United States Department of Environmental Assessment Agriculture
Forest Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, Service
Uinta-Wasatch- and the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Cache and Ashley National Forests portion of the Hickerson Park Evanston-Mountain View and Flaming Gorge Allotments Ranger Districts
September 2010
Photo taken in Georges Park, West of Hoop Lake.
I.M. Varner – 1947 U.S. Forest Service C. Crooker – 7/21/2009 Rocky Mountain Research Station
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Responsible Official(s): Rick Schuler Evanston-Mountain View District Ranger 1565 Highway 150 South, Suite A Evanston, Wyoming 82930
Marcia Pfleiderer Flaming Gorge District Ranger P.O. Box 279 Manila, Utah 84046
For More Information Contact: Justin McConkey, Rangeland Management Specialist Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District 321 Highway 414 P.O. Box 129 Mountain View, Wyoming 82939 Phone: 307-782-2401
1
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Table of Contents I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 2 Decision Framework ...... 2 Public Involvement ...... 3 Issues to be Analyzed in Depth ...... 3 II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION...... 5 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 5 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 5 Alternative 2 – No Grazing ...... 21 Alternative 3 – No Action (management as described in existing AMPs) ...... 21 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study ...... 32 III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIORNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...... 33 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 33 Physical Environment ...... 34 Topography ...... 34 Soils ...... 35 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Soils ...... 39 Rangeland Health (Issue 1) ...... 43 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species ...... 75 Effects to Permittee Workload (Issue 4) ...... 76 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Permittee Workload ...... 76 Noxious Weeds ...... 78 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Noxious Weeds ...... 78 Water Resources ...... 79 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Water Resources ...... 83 Aquatic and Fisheries Species/Habitat (Issue 2) ...... 85 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Aquatic and Fisheries Species/Habitat ...... 94 Cumulative Effects ...... 98 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat (Issue 3) ...... 99 Big Game ...... 99 Direct and Indirect Effects to Big Game ...... 102 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Neotropical Birds ...... 107 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Management Indicator Species ...... 115 Federally Listed ...... 115 Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 119 Recreation/Wilderness (Issue 5) ...... 128 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Recreation and Wilderness...... 136 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 137 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 143 Heritage Resources ...... 146 Other Findings: ...... 147 Environmental Justice ...... 147 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ...... 147 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 148 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 148 IV. CONSULTATION AN D COORDINATION ...... 149 V. REFERENCES ...... 150
Appendix A: Response to Public Comments Appendix B: Draft Allotment Management Plans
List of Tables Table 1. Site-Specific Desired Conditions ...... 6 Table 2. Site-Specific Desired Conditions (Ashley N.F. Only) ...... 9 Table 3. Proposed Range Improvements ...... 12 Table 4. Burnt Fork C&H/Beaver Creek C&H/U-W-C Portion of the Hickerson Allotment Adaptive Management Plan (Proposed Action) ...... 15 Table 5. Summary Comparison of Alternatives ...... 28 Table 6. Soil Types and Characteristics ...... 35 Table 7. Summary of 2009 Ground Cover Transect Monitoring Data ...... 38 Table 8. Comparison of Suitable Acre Determinations by Allotment ...... 45 Table 9. Comparison of Suitable Acres per Animal unit Month (AUM) ...... 46 Table 10. Evaluation of Monitoring Points ...... 49 Table 11. Historic Livestock Numbers within the Analysis Area ...... 59 Table 12. Allotment, Permittee, Period of Use, Livestock Numbers, Kind and Class ...... 65 Table 13. Length in miles of stream channel by Rosgen stream class ...... 80 Table 14. Bacteria analysis results ...... 82 Table 15. Wetland types and estimated amounts for Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork allotments ...... 82 Table 16. Population statistics for species sampled in West Fork Beaver Creek 1996, 2003, 2004, and 2007 ...... 86 Table 17. Population statistics for species sampled in Middle Fork Beaver Creek, 1997 and 2007...... 88 Table 18. Population statistics for species sampled in East Fork Beaver Creek, 1998 and 2007 ...... 88 Table 19. Population statistics for species sampled in Thompson Creek, 2007 ...... 89 Table 20. Population statistics for species sampled in Kabell Creek, 2007 ...... 89 Table 21. Population statistics for species sampled in Burnt Fork, 2007 ...... 