

ground cover in grazed pastures is usually much higher than what occurs on a road or trail, and

that the erosion hazard associated with this type of use would be correspondingly lower.


27

Results of erosion modeling using the Forest Service WEPP methodology show the average

annual erosion rate for all sample sites is below the soil loss tolerance (“T” value in tons per

acre) for each soil type.


28

Table 6. Soil Types and Properties

Soil

Map

Unit

Soil Map Unit Name

Percent Slope

Component % of Map Unit

Acres

Total

subunit

Hydrologic

Group

Kf

(tons/ac/yr)

Erosion

Hazard

(bare soil)

Surface

Soil

Texture

Surface

Rock

(%)

Rooting

Depth

(in.)

T

Factor

(tons/acre)

6

Birdow loam

1 to 4% slopes

Birdow 90%

164

148

B

0.24

Slight

loam

< 15

60

5

7

Borvant gravelly loam

2 to 15% slopes

Borvant 85%

544

462

D

0.28

Slight

GR l

15 to 35

10 to 20

1

19

Erda silt loam

1 to 5% slopes

Erda 90%

1280

1152

B

0.32

Slight

Silt loam

<15

60

5

24

Hiko Peak-Taylorsflat complex

1 to 15% slopes

Hiko Peak 45%

Taylorsflat 40%

79

35

32

B

B

0.37

0.32

Slight

Slight

GR l

loam

15 to 35

<15

60

60

5

5

35

Kapod very cobbly loam

5 to 30% slopes

Kapod 85%

2762

2348

B

.37

Moderate

loam

<15

60

5

47

Podmor-Onaqui-Rock Outcrop Assn.

20 to 60% slopes

Podmor 45%

Onaqui 35%

Rock Outcrop 10%

3185

1433

1115

318

C

D

.37

.37

--

Severe

Severe

--

VCB l

VCB l

<15

<15

33

25

--

2

2

48

Reywat-Broad-Rock outcrop association

30 to 60% slopes

Reywatt 45%

Broad 30%

Rock outcrop 10

1176

529

353

118

D

C

--

0.32

0.20

--

Severe

Severe

--

VCB l

CB l

--

35 to 60

15 to 35

--

10 to 20

20 to 40

--

1

2

--

64

Taylorsflat loam

1 to 5% slopes

Taylorsflat 90%

3859

3473

B

0.32

Slight

loam

<15

60

5

65

Taylorsflat loam, saline

0 to 3% slopes

Taylorsflat 90%

615

553

B

0.32

Slight

loam

<15

60

5

71

Yeates Hollow cobbly loam

6 to 20% slopes

Yeates Hollow 90%

341

307

C

.37

Slight

CB L

<15

60

5


29

Existing Soil Ground Cover

Existing soil condition evaluations were made on grazed areas within many of the Benmore

Allotment pastures. All samples were taken in representative areas across various soil types that

showed obvious signs of grazing use and good supply of forage. Ground cover data collected are

shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Soil Ground Cover Monitoring

Pasture Transect Vegetation

Litter Rock

Biological

Crusts

Bare Soil

Gopher

Bare Soil

Other

Lower Bennion 0105132010t 78 0 7 0 15

Northeast 0205132010t 78 0 9 0 13

Middle Dutch 0105172010t 87 1 1 0 11

Middle Dutch 0705172010t 97 0 0 1 2

West Dutch 0205172010t 89 1 2 5 3

West Dutch 0605172010t 94 3 0 1 2

Bennion Canyon

Riparian 0305172010t 86 5 0 5 4

Bennion Canyon

Upland 305172010 90 8 0 0 2

Dutch Canyon 0405172010t 92 4 0 3 1

West Dutch 0505172010t 90 5 0 2 3

Unit 35 0105262010t 96 2 0 0 2

Benmore

Pasture 20 0305262010t 91 1 1 0 7

Hidden Pasture 0505262010t 97 0 0 0 3

Bull Pasture 0405262010t 64 1 26 0 9

Northwest 0105272010t 84 3 3 1 9

Benmore

Pasture 17 0205272010t 93 4 0 0 3

The FSH 2209.21, Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Management Handbook, Chapter 20,

Rangeland Inventory and Analysis, section 22, Rangeland Health, subsection 22.1, Upland

Rangeland Health Criteria lists the minimum ground cover needed for proper functioning

sustainable ecosystems for primary vegetation cover types in Region 4. Ground cover includes

vegetation, litter, rock (> 3/4 –inch), moss/lichens, and cryptograms. Ground cover is a rangeland

attribute that generally relates to rangeland health. Proper functioning rangeland watersheds at

any scale correlate to a protective ground cover that provides for basic functionality which is

defined as sustaining the watershed components to provide for stability and recoverability of

physical components (USDA Forest Service, 2005). The Region IV rangeland standards are

general recommendations for vegetation types across the entire Intermountain region; therefore,

some adjustment may be necessary to fit the local environmental conditions present in the

Benmore allotment area.

