D2 Range Improvement Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service D2 Range Improvement Project Intermountain Region Ashley National Forest May 2017 Environmental Assessment Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District Ashley National Forest Uintah County, Utah

2 For More Information Contact: Rowdy Muir, Responsible Official Flaming Gorge-Vernal District Ranger 355 North Vernal Avenue Vernal, Utah (435) Or Garry Brown, Rangeland Management Specialist Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District 355 North Vernal Avenue Vernal, Utah Phone: (435) Fax: (435) Photo on Previous Page: Charley s Park Trough by Osmer Beck Under contract with the Forest Service, Peak Science Communications prepared this D2 Range Improvement Project Environmental Assessment using supporting resource specialists reports prepared by Transcon Environmental found in the project record. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at USDA.gov and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C ; (2) Fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 1

3 Table of Contents List of Tables... 3 List of Figures... 3 Introduction... 3 Document Structure...3 Background...4 Project Area Location... 5 Purpose and Need for Action...7 Proposed Action...8 Decision Framework...8 Public and Tribal Involvement...8 Issues...8 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action... 9 Alternatives...9 Alternative A No Action Alternative... 9 Alternative B Proposed Action Comparison of Alternatives Environmental Consequences Rangeland Resources Soils and Hydrology Wildlife Socio-economic Resources Recreation, Visual Quality, and Roadless Resources Noxious Weeds Rare Plants Cultural Resources Consultation and Coordination Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Context Intensity Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations Literature Cited Appendix A: Project Design Features Appendix B: Details of Proposed Action

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Legal and general location of proposed activities for the D2 Range Improvement Project... 7 Table 2. Summary of proposed improvements for each allotment Table 3. Proposed Action improvements, purposes, and descriptions by allotment Table 4. Management areas for each proposed improvement for the D2 Range Improvement Project Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by total number of range improvements for each allotment Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the purpose and need of the D2 Range Improvement Project following implementation of all proposed activities Table 7. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the resources of the D2 Range Improvement Project following implementation of all proposed improvements Table 8. Project area Animal Unit Months (AUMs), grazing system, season of use, permittees, and permitted cattle by allotment Table 9. Existing range improvements Table 10. Wildlife species status and effects determination for the D2 Range Improvement Project Table 11. Proposed improvement costs for the D2 Range Improvement Project Table 12. Agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted and/or consulted during the planning process for the D2 Range Improvement Project LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. D2 Range Improvement Project vicinity map... 6 Figure 2. Locations of proposed improvements for the D2 Range Improvement Project INTRODUCTION The Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District of the Ashley National Forest (Forest) is proposing the D2 Range Improvement Project to construct or improve individual range improvements at 15 locations on 8 grazing allotments on the southeast slope of the Uinta Mountains located about 20 miles north of Vernal, Utah, and 170 miles northeast of Salt Lake City, Utah. Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and State laws and regulations. The purpose of this EA is to furnish enough site-specific information related to the environmental effects of the proposed action so that the Responsible Official can determine whether significant environmental effects exist and if an environmental impact statement is necessary. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives of the D2 Range Improvement Project. The document is organized into the following parts: 3

5 Introduction: The 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. 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 No Action Alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource. Within each section, the affected environment is described first (when appropriate), followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the Proposed Action Alternative that follows. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: Appendix A contains the proposed design features and Appendix B details the Proposed Action Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): The FONSI details the rationale for the Responsible Official s finding. This document is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (FEIS; Forest Service 1986b) and project record supporting the 1986 Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (Forest Service 1986a), including monitoring reports. Detailed information supporting the analyses presented in this document is incorporated by reference, including specialists' reports for each resource. Unless specifically noted otherwise, supporting documentation is located in the project record. This document, as well as the scoping letter and other information, is also available on the Ashley National Forest web page for the D2 Range Improvement Project. The information presented in this EA is based on the best available information. The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) members based calculations presented in their analyses on data collected in field surveys, skilled interpretations of aerial photos and maps, application of professional judgment from observations and evaluation of data, and information acquired from review of relevant, scientific literature. Background The proposed projects have been cooperatively discussed with permittees for the last few years to enhance their grazing management. As water systems fail, springs dry up, and management changes, the Forest Service and permittees continuously adapt as the needs arise. The emphasis of this proposal is to construct structural range improvements designed to help intensify management efforts to improve resource conditions while sustaining current livestock operations. In addition to improved range management practices, several resources, including soil and water, recreation, and wildlife habitat, are expected to benefit from implementing the proposed project. 4