90 Table 22. Population statistics for species sampled in the tributary to Beaver Meadow Reservoir, 1994 and 2007 ...... 90 Table 23. Aquatic Management Indicator Species ...... 92 Table 24. Biological Index Condition Rating ...... 94 Table 25. Summary of Macroinvertebrate Repeated Sampling Efforts ...... 94 Table 26. Population objectives and estimates in Hunt Unit 8 ...... 99 Table 27. Total area of Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments in comparison to the entire North Slope Hunt Unit on National Forest System lands* ...... 99 Table 28. Total area of Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments in comparison to the entire North Slope Hunt Unit on all land ownerships ...... 100 Table 29. Birds of Conservation Concern and Partners in Flight and PIF species listed for Utah Mountains and Wyoming Basin ...... 104 Table 30. Terrestrial Management Indicator Species ...... 108 Table 31. Territory occupancy on the Wasatch-Cache, 1999-2009, adjusted to 1999 occupancy...... 109 Table 32. Beaver population estimates ...... 113 Table 33. UDWR Units occurring, at least partially, on NFS Lands ...... 113 Table 34. Federally Listed Species Summit County, Utah ...... 115 Table 35. Lynx habitat (acres) in LAU #29 and 30 within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments ...... 117 Table 36. Sensitive Species ...... 119 Table 37. Road Density LAU 29 & 30 ...... 124 Table 38. Lynx Habitat in LAU 29 & 30 ...... 125 Table 39. Registered Recreation Users at trailheads within Allotments ...... 129
List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, and part of the Hickerson Park cattle allotment of the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah ...... 1 Figure 2. Proposed Action Alternative - Range Improvement Map ...... 13 Figure 3. Proposed Action Alternative - Pasture Boundary Map ...... 14 Figure 4. No Action Alternative - Pasture Boundary Map ...... 22 Figure 5. Hole-in-the-Rock near Forest Boundary ...... 44 Figure 6. Cow Hollow, Ashley National Forest. Aspen suckers encroaching into open park along tree line ...... 48 Figure 7. Vegetation / Cover Types ...... 66 Figure 8. Stream surveys and trout distribution in the Henrys Fork, Beaver Creek, and Burnt Fork drainages, 2007 .. 91 Figure 9. Bighorn Summer/Winter Habitat in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments ... 101 Figure 10. Percent of Occupied Goshawk Territories Successful on the Ashley National Forest ...... 109 Figure 11. High Uinta Wilderness ...... 131 Figure 12. Roadless Areas within the Allotments ...... 138
I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Background
This Environmental Assessment encompasses two Cattle and Horse (C&H) grazing allotments - Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H located in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache (U-W-C National Forest). In addition it encompasses the 1,288 acres of the Hickerson Park Allotment located within the U-W-C National Forest. The allotments are located on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. They encompass approximately 33,350 acres within the Mountain View Ranger District of the U-W-C National Forest, in Summit County Utah and 2,745 acres within the Flaming Gorge Ranger District of the Ashley National Forest in Summitt County, Utah. The 2,745 acres are part of the Burnt Fork allotment.
Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, and part of the Hickerson Park cattle allotment of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah
Livestock grazing has been permitted on the National Forest since shortly after establishment beginning in 1906. Domestic livestock grazing on the National Forest has occurred continuously since that time. The regulation of grazing has increased over time. The Forest Service, with the grazing permittees, has developed annual grazing plans for these allotments since the 1940s. Ten-year allotment management plans (AMPs) were implemented for Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H, and Hickerson Park C&H in 1976, 1978 and 1995 respectively, to provide over-all long-term management direction. Allotment boundaries, livestock numbers, seasons of use, and grazing management practices have been adjusted many times since domestic livestock grazing 1 has been authorized.
Term grazing permits are generally valid for 10 years from the date of issuance. Section 504(a) of the Rescission Act of 1995 requires each National Forest System unit to establish and adhere to a schedule for the completion of environmental analysis and decisions on all allotments within the National Forest. Section 504 (b) of Public Law 104-19 provides: “Notwithstanding any other law, term grazing permits which expire or are waived before the NEPA analysis and decision pursuant to the schedule developed by individual Forest Service System units, shall be issued on the same terms and conditions and for the full term of the expired or waived permit. Upon completion of the scheduled NEPA analysis and decision for the allotment, the terms and conditions of existing grazing permits may be modified or re-issued, if necessary to conform to such NEPA analysis.” Grazing management on these allotments is being continued in accordance with this direction.