All of the pastures sampled for existing soil ground cover fit within the Mountain Big Sagebrush

vegetation type. According to Region 4 guidelines, this type needs a minimum of 70 percent


30

effective ground cover to be considered in properly functioning condition (PFC). The sample

sites show the rangeland vegetation cover types either meet or exceed the PFC requirement for

all of the pastures.

Existing Soil Compaction

There were no soil platelets or signs of limited or deflected root growth from compacted soil

layers observed within the Dutch Creek riparian area.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Soil Erosion and Ground Cover Effects

The effects of grazing on soil resources consist primarily of the unacceptable loss of soil

productivity. The presence and distribution of the surface soil is critically important to soil

productivity. Management activities create various degrees of soil disturbance but ecologically

sustainable land stewardship could minimize adverse impacts on soil and resulting loss of soil

productivity. The physical impacts and resulting condition of the surface soil plays a substantial

role in soil functions which directly impact soil productivity. Soil functions consist primarily of

soil hydrology, soil stability and nutrient cycling. Existing management activities need to be

evaluated to determine if the current management and/or proposed activity are contributing to the

loss of soil function.

Soil quality guidelines provide soil management indicators that help determine when changes in

soil properties would result in substantial impacts and impairment of soil functions. These soil

quality guidelines consist of:

• Detrimental soil disturbance

• Soil compaction

• Soil erosion

• Effective ground cover

• Basal plant cover

• Plant litter and coarse wood

• Rock larger than ¾ inch diameter

• Plant canopy cover

• Above ground organic matter

• Plant litter

• Coarse woody debris

Effects to the soil resources will be disclosed in terms of the kind and amount of detrimental

disturbance predicted or anticipated from grazing activity. Detrimental disturbances are those

which cause an unacceptable loss in soil productivity. For gazing activities that occur on dry

upland pasture areas, detrimental disturbance consists of reduced effective ground cover and

accelerated soil erosion. Dutch Creek is the only stream in the allotment with riparian soils that

are potentially susceptible to soil compaction as a detrimental disturbance.


31

Effective soil ground cover is addressed within the Uinta NF LRMP under the S&W-3

Guideline. This guideline recommends the maintenance of at least 70 percent of potential

effective ground cover to provide nutrient cycling and protect the soil from erosion in excess of

soil loss tolerance limits (USDA Forest Service, 2003a)

The Region 4 recommended standard for the minimum potential effective ground cover needed

for proper functioning sustainable mountain big sagebrush community types is 70 percent.

Therefore, 70 percent of 70 percent (S&W-3 Guideline: Maintain at least 70 percent of potential

effective ground cover to provide nutrient cycling and protect the soil from erosion in excess of

soil loss tolerance limits percent) is 49 percent effective ground cover. To satisfy the S&W-3

Guideline, Mountain Big Sagebrush community types found within the pastures of the Benmore

Allotment either have to meet or exceed this value.

Soil Compaction Effects

Soil compaction could occur in any soil type. Compaction could directly affect soil productivity.

Typically, after years of traffic and grazing pressure, surface soil compaction could develop.

Depending on foot traffic, soil particles of different sizes may become clustered together, filling

up all available air spaces, compacting into hard layers that are not easily penetrated by moisture

or roots. Some soil types are more susceptible to compaction than others, but once a compaction

problem has become established, it could not be alleviated and only get worse with time. As

moisture penetrates the compacted layer, and traffic continues, the compaction layer becomes

denser and thicker.

Potential soil compaction hazard is qualitatively assessed for the Dutch Creek riparian areas

based upon assessments made in the field. Soil structure was evaluated at several locations

within this riparian area for soil platelets or signs of limited or deflected root growth from

compacted soil layers.