6 Project Area Location The D2 Range Improvement Project is located between 15 and 30 miles north of Vernal, Utah, on the Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District within Uintah County in northeastern Utah within the 200,000-acre area associated with the 8 allotments in the Project Area (Figure 1). The Project Area is widespread across the southeast slope of the Uinta Mountains within 11 watersheds (Spring Creek-Ashley Creek, Mosby Creek, Big Brush Gorge-Big Brush Creek, Cottonwood Canyon-Big Brush Creek, Reader Creek, Middle Lake-Brush Creek, Dry Fork-Twin Creek, Willow Spring Draw-Diamond Gulch, North Fork Ashley Creek, Dry Fork, Brownie Creek). Elevations range between 7,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level. Table 1 describes the legal and general location of each proposed improvement in the Project Area. 5

7 Figure 1. D2 Range Improvement Project vicinity map 6

8 Table 1. Legal and general location of proposed activities for the D2 Range Improvement Project Project Activity Black Canyon Allotment Legal Location (Salt Lake Meridian) Charley s Park pond development T2S R19E Sections 13, 14, 24 Brush Creek Allotment Barker Pond development T2S R22E Section 08 Diamond Mountain Allotment McKee Spring pipeline extension T1S R22E Section 34; T2S R22E Sections 03, 04 & 10 Dry Fork Allotment Bills Park fence realignment and water improvements T2S R18E Section 36 Mosby Park fence realignment T2S R18E Section 26 Wootton Spring exclosure T3S R18E Section 01 T2S R18E Section 36 Bill s Park corral construction T2S R18E Section 36 Lake Mountain Allotment Sink Ridge spring development T2S R19E Section 20 Lena Peak Allotment Limestone spring exclosure and water development Lonesome Park Allotment T1S R22E Sections 13, 14, & 23 East Park/Kane Hollow drift fence installation T1S R21E Sections 02, 03 & 04 Taylor Mountain Allotment Big Park/Oaks Park division fence installation T1N R20E Sections 29 & 32; T1S R20E Sections 04, 05 & 08 George D Pond pipeline extension T2S R21E Sections 16, 21 & 22 Merkley Spring pipeline extension T2S R21E Sections 19 & 30 The Face division fence installation T2S R21E Sections 28, 29, & 33 The Face Pasture experimental exclosure installation T2S R21E Section 32 Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the proposed action is to improve livestock distribution and minimize areas of livestock concentration. The existing springs and associated troughs need to be redeveloped, replaced or extended. Additional fencing and water sources and repairs or replacements of existing springs and troughs would assist range managers to improve proper cattle distribution and even use of forage and minimize areas of livestock concentration; maintain the season of use; allow for an enhanced rotation system by deferring and resting areas of the pasture; and result in improved wildlife habitat, resolution of recreation conflicts, and protection of springs and other riparian areas. Constructing fences would eliminate areas of cattle concentration in dispersed recreation areas and allow seasonal deferment on early-entry spring range. Constructing experimental exclosures would allow managers to monitor the effects of treatment in cheatgrass/sagebrush plant communities to assist in future vegetation projects. Collectively, improvements would allow range managers to continue implementing allotment management plans (AMPs), improve 7

9 vegetative communities in concentration locations, and decrease the workload for the livestock operators to keep their cattle in authorized use areas. Proposed Action The Proposed Action, developed in response to the Purpose and Need presented above, is to construct or improve range improvements in 15 locations on the southeast slope of the Uinta Mountains, incorporating Forest Plan guidance and allowing for permitted livestock grazing that continues to meet or move toward desired resource conditions. A detailed description of the Proposed Action is found in the Alternatives, including the Proposed Action section. Decision Framework The Responsible Official for this project is the District Ranger of the Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District. The Responsible Official will consider public comments, an internal analysis of this project, and the consequences of similar projects. The Responsible Official will assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects, along with current policy, law, and regulation, and will determine the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation needed for this project. After such consideration, the Responsible Official may choose to: Select the Proposed Action and adopt the project as written; Modify the Proposed Action and/or adopt a modified version of the project; or Select the No Action Alternative. In making this decision, the Responsible Official will consider such questions as the following: How well does the alternative meet the purpose and need described in this EA? Does the alternative mitigate potential adverse effects as needed to support a finding of non-significant impacts (FONSI)? Public and Tribal Involvement The public involvement effort was initiated on July 29, 2016, by placing the proposed project on the Forest s July September 2016 Schedule of Proposed Actions as well as on the Forest s web page. On August 1, 2016, scoping letters were mailed to 55 interested parties, affected permittees, organizations, and agencies whose names are maintained on the Forest s mailing list. In addition, the scoping letter was ed to 237 parties on the Forest s electronic address list. In response to scoping efforts, 2 interested parties provided comments. The project record contains all written comments received and discloses how the ID Team addressed those concerns within supporting resource analyses. Issues NEPA directs the Forest Service to focus on a full and fair discussion of issues and identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant. The Forest Service received two 8