Purpose and Need for Action
Recent resource information collected on the allotments shows that the current level of livestock management is meeting or moving toward desired condition objectives identified in the 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan1 for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (Forest Service 2003) and Ashley National Forest (Forest Service 1986), for each respective portion of the analysis area. Management is consistent with the Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, Goals, and Objectives. The purpose and need is to authorize livestock (cattle) grazing in a manner that continues to meet the desired conditions defined in the Forest Plans for each respective portion of the analysis area as well as site-specific desired conditions identified for the these allotments.
Grazing is a sustainable use of National Forest System (NFS) lands and is permissible through the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, as amended.
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 the range resource for their livelihood. (FSM 2202.1)
The Ashley Forest Plan has as one of its desired conditions to maintain a quality range program, managed to optimize the production and use of forage on all suitable range to the extent it is cost effective and in harmony with other resource uses (Forest Service 1986, p. IV - 3).
Decision Framework
The decision to be made is whether or not to authorize grazing on the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek Allotments and the portion of the Hickerson Park Allotment located on the U-W-C National Forest, and if so, under what conditions (i.e. design features, mitigation). The Evanston/Mountain View District Ranger will make the decision for the Beaver Creek Allotment, the portion of the Burnt Fork Allotment on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache N.F. and the portion of the Hickerson Park Allotment located on the U-W-C N.F. The Flaming Gorge District Ranger will make the decision for the portion of the Burnt Fork Allotment on the Ashley National Forest. If livestock grazing is authorized, Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) will be developed to incorporate and implement this decision. Following a decision, the AMPs will be completed and approved and will be
1In March 2008 the Uinta National Forest and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest were combined into one administrative unit. Each of these Forests is still operating under individual Forest Plans approved in 2003. When the term Wasatch-Cache is used it refers to the Wasatch-Cache Planning Area of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
2 consistent with the NEPA documentation for this project.
Public Involvement
This project is in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests which is also posted on the Forest Service Web site at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/. A legal notice requesting comments on the project was published in the Uinta County Herald and Vernal Express March 16 and March 17, 2010, respectively, and the Notice of Proposed Action was sent to 118 members of the public. In response, we received seven comments. Of those comments, five letters were in support of the project. Comment letters and responses are included in Appendix A of this document.
Issues to be Analyzed in Depth
Issues analyzed in depth are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. The issues analyzed in depth in the evaluation of the alternatives are: 1) Rangeland Health, 2) Aquatic and Riparian Conditions, 3) Wildlife Habitat, 4) Effects to Permittees and 5) Recreation / Wilderness.
Issue 1. Rangeland Health - Livestock grazing can cause changes in rangeland plant composition, plant community structure, and ground cover, and affect rangeland health and productivity. Rangeland health is defined by the National Academy of Sciences as “the degree to which the integrity of the soil and ecological processes of rangeland ecosystems are sustained and/or the degree of integrity of the soil and ecological processes that are most important in sustaining the capacity of rangelands to satisfy values and produce commodities.” The Revised Forest Plan established the following direction for managing rangelands; “Manage rangeland ecosystems so they support vegetation with adequate ground cover to protect watersheds and plant communities with desired species composition, structure and function dominated by desired perennial grasses and forbs, with a range of shrub cover (Forest Service 2003, p. 4-32).”
Grazing by herbivores can have significant effects on rangeland health and productivity. The frequency of grazing, the intensity of grazing, and the opportunity for plants to grow before grazing or regrow following grazing are factors that affect rangeland health and productivity. Grazing that occurs over too long a period of time or that allows plants to be too severely grazed or that does not allow for plants to grow before grazing or regrow after grazing during the growing season will negatively impact range plants. Conversely, plants that are never grazed, especially grasses, may become coarse and overgrown. A lack of grazing can cause grasses to become unpalatable to herbivores, as there is a larger percentage of woody material in the plant (Rhodes and Sharrow 1990).
Properly managed grazing will account for the needs of the plants as well as the needs of the herbivores. Properly managed grazing can also allow for rare plant species and native plant species to reproduce, grow, and regrow in their natural habitats. Range condition and trend, including plant composition and ground cover, will be analyzed.
