Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · This discussion...
Transcript of 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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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).
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
3
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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).
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
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
collected at Vernon Reservoir which was dedicated in 1977. It includes a 53 foot earthen dam
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
proposed action and its alternatives and will not be analyzed further.
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
proposed action and its alternatives and will not be analyzed further.
Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS): Bonneville cutthroat trout is the aquatic
management indicator species (MIS) whose historic range overlapped with the Vernon
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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).
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
proposed action and its alternatives and will not be analyzed further.
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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).
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Same as Alternative 1 and 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.
Same as Alternative 1.
There has been no evidence troughs or fences
have caused a loss of sage grouse. Sage grouse
numbers have been slowly increasing since
1995.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1 and 2.
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.
Same as Alternative 1 and 2.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
950 acres of sagebrush treatment and
seeding
237 2008
Benmore Pastures
Sagebrush Harrow
850 acres of sagebrush treatment and
seeding
850 2009
Sabie Juniper lop and
scatter and bull hog
treatment
120 acres of bull hog treatment
1300 acres of small juniper removal
in previously chained areas
2009 and
ongoing
Sharps Valley Juniper
lop and scatter and
bull hog treatment
380 acres of bull hog treatment
670 acres of small juniper removal
in previously chained areas
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
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
collected at Vernon Reservoir which was dedicated in 1977. It includes a 53 foot earthen dam
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
24
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Alternative 1: No Action
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Alternative 2: Current Management
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.
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. 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.
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.
Alternative 3: Proposed Action
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).
Soil Compaction: There were no soil platelets or signs of limited or deflected root growth from
compacted soil layers. This meets the desired condition for this parameter and would not change
with the proposed action.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Alternative 1: No Action
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.
Alternative 2: Current Management
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.
Alternative 3: Proposed Action
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.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Alternative 1: No Action
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Alternative 2: Current Management
Direct and Indirect Effects
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).
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
38
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.
Alternative 3: Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
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.
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.
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.
Consistency with the Forest Plan
All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines discussed in the sage
grouse discussion above.
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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
Environmental Assessment Benmore Allotment Grazing Authorization
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.