10 responses to scoping: one from Uintah County and one from the Taylor Mountain Grazing Association. The County raised no issues or concerns with the Proposed Action, and affirmed support for this project. The Taylor Mountain Grazing Association originally opposed the Face Pasture Experimental Exclosures not knowing the intent of the exclosures. Forest Service representatives met with the Grazing Association on September 16, 2016, and explained the purpose of the exclosures was to monitor experimental treatment of cheatgrass, and that grazing would not be permanently excluded from the exclosures. The permittees were appreciative of the efforts to improve the rangeland and understanding the purpose, concurred with the exclosure construction. A letter documenting this discussion and concurrence with the project was sent to the Taylor Mountain Grazing Association and is available in the project record. Issues are defined as unresolved conflicts that could arise from the proposed action. No further issues were brought forth by the public, tribes, or Forest Service staff in response to the Proposed Action that would lead to the development of additional alternatives. The ID Team did identify a concern specific to wildlife resources that construction of fences and water developments near sage-grouse leks and within sage-grouse priority habitat may affect sage-grouse and their habitat. These concerns caused the ID Team to focus on developing project design features and mitigation measures for the Proposed Action specific to greater sage-grouse (GRSG) habitat as identified in the Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision for Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada and Utah and Land Management Plan Amendments (Forest Service 2015). Other concerns raised with the ID Team were either not relevant or site-specific to the project, or the ID Team addressed them through project design. Please refer to the project record for additional information. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternatives Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B (Proposed Action) are the two alternatives analyzed in detail. Alternative A No Action Alternative The No Action alternative, Alternative A, would not implement the activities described in the Proposed Action. Thus, Alternative A provides a baseline against which impacts of the action alternative can be measured and compared. The No Action Alternative describes the action of continuing the present management operations and conditions. It does not imply or direct discontinuing the present action or removing existing uses, development, or facilities. If the No Action Alternative were to be selected, the Forest would respond to future needs and conditions without substantial action or policy change. Under the No Action Alternative, existing range fences, spring developments, ponds, troughs, and pipelines would continue to be maintained and used. While the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project, it provides a base of comparison for the management direction and environmental consequences of the Proposed Action. 9

11 Implementing this alternative would result in lost opportunities for improved cattle distribution, pasture management, and wildlife habitat improvements. Alternative B Proposed Action The Proposed Action (Alternative B) proposes to construct or improve range improvements in 15 locations on the Black Canyon, Brush Creek, Diamond Mountain, Dry Fork, Lake Mountain, Lena Peak, Lonesome Park and Taylor Mountain Allotments on the southeast slope of the Uinta Mountains. The project includes constructing 7.6 miles of division/drift fence, 2 corrals, 3 spring exclosures, 2 experimental exclosures, 8 earthen ponds, and 14 new troughs. The project also includes installing 7.3 miles of pipeline, 1 solar array for pumping water, and 1 tank (Table 2, Figure 2, Table 3). Approximately 13.4 acres of temporary (0-3 years) and 25.8 acres of permanent disturbance are expected from the project. For the Forest to collect and use water for ponds and troughs, the Forest is pursuing changes to existing Forest rights. The proposed water improvements are dependent upon the completion of the sub-basin claims process. During the development of the Proposed Action, design features were identified by the ID Team and are included in Appendix A. Some of the features are general practices that are recommended as best management practices or required by management plans, grazing permits, or other Forest Service manuals and handbooks. Other features were recommended by the ID Team or through consultation with other agencies specific to the Proposed Action to reduce potential effects to resources. Detailed information on the proposed improvements is included in Appendix B. The proposed project would be implemented in the next 1 to 5 years as funds and resources become available for the Forest Service and the grazing permittees. This alternative is consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and complies with all laws, regulation, and policy (refer to the specialists reports and Forest Plan Consistency Table available in the project record). The Proposed Action numbers and description of Purpose and Need presented here have been updated from the D2 Range Improvement Project Scoping Letter based on detailed analyses and improved mapping accuracy and to add clarity. 10