Direct and Indirect Effects: If livestock grazing were discontinued the effects would be:

Soil Erosion: Under current use patterns, results of erosion modeling using the Forest Service

WEPP methodology show the average annual erosion rate for all sample sites is below the soil

loss tolerance (“T” value in tons per acre) for each soil type. With discontinued grazing, surface

ground cover should improve slightly above current conditions. Although all sample sites

currently are at or below the soil loss tolerance factor for these soil types, soil erosion reduction

would still occur with the no grazing alterative and would be proportional to increases in ground

cover.

Ground Cover: Under current use patterns and for the all of the pastures sampled, conditions

meet S&W-3 Guideline. This would continue under Alternative 1.

Soil Compaction: There were no soil platelets or signs of limited or deflected root growth from

compacted soil layers observed within the Dutch Creek riparian area. This meets the desired

condition for this parameter and would not be improved with no grazing.


32

Consistency with the Forest Plan

This alternative meets S&W-1 Standard and S&W-2 and S&W-3 Guidelines, which were

described in Chapter II of this document.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Should current grazing continue the effects would be similar to

those described under current conditions. These effects are summarized below.

Soil Erosion: Results of erosion modeling using the Forest Service WEPP methodology show

the average annual erosion rate for all sample sites is below soil loss tolerance (“T” value in tons

per acre) for each soil type. This meets the desired condition for this parameter.

Ground Cover: Under current use patterns and for the all of the pastures sampled, conditions

meet S&W-3 Guideline.


compacted soil layers observed within the Dutch Creek riparian area. This meets the desired

condition for this parameter. There is no evidence of detrimental soil compaction. Long-term soil

quality and productivity would therefore not be impaired by the continuation of current grazing

management.





Direct and Indirect Effects: If the proposed action were selected the effects would be:

Soil Erosion: Results of erosion modeling using the Forest Service WEPP methodology show

the average annual erosion rate for all sample sites is below soil loss tolerance (“T” value in tons

per acre) for each soil type. This meets the desired condition for this parameter and would not

change with the proposed action.

Ground Cover: Under the proposed action, stocking and utilization levels would not differ

from those occurring under current management. Under current use patterns and for the all of the

pastures sampled, conditions meet S&W-3 Guideline. Generally, incorporation of range

vegetation trend and condition monitoring and adaptive management is projected to maintain or

increase effective ground cover in upland areas. Maintaining adequate levels of groundcover is

projected to stabilize soil through the control or reduction of erosion rates (Mankin, 2007).


compacted soil layers. This meets the desired condition for this parameter and would not change

with the proposed action.


33

Development of Grove Spring, pipeline, and trough would result in both short-term and long-

term effects. Installing and maintaining an exclusionary fence around the aspen stand and spring

area should cause minimal short term soil disturbance and would eliminate long term detrimental

soil compaction effects to the wetland soil types found in the spring source area. In addition to a

small amount of soil disturbance to soils during installation of the trough, the immediate soils

around the trough would likely experience soil compaction and loss of soil productivity over the

long term. The impacted vicinity around the trough could vary, with some impacted sites having

a 100 foot diameter disturbance from cattle use. Use of erosion/sediment control Best

Management Practices such as seeding, mulching, and re-contouring of disturbed areas would

reduce potential impact to soil resources.

In the short-term, wetland soil types in the spring source area would be impacted through

excavation and installation of the pipeline and spring box. The degree of impact of the

development depends on the method of installation, mechanized equipment or hand-tool. These

methods are discussed below:

Hand Tool Installation: Utilizing hand tools to excavate the spring box, there would be no need

for soil excavation for machinery access. The disturbance of wetland soil types within the spring

area would be far less than the disturbance by mechanized equipment. Use of the pipe trencher

would cause short term minor amounts of soil disturbance. Of the two methods, hand tool

installation would involve the least amount of disturbance to the uplands and the spring area, and

result in a much lower potential for detrimental soil erosion and compaction to occur.

Mechanized Equipment Installation: Using equipment, disturbance to the wetland soil types

found in the spring area would be greater than if completed by hand tools. Over the ground travel

of machinery for approximately 0.25 miles would cause short term, minor amounts of soil

compaction. For the approximate 100 yards of soil excavation required, road-prism related

detrimental soil compaction and detrimental soil erosion to cut-fill slopes areas would occur. Use

of the pipe trencher would cause short term minor amounts of soil disturbance.

For equipment access, implementing construction and rehabilitation, Best Management Practices

(BMPs) could reduce road prism related erosion and sedimentation. Recommended BMPs

include re-contouring of temporary road, seed/mulching, and appropriate erosion control

measures (straw waddles, silt fence, etc.) during and following construction. If measures such as

these are not incorporated, erosion, long-term site productivity, and stream

sedimentation/riparian habitat degradation could be substantial.