Issue 2. Aquatic and Riparian Conditions - Livestock grazing can altered riparian plant composition and community structure, and affect riparian conditions, stream function, and water and fisheries resources. Livestock grazing can affect riparian conditions and water resources. As with upland rangeland areas, the frequency of grazing, intensity of grazing, and the opportunity for plants to grow before grazing or regrow after grazing are factors that affect the impacts of grazing on riparian vegetation. In addition to indirect effects, grazing can directly affect stream bank conditions and riparian vegetation. Livestock can physically trample and cause bank failure affecting instream 3 habitat. While the geology of the area affects stream bank stability, in general, the longer the time period livestock graze along a stream, the greater the chances that bank damage will occur. Riparian and stream condition, including streambank stability and water quality, will be analyzed. Fish population and trends (including aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Forest Service Sensitive species, and on aquatic Management Indicator Species) will be analyzed.
Issue 3. Wildlife Habitat - Livestock grazing can cause changes in plant composition and structure, and disturb wildlife, and affect wildlife habitat conditions and populations. The analysis area provides habitat for numerous species of wildlife including Management Indicator Species, migratory birds and Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species (TES).
Management indicator species (MIS) are species selected because changes in their numbers are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on a range of species. One of the factors considered when selecting MIS is their close tie to the communities they represent. Management indicator species for the key terrestrial wildlife habitats in the analysis area could be affected by livestock grazing. Livestock grazing can affect their distribution and habitat on the allotment through competition for available forage. Conversely, livestock grazing can stimulate regrowth and provide more palatable nutritious forage and have a positive effect for some species of wildlife. The effects on habitats and the viability threatened, endangered, species of concern, Forest Service sensitive species, as well as population trends for MIS potentially present in the allotment will be analyzed.
Issue 4. Effects to Permittees - Livestock grazing activities can have a direct effect on the associated management workload placed on the permittee. Livestock management activities, such as riding, salting, herding and maintain range improvement structures can have an effect on the workload placed on the permittee. The frequency in which the permittee moves livestock, where and how salt is distributed and the number, size and location of the range improvements that must be maintained are all factors that affect the amount of work that is placed on the permittee.
Issue 5. Recreation/Wilderness - Livestock grazing can disturb recreation visitors and cause changes in ecological conditions, and affect recreational and wilderness experiences. Within the analysis area there are many recreation opportunities. Beginning in late-June through September, recreationists may encounter livestock on the allotments. Livestock grazing can displace visitors and make popular hiking trails, fishing spots, and campsites undesirable. The presence of livestock in the wilderness can also alter an individual’s wilderness experience. Impacts to recreation users and potential impacts to roadless and wilderness characteristic will be analyzed.
4
II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Alternatives Considered in Detail
The Forest Service developed three alternatives, including: Alternative 1 – Proposed Action, Alternative 2 – No Grazing, and Alternative 3 - maintaining the current grazing management (as described in the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments’ 1970s AMPs and Hickerson Park C&H 1995 AMP). The National Environmental Policy Act requires examination of a “no action” alternative. The no-action alternative can be interpreted to be no change to current management direction, as in Alternative 3. The alternatives were developed to address issues identified by the interdisciplinary team.
Alternative 1 – Proposed Action
The action proposed by the Forest Service is to continue to authorize grazing on the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments and the U-W-C N.F. portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment, through the issuance of term grazing permits with associated new AMPs. The AMPs will focus on implementing the best scientifically based management practices available, designed to perpetuate healthy rangeland conditions or improve rangeland health. AMPs will be completed and approved following the selection of this alternative. Management practices and objectives listed in the AMPs will be consistent with those listed in this alternative.
The Proposed Action would employ an adaptive management strategy, which adjusts the timing, intensity, frequency and management of grazing on the allotments as needed to continue to meet or satisfactorily move forest resources toward desired conditions and meet Forest Plan objectives. The adaptive management strategies applied will be the best scientifically based management practices available, designed to perpetuate healthy rangeland conditions or improve rangeland health. Current best management practices consist of: 1) controlling the intensity of grazing by managing the duration of grazing, 2) varying the time of grazing, and 3) providing rangeland vegetation the opportunity to either grow before grazing or regrow after grazing.
Monitoring would determine the need and frequency for administrative adjustments in the timing, intensity, frequency, and/or management of grazing. Vegetation response to grazing use and other environmental factors affecting a plant’s ability to grow and/or regrow will be evaluated and used as an aid in planning future livestock use. The specific manner in which livestock grazing will occur on the allotments will be based on management direction in the AMPs, and possible additional adaptive management direction developed at the annual planning meeting(s). The specific grazing strategy developed at the annual meetings will be incorporated into yearly Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) for the allotments. Management direction developed in the yearly AOIs will be consistent with this alternative.
In accordance with direction in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan (Forest