12 Table 2. Summary of proposed improvements for each allotment Improvement by Allotment Black Canyon Allotment Charleys Park Pond Development Brush Creek Allotment Fence (miles) Corrals (No.) Spring & Study Exclosures (No.) Fence for Spring & Study Exclosures (miles) Earthen Ponds (No.) Troughs (No.) Pipeline (miles) Solar Arrays and Tank (No.) Temporary Acres of Disturbance Permanent Acres of Disturbance Barker Ponds Diamond Mountain Allotment McKee Spring Pipeline Development Dry Fork Allotment Bills Park Fence Realignment and Water Improvements Mosby Park Fence Realignment Wootton Spring Exclosure Bills Park Corral Construction Lake Mountain Allotment Sink Ridge Spring Development Lena Peak Allotment (spring)

13 Improvement by Allotment Limestone Spring Exclosure and Water Development Lonesome Park Allotment East Park Kane Hollow Drift Fence Installation Taylor Mountain Allotment Big Park Oaks Park Fence Installation George D Pond Pipeline Extension Merkley Spring Pipeline Extension The Face Division Fence Installation The Face Pasture Experimental Exclosure Installation Fence (miles) Corrals (No.) Spring & Study Exclosures (No.) 1 Fence for Spring & Study Exclosures (miles) 0.66 (spring) Earthen Ponds (No.) Troughs (No.) Pipeline (miles) Solar Arrays and Tank (No.) Temporary Acres of Disturbance Permanent Acres of Disturbance (exclosure) Total Total Disturbance: 39.2 acres 12

14 Figure 2. Locations of proposed improvements for the D2 Range Improvement Project 13

15 Table 3. Proposed Action improvements, purposes, and descriptions by allotment Proposed Action Improvement Purpose Description Black Canyon Allotment Charley s Park pond development Brush Creek Allotment Barker Pond development Diamond Mountain Allotment McKee Spring pipeline extension Dry Fork Allotment Bills Park fence realignment and water improvements Mosby Park fence realignment Wootton Spring exclosure Provide for additional water storage to distribute cattle Provide cattle with additional water sources to improve their distribution on the Barker Pasture Relocate trough to minimize resource damage and improve cattle distribution Redesign fence to improve recreation experience by controlling cattle use within Bills Park Redesign fence to keep cows in the correct pasture Protect spring source; develop and locate watering areas away from spring Develop 5 collection ponds (each approximately 120 feet in diameter) in natural water collection areas Construct 3 roadside collection ponds (each approximately 120 feet in diameter) Install solar array and pump at McKee Spring and pump water 2.6 miles to a storage tank and 6 new troughs; bury the 1.5- or 2 inch diameter pipeline branches adjacent to National Forest System road Construct 0.61 miles of fence around Bills Park, including one cattle guard; consolidate Bills Park and Cow Spring troughs into one, and replace 0.11 miles of pipeline Extend existing fence by constructing 0.15 miles of buck and pole or wire fence, and install an ATV cattle guard Construct a foot exclosure (0.1 miles of fence) using onsite material to protect the spring; install a head box and 0.05 miles of pipeline between the spring and the existing Upper Trail Canyon Trough Bills Park corral construction Develop a second location to hold and ship cows by truck Construct a foot (0.1 miles of fence) holding corral Lake Mountain Allotment Sink Ridge spring development Lena Peak Allotment Limestone spring exclosure and water development Lonesome Park Allotment East Park/Kane Hollow drift fence installation Develop water in an area that has lost water sources from dry springs Protect riparian meadow from over grazing, distribute water away from sensitive area Divide pasture to incorporate a deferment to allow for better management and recovery of areas of concentration Develop and exclose unnamed Sink Ridge spring and pipe 0.7 miles to existing Upper Sink Ridge Pond/Trough; construct foot fence (0.1 miles of fence) around spring Construct 1.99 miles of pipeline; install 3 new troughs, and construct 0.67 miles of exclosure around Limestone Spring riparian meadow Install 2.08 miles of fence, paint cattleguard on the highway, construct foot corral 14