Regardless of the method of installation, incorporation of design features into the adaptive

management plan that would exclude livestock grazing from the Grove Hollow Spring source is

projected to reduce long term impacts to soil resources from this proposed water development.





34

Cumulative Effects

Historic Grazing

With historic grazing, soil resources were moderately to highly impacted due to topographical

constraints, poor distribution, and high stocking rates. Conditions under recent grazing

management have led to improved conditions in both the uplands and riparian areas throughout

the analysis area.

Benmore Pastures

Much of the analysis area was highly impacted by the Benmore Experimental Grazing project,

crested wheat seedings, and dryland farming, beginning in the early 1900’s.

Roads

The Forest continues to maintain roads within the project area. Direct impacts from roads and

trails to soil resources could include detrimental amounts of soil compaction and erosion.

Generally, observations of road and trail generated soil erosion is minimal due to adequate

maintenance, resulting in minimal detrimental effects to impact to soil resources.

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation such as camping, hunting, fishing, and hiking have and continue to occur

throughout the project area. Impacts associated with these activities include soil compaction and

de-vegetation at camp sites or parking areas and impacts associated with road/trail use for access.

Generally, the percentage of the analysis area affected by dispersed camping is minimal,

resulting in negligible impact to soil resources. No developed campgrounds occur within the

cumulative effects analysis area.

Other Past, Present, and Future Activities

There are other activities that previously occurred or continue to occur within the analysis area,

but to a lesser extent. These include unauthorized road and trail creation, vegetation management

activities such as timber/fuels treatments, and habitat improvement projects. Known past, present

or future vegetation management activities within the cumulative effects analysis area for soils

resources are disclosed in Tables 3 and 4 and Map 2. Vegetation management treatments consist

of mechanical (bull hog or Dixie harrow), hand (lop and scatter), or prescribed fire.

Mechanical treatments using a bull hog or Dixie harrow tool have the potential to cause

detrimental soil compaction if they are implemented when soils are wet or frozen. Additionally,

mechanical treatments using a harrow have the potential to cause detrimental soil erosion by

scarifying and displacing topsoil and thereby exposing it to erosive wind forces. These potential

effects to long term soil quality and productivity could be minimized through incorporating

BMPs into the project design which would restrict mechanical vegetation treatment activities to

dry or non-frozen soil conditions, and by orienting vegetation windrows and piles from harrow

treatments perpendicular to prevailing wind direction. Scattering vegetation windrows and piles


35

randomly across the treatment area would also reduce the potential for wind erosion of topsoil to

occur by increasing the soil surface roughness. Lop and scatter vegetation treatments have little

or no potential to cause detrimental soil disturbance.

Because the effects of vegetation management activities could be effectively mitigated through

proper project design and implementation of BMPs, the cumulative effects to soil resources from

known past, present, and possible future activities within the Benmore Allotment would be

minimal.

The effects of unauthorized roads and trails are similar to those of system roads, without the

benefit of proper design, location, and maintenance.


This alternative would not result in negative impact to soil resources since there would be

decreased short term use within the allotment. Therefore, it is determined there would be no

cumulative effects to soil resources within the analysis area under this alternative.


This alternative would not result in negative impact to soil resources. Therefore, it is determined

there would be no cumulative effects to soil resources within the analysis area under this

alternative.


The proposed action is projected to continue to improve vegetation condition and soil functions

throughout the Benmore Allotment. Currently, all soil quality direction in the Forest Plan is

being met, and implementation of this alternative is projected to maintain effective ground cover

conditions while resulting in little, if any, additional detrimental soil erosion or compaction.

Considering these factors, no cumulative impacts to soil resources are anticipated as a result of

the proposed action.

SAGE GROUSE (Issue 2)

The existing condition and the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives will be

discussed in terms of the measurement parameters listed in Table 1 on page 5. For sage grouse

these include trampling nests, eggs and chicks and loss from fences and water troughs.

Vegetation canopy height and cover will be measured by Veg-7 Guideline which is discussed in

Chapter II.


36

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Analysis Area

The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects to sage grouse for this project will be the

Benmore Allotment. Given the mobility of sage grouse, the Vernon Management Area (as

defined by the Forest Plan) was chosen as the cumulative effects area to cover the species’

potential habitat.

Data Collection and Analysis

Field observations and literature studies are used to analyze the effects of the proposed project

and alternatives.