16 Proposed Action Improvement Taylor Mountain Allotment Big Park/Oaks Park division fence installation George D Pond pipeline extension Merkley Spring pipeline extension The Face division fence installation The Face Pasture experimental exclosure installation Purpose Divide pasture to incorporate a deferment to allow for better management and more uniform grazing use Provide cattle with additional water sources to improve cattle distribution Provide cattle with additional water sources to improve cattle distribution Divide the Face Pasture to allow deferment and better management, including a variable on date Monitor the effects of treatment in cheatgrass/sagebrush plant communities Description Install 2.48 miles of fence and a cattle guard Develop 1.28 miles of pipeline from an existing water source (George D Pond/Oaks Park Pipeline) to the northeast; install 3 troughs Extend pipeline 0.5 miles from Merkley Spring trough to the relocated trough on ridge and to an existing overflow pond Install 2.25 miles of wire fence Install two foot exclosures (0.3 miles of fence) Relationship of the Proposed Action to the Forest Plan The D2 Range Improvement Project is designed to comply with the Forest Plan as amended by the 2015 Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision (Forest Service 1986a; Amendment 24) and its resource goals and objectives. All sites being analyzed are located in Management Areas (MA) f, l and n (Table 4). The management prescription for MA f is to emphasize dispersed recreation in a roaded setting, and range direction states travel (or recreation) conflicts may require expensive controls, and forage not required for wildlife will be allocated to permitted livestock. The management prescription for MA l is to optimize wildlife habitat diversity through timber harvest at moderate levels, with range direction stating forage not required for wildlife will be allocated to permitted livestock. The management prescription for MA n is for a variety of resource uses and outputs, with range direction stating improvements should be coordinated with wildlife and recreation (Forest Service 1986a, pp. IV-7 through IV-10). The following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for managing range resource for MAs f, l and n (Forest Service 1986a, pp. IV-32 through IV-33) apply: Locate range fences to allow for movement of people and to exclude livestock from areas of concentrated recreational use. The priority for new range structural improvements will be to develop water sources where no available sources exist within 1.0 mile. Design for development will allow for use by game animals and birds. Priority will be given to restoring needed existing structural improvements before constructing new ones. Springs and seeps will be protected from grazing livestock where resource damage is occurring. Additional responsibility and accountability will be placed on the permittees for livestock management and at least 50% permittee participation will be obtained for all range improvement construction or reconstruction costs. 15

17 Table 4. Management areas for each proposed improvement for the D2 Range Improvement Project Management Area f n f & n Proposed Improvement Barker Ponds Merkley Spring Pipeline Extension Bills Park Corral Mosby Park Fence Wootton Spring The Face Division Fence The Face Pasture Experimental Exclosures McKee Spring Pipeline Extension Bill s Park Fence and Water System Sink Ridge Spring Development Limestone Spring Exclosure and Water Development East Park Kane Hollow Drift Fence Big Park Oaks Park Division Fence George D Pond Pipeline Extension f, n, & l Charley s Park Ponds Additionally, the 2015 Greater Sage-grouse (GRSG) Record of Decision (ROD) amendment to the Forest Plan outlines additional applicable standards and guidelines on how to manage GRSG and GRSG habitat (Forest Service 1986a; Amendment 24 [Forest Service 2015]). The ROD identifies priority habitat management areas (PHMA) as having the highest habitat value for maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. For this project, the GRSG ROD outlines several standards and guidelines on how to manage GRSG and livestock grazing relevant to proposed activities: GRSG-GEN-ST-006-Standard--Do not authorize new surface disturbing and disruptive activities that create noise at 10dB above ambient measured at the perimeter of an occupied lek during the lekking (from March 1 to April 30) from 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. Do not include noise resulting from human activities that have been authorized and initiated within the past 10 years in the ambient baseline measurement. GRSG-GEN-GL-007-Guideline--During breeding and nesting (from March 1 to June 15), surface disturbing and disruptive activities to nesting birds should be avoided. GRSG-LG-ST-035 Standard--In priority habitat management areas, sagebrush focal areas, and Anthro Mountain, do not approve construction of water developments unless beneficial to GRSG habitat. GRSG-LG-GL-040-Guideline--Fences should not be constructed or reconstructed within 1.2 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks unless the collision risk can be mitigated through design features or markings (e.g., mark, laydown fences, or other design features). Per the GRSG ROD Anthropogenic Disturbance Calculation Implementation Guide for Idaho, Nevada, and Utah Version 3.3 (Forest Service 2016), GRSG-GEN-ST-004- Standard does not apply because grazing-related facilities and structures are not identified as anthropogenic disturbances (p. 1). In addition, GRSG-GEN-LG-GL-041- Guideline does not apply because tall 16