Current Resource Status

The greater sage grouse is a Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive species and a Fish

and Wildlife Service Candidate species. They are found in sagebrush dominated habitats and

population exists in the Vernon Management Area. Sage grouse have four distinct habitat needs;

leks, nesting, brood-rearing and winter habitats. Leks are open areas where males strut and

attract females to them and are adjacent to sagebrush areas suitable for nesting habitat. Nesting

habitat requires brush with an understory of tall grass for hiding, preferably near water. Brood

rearing habitat is in more open places with a high percentage of forb species and an abundance of

insects (necessary for chick survival). Winter habitat could occur in most sagebrush stands. The

sagebrush provides food, thermal cover and escape cover.

Sage grouse in the Vernon Management Area have been surveyed since 1968. The number of

males seen on leks has fluctuated from no birds seen in 1980, 1993, and 1995 to a high of 190

males in 2006 (Robinson, 2007).

Approximately half of the project area occurs in nesting/brood rearing habitat (See Map 1).

While sage grouse are a ground nesting species, they tend to stay within the two mile buffer

surrounding the strutting leks (Robinson, 2007). Approximately 6860 acres of the 13,724 acres

of the Benmore Allotment or 50 percent is sage grouse brood-rearing habitat.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS


Direct and Indirect Effects

If livestock grazing were discontinued in the project area, there would be no trampling of sage

grouse nests, eggs or chicks within potential sage grouse breeding habitat.

It is possible low flying sage grouse could become entangled in barbed wire fences and there

would be fewer fences if livestock grazing were discontinued in the project area. There would


37

still be fences to establish boundaries between Forest Service and private lands or to control

illegal motorized access. Fence posts also are potential perches for raptors which prey upon sage

grouse, their chicks, and eggs. However, studies show most predation on this population of sage

grouse comes from red fox and ravens in the area, along with predation by coyotes and badgers

(Robinson, 2007).

Lack of available water could act as a limiting factor for sage grouse. If livestock grazing were

discontinued in the project area, there would be no maintenance or operation of the exiting water

troughs. Less water would be available for sage grouse. Therefore, the sage grouse habitat would

be less effective and sage grouse would be less likely to remain in the project area.

Sage grouse have sufficient vegetation cover and forage (80 percent of potential sage grouse

breeding habitat) during the nesting/brood rearing stages to meet Veg-7 Guideline. With no

grazing in the sage grouse breeding habitat until after June 1, 100 percent of the potential sage

grouse breeding habitat would meet cover and forage requirements.



The cattle do not enter any sage grouse breeding habitat until after June 1st. Therefore, there

would be no trampling of sage grouse nests, eggs or chicks within potential sage grouse breeding

habitat.

It is possible low flying sage grouse could become entangled in barbed wire fences. With current

management there would be more fences than with Alternative 1, but fewer fences than

Alternative 3. Fence posts also are potential perches for raptors which prey upon sage grouse,

their chicks, and eggs. However, studies show most predation on this population of sage grouse

comes from red fox and ravens in the area, along with predation by coyotes and badgers

(Robinson, 2007).

With current management, there would be more troughs than with Alternative 1, but fewer than

Alternative 3. Although troughs provide water utilized by sage grouse, they could create a

drowning hazard. This has been mitigated by placing wildlife escape ramps in the troughs. This

same “hazard” is more beneficial in the long run because more water is available for sage grouse.

With the exiting water troughs, the sage grouse habitat would be more effective than Alternative

1, but less effective than Alternative 3. Sage grouse would be more likely to remain the project

area than with Alternative 1. There would not be as many sage grouse in the project area as with

Alternative 3.

There has been no evidence that troughs or fences in the project area have caused a loss of sage

grouse. In fact sage grouse numbers have been slowly increasing in the Vernon area since 1995

(Robinson, 2007).




38





The cattle do not enter any sage grouse breeding habitat until after June 1st. Therefore, there

would be no trampling of sage grouse nests, eggs or chicks within potential sage grouse breeding

habitat.

It is possible low flying sage grouse could become entangled in barbed wire fences. With the

proposed action there would be more fences than with Alternatives 1 and 2. Fence posts also are

potential perches for raptors which prey upon sage grouse, their chicks, and eggs. However,

studies show most predation on this population of sage grouse comes from red fox and ravens in

the area, along with predation by coyotes and badgers (Robinson, 2007).