18 permanent livestock structures such as windmills, water tanks, or corrals would not be built within 1.2 miles from the perimeter of an occupied lek. Design Criteria In order to minimize or eliminate environmental effects from this project, certain project specific design criteria have been developed to accompany the proposed action. These design criteria are an integral part of the proposed action; without these criteria, there could be increased resource effects. The project specific design criteria would be used in tandem with the proposed action and are presented in Appendix A of this document. Comparison of Alternatives Table 5 presents a comparison of each alternative by proposed improvements for each allotment. Additional information on proposed improvements for each alternative is included in the Project Record. Table 6 displays how well the alternatives address the purpose and need of the D2 Range Improvement Project. 17

19 Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by total number of range improvements for each allotment Allotment Miles Fence # Corrals # Spring & Study Exclosures # Earthen Ponds # Troughs & Tanks Miles Pipelines # of Solar Arrays/ Tanks Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt B Alt A Black Canyon Brush Creek Diamond Mountain Dry Fork Lake Mountain Lena Peak Lonesome Park Taylor Mountain Totals Table Note: Alt. A represents the existing number of improvements. No existing improvements would be removed and no new improvements would be added under Alt. A. Alt B 18

20 Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the purpose and need of the D2 Range Improvement Project following implementation of all proposed activities. Purpose & Need Improve livestock distribution Minimize areas of livestock concentration No Action No new actions to improve livestock distribution Micro-site areas of concern associated with cattle trampling of spring seep areas and drymeadow concentration areas and compaction and denuding of vegetation at trough sites would continue to occur. Proposed Action Installation of 7.3 miles of pipelines, 14 troughs, 1 solar array, 1 tank and 8 earthen ponds decrease distance cattle must travel for water improving distribution The additional 7.6 miles of fencing and water sources and repairs or replacements of existing springs and troughs would improve proper cattle distribution and minimize areas of livestock concentration; maintain the season of use; allow for an enhanced rotation system by deferring and resting areas of the pasture; and result in improved wildlife habitat, resolution of recreation conflicts, and protection of springs and other riparian areas. Constructing fences would eliminate areas of cattle concentration in dispersed recreation areas and allow seasonal deferment on early-entry spring range. Table 7. Comparison of alternatives by how well they address the resources of the D2 Range Improvement Project following implementation of all proposed improvements. Resource No Action Proposed Action Range Resource Soils and Hydrology Wildlife Habitat Wildlife-Sage- Grouse Socio-economic Resources Recreation, Visual Quality and Roadless Noxious Weeds Rare Plants* Cultural Resources No change No change No effect/no impact No impact No effect No effect No effect No impact No effect Improved livestock distribution; livestock concentrations minimized No change NLAA Canada lynx NI to 7 sensitive species MII 7 sensitive/management indicator species (MIS)/migratory bird species No change in overall population or source habitat trend for other MIS and migratory birds MII; Beneficial effects Forest Service: approximately $104,687, or 44% of the total costs; Permittees: approximately $131,358, or 58% of the total costs No modification to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Visual Quality Objectives would be met Nine roadless characteristics maintained Risk of weed increase avoided or minimized with implementation of design features MII clustered lady s slipper NI all other species No Adverse Effect * NE=No Effect; NLAA=Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NLTJ=Not likely to jeopardize proposed species or modify proposed critical habitat; BI=Beneficial Impact, NI=No Impact; MII=May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability 19

21 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes and compares the environmental effects of the alternatives. An ID Team comprised of resource specialists employed by Transcon Environmental analyzed the resource effects of the alternatives, and the Forest Service reviewed their analyses. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on all resources were found to be negligible with effects of limited extent, duration, and intensity and did not drive the development of another action alternative. Environmental effects of the Proposed Action to rangeland, soils and hydrology, wildlife, socio-economic, recreation, visual quality, roadless, noxious weeds, rare plants, and cultural resources would remain well within Forest Plan desired conditions. socioeconomic resources determined to have no reasonable potential to be affected, such as timber, minerals, and wilderness, are also not discussed in this EA. Addressing environmental effects this way focuses this assessment on pertinent effects necessary to make a decision, allowing for a concise document as directed by the Council of Environmental Quality s regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts ). More details regarding the affected environment, conclusions about potential effects, applicable Forest Plan and regulatory direction, and review of best available science are available in specialists reports for each resource and other supporting documentation in the project record. Rangeland Resources This section describes the analysis of effects to rangeland resources as it relates to the purpose and need. Refer to the rangeland resources technical report (available in the project record) for the detailed supporting analysis. Affected Environment The 8-allotment area is permitted to 24 grazing permittees and a total of 4,087 cattle for generally a 4-month summer grazing season. The allotments are managed as cow/calf operations. Permitted cattle within the Project Area consume approximately 17,420 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of forage (Table 8). Various range improvements, including fences, spring exclosures, ponds, and troughs, are found throughout the allotments and assist permittees in managing cattle distribution across the allotments (Table 9). Reconstruction of water developments and fences occurs over time. Some of these developments are occasionally relocated to improve or protect resources. Field review of the Project Area found rangeland vegetation conditions to be in satisfactory condition with micro-site areas of concern associated with concentrated grazing pressure in dry meadows and other sensitive sites, disturbance of vegetation at trough sites, and ungulate trampling of spring seep areas. Cattle often heavily graze forage plants near water rather than travelling moderate-to-long distances to better forage, resulting in deteriorating forage resources near the water supply and underutilizing forage at long distances from water. The uneven utilization of forage can result in negative effects on the livestock and on the rangeland resources and requires frequent herding to effectively improve distribution on mountain rangelands. 20