With the proposed action, there would be more troughs than with Alternatives 1 and 2. Although

troughs provide water utilized by sage grouse, they could create a drowning hazard. This has

been mitigated by placing wildlife escape ramps in the troughs. This same “hazard” is more

beneficial in the long run because more water is available for sage grouse.

With the addition of another water trough, the sage grouse habitat would be more effective than

Alternatives 1 and 2. Sage grouse would be more likely to remain the project area than with

Alternative 1. There could be more sage grouse in the project with Alternative 3 than with

Alternative 2.





Cumulative Effects

Grazing on other allotments within the Vernon Management Area are also managed under the

Veg-7 Guideline (80 percent of potential sage grouse breeding habitat) minimizing loss from

trampling of sage grouse nests, eggs or chicks.

There has been no evidence that troughs or fences in the project area have caused a loss of sage

grouse. In fact sage grouse numbers have been slowly increasing in the Vernon area since 1995

(Robinson, 2007). Removal of the eagle posts in the Vernon Management Area as discussed in

past, present and foreseeable actions in Chapter III would provide protection for the sage grouse

from other raptors that used the posts during the breeding/brood rearing season.

Vegetation management projects have occurred or are occurring within the Vernon Management

Area. These projects are listed in past, present and foreseeable actions in Chapter III. These

projects have been designed to break up decadent stands of sagebrush and remove encroaching

pinyon- juniper. This promotes the growth of grass, forbs and small brush species, which


39

benefits sage grouse as well as other species. Consequently, the habitat of the sage grouse should

be improved.

Grazing on other allotments within the Vernon Management Area are also managed under the

Veg-7 Guideline (80 percent of potential sage grouse breeding habitat) providing sufficient

vegetation cover and forage during the nesting/brood rearing stages.


All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines discussed in the sage

grouse discussion above.


40

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service

persons as well as the following interdisciplinary team (IDT) members during the development

of this environmental assessment.

IDT Members

Renae Bragonje, IDT leader and Rangeland Management Specialist, BS Range Science and

Animal Science, 28 years experience

Matt Fairchild, Fisheries, BS Wildlife and Fisheries Science, MS Aquatic Ecology, 6 years

experience

Tom Flanigan, Archaeologist, BA Anthropology, MA Anthropology, PhD Candidate

Anthropology, 14 years experience

Paul Flood, Soil Scientist, BS Soil Science, 34 years experience.

Karen Hartman, Wildlife Biologist, BA Biology, MS Biology-Wildlife Management, 22 years

experience

Jarnecke, Jeremy, Hydrologist, BS Environmental Physical Science, 12 years experience.

Doug Jones, Management, BS Forestry/Wildlife Ecology, 31 years experience

Duane Resare, Recreation Manager, BS Forest Management, 21 years experience

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES

Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service

USDI, Environmental Protection Agency

LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES


41

Elliot, William J., D.E. Hall, D. L. Scheele. 2000. WEPP Interface for Disturbed Forest and

Range Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. Disturbed WEPP Technical Documentation.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and

Development Center.

Flood, P. 2010a. Soil Condition Evaluation Monitoring, Benmore Allotment. Unpublished report

on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National

Forest. August, 2010.

Mankin 2007. Grass-shrub Riparian Buffer Removal of Sediment, Phosphorous, and Nitrogen

from Simulated Runoff. Mankin, R.M., Ngandu D.M., Barden, C.J., Hutchinson, S.L., Geyer,

W.A., JAWRA Vol. 43, No. 5, October 2007.

Robinson, Jason, 2007. Ecology of Two Geographically Distinct Greater Sage grouse

Populations Inhabiting Utah's West Desert. Masters Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

pp 6-18, 68-70.

Slater, Mike. 2010. Personal communication regarding the status of fish occurring in streams in

the Vernon Area managed by the Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service, 2005. FSH 2209.21 – Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Management

Handbook. Chapter 20 – Rangeland Inventory and Analysis. Amendment 2209.21-2005-1,

December 23, 2005, Intermountain Region (Region 4), Ogden, UT.

USDA, Forest Service. 2003. Uinta National Forest 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan.

Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Intermountain Region. Uinta National Forest. Uinta National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Chapter 3: Standards and Guidelines. (52 pp).

USDA- NRCS. 2000. Soil Survey for Tooele Area, Utah. USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service. Salt Lake City, Utah.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Status Review for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana

luteiventris) on the Wasatch Front, Utah. United States Department of the Interior, USFWS,

Region 6, Denver, Colorado, 91 p.

Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · This discussion...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · This discussion...