22 Table 8. Project area Animal Unit Months (AUMs), grazing system, season of use, permittees, and permitted cattle by allotment Allotment AUMs Grazing System Season of Use Permittees Permitted Cattle Black Canyon 3,588 5 unit rest rotation 6/16 10/ Brush Creek 2,509 7 unit rest rotation 6/6 9/ Diamond Mountain 3,312 7 unit deferred rotation 6/1 10/ Dry Fork 1,050 5 unit deferred rest rotation 6/21 9/ Lake Mountain unit rest rotation 6/21 9/ Lena Peak 1,080 3 unit deferred rotation 7/1 9/ Lonesome Park unit season-long grazing 6/20 9/ Taylor Mountain 4,084 7 unit deferred rotation 6/1 9/30 8 1,021 Total 17, ,087 Table 9. Existing range improvements Allotment Acres Existing Range Improvements Ponds Troughs Springs Pipelines (miles) Fence (miles) Corrals Black Canyon 37, Brush Creek 11, Diamond Mountain 11, Dry Fork 17, Lake Mountain 7, Lena Peak 9, Lonesome Park 41, Taylor Mountain 61, Total 199, Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Effects Under the No Action Alternative, livestock management would remain unchanged, existing fences would remain in the same locations, and no water developments would occur. Thus, no direct impacts to vegetation would occur. Though grazing management would remain the same, it might require more intensive herding in the future to achieve proper forage utilization and as water sources dry up. Cattle would trail further to water, and they would not use areas further away from water. Cattle may have to be moved to the next pasture early if utilization standards are met in portions of the pastures. The utilization standard in all grazing permits is 50 percent use of grasses and greater than four-inch stubble height of riparian vegetation. Maintenance of the current water systems would continue, but no cost of new improvements would be incurred. The Proposed Action would have beneficial effects to vegetation and habitat by providing managers and permittees more flexibility to ensure concentration areas are not over utilized thereby reducing overall vegetation growth and habitat quality over time and that currently underutilized areas are stimulated by proper utilization. The approximately eight miles of fencing proposed under the Proposed Action would allow managers to incorporate an improved grazing deferment system and ensure proper grazing or utilization of forage. Literature describes the ecological benefits of grazing systems, such as increased plant growth, made possible by using 21

23 fencing to control the timing and duration of rangeland use by large herbivores (see Eckert et al. 1986, Halstead et al. 2002, Ratlifff et al. 1974, Werner et al. 1988). Under the Proposed Action, installing approximately 7.3 miles of pipelines, 14 troughs, 1 tank, and 8 earthen ponds to provide additional or improved water sources would decrease the distance cattle must travel for water, improving distribution across pastures and, consequentially, improving utilization. Decreasing the distance cattle travel for water would also require cattle to use less energy, which could equate to increased weight production of market calves. Providing additional reliable water sources would also allow range managers to implement grazing management designed in the AMPs. The Proposed Action would indirectly improve upland and riparian vegetation conditions. For example, deferment of grazing use resulting from construction of the Face Division Fence, Big Park/Oaks Park Division Fence, and East Park/Kane Hollow Drift Fence would result in better control of utilization levels at prescribed allowable uses and allow specific management options for recovery of riparian areas and meadows. With implementation of the Proposed Action, improvements, such as reduced soil compaction and a higher stubble height, would occur to meadow and wet-area vegetation associated with the Bills Park realignment, Wootton Spring exclosure, and Limestone Spring exclosure. By alternating the livestock use and rest periods, vegetation would have time to recover thereby resulting in maintenance of and improvements to forage production, forage quality, and plant species composition. The proposed improvements are anticipated to have beneficial indirect effects as described including improved forage utilization and distribution of cattle. The precise quantifiable projected beneficial indirect effects would be incremental over time and are difficult to separate from currently permitted activities resulting in the same incremental improvements therefore the beneficial indirect effects are not measurable. No negative direct or indirect effects are anticipated. There are no measurable direct or indirect effects to range resources. Because there are no measurable direct or indirect effects there are no cumulative effects. The direct costs to the Forest Service and permittees are discussed in the socio/economic section and specialist report in the project record. Soils and Hydrology This section describes the analysis of effects to soil and hydrology resources as they relate to the purpose and need. Refer to the soils and hydrology technical reports (available in the project record) for the detailed supporting analysis. Affected Environment All proposed improvements of the D2 Range Improvement Project occur in the Ashley Creek, Brush Creek, Little Brush Creek, and Dry Creek watersheds of the Ashley-Brush subbasin. All improvements are located within the Lower Green/Uintah Basin, except the Limestone Spring Pipeline improvement, which would occur within the Diamond Gulch Watershed of the Lower- Green Diamond subbasin. The only live stream crossed by a proposed improvement area is Little Brush Creek associated with the East Park Kane Hollow Fence in the Lonesome Park Allotment. 22

24 The Big Park/Oaks Park Division Fence improvement in the Taylor Mountain Allotment terminates but does not cross the North Fork Ashley Creek. Field review of the Project Area found soil condition and hydrologic function to be satisfactory. Micro-site areas of concern are associated with concentrated grazing pressure in dry meadows and other sensitive sites, disturbance of vegetation at trough sites, and cattle trampling of spring seep areas. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Effects Under the No Action alternative, soil condition and hydrologic function would continue to be satisfactory, and no direct or indirect effects to increasing stream/lake pollutants would occur. However, micro-site areas of concern associated with cattle trampling of spring seep areas and dry-meadow concentration areas and compaction and denuding of vegetation at trough sites would continue to occur. Under the Proposed Action, fencing would exclude cattle grazing around springs and pipeline extensions would distribute cattle across the range, reducing areas of concentrated use. Although the Proposed Action has the potential for ground disturbance and slight erosion as a result of the immediate actions during implementation, these disturbances would be temporary in duration (0-3 years) and intensity (39 acres of disturbance within the 200,000-acre allotment area) and would be mitigated by design features in Appendix A, therefore no effects are expected to soil and water resources. The Proposed Action is compliant with Executive Order regarding floodplains. No effects to floodplains would occur from proposed range improvements because none of the proposed projects are located within water courses. The Proposed Action would also comply with Executive Order regarding wetlands because proposed improvements would allow grazing deferment and/or rotation, and this controlled use would improve the condition of 576 acres of meadows, riparian areas and wetlands. The site conditions of minor wetlands associated with spring seeps in areas of proposed improvements would improve as stream and spring access is limited by fence exclosures, and extension of pipelines would distribute cattle to areas of lighter forage use. Other wetlands would be avoided. Forest vegetation studies have shown vegetative cover within wetland areas in the allotments are meeting or moving toward desired condition. Wildlife This section describes the analysis of effects to wildlife resources as it relates to the purpose and need. Refer to the wildlife technical report and biological evaluation and biological assessment (available in the project record) for the detailed supporting analysis. Effects to Endangered Species Act (ESA) species, Forest Service sensitive and management indicator species (MIS), and migratory birds resulting from the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives are summarized in Table

25 Table 10. Wildlife species status and effects determination for the D2 Range Improvement Project Species Status Determinations a No Action Proposed Action Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened NE NLAA Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensi) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) Sensitive NI NI Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Townsend s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) Boreal toad (Bufo boreas) Sensitive NI MII Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Lincoln s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus) Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus Canadensis) Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Brewer s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus) Cassin s finch (Carpodacus cassinii) Lewis s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Sensitive, Migratory Bird Sensitive, MIS Sensitive, MIS, Migratory Bird MIS MIS, Migratory Bird Migratory birds NI NI NI No change in overall population or source habitat trend at Forest scale No change in overall population or source habitat trend at Forest scale No change in overall population or source habitat trend at Forest scale MII MII MII No change in overall population or source habitat trend at Forest scale No change in overall population or source habitat trend at Forest scale No change in overall population or source habitat trend at Forest scale a NE=No Effect; NLAA=Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NLTJ=Not likely to jeopardize proposed species or modify proposed critical habitat; BI=Beneficial Impact, NI=No Impact; MII=May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to habitat or current distribution levels are proposed, and, therefore, no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts would occur to wildlife species under the No Action Alternative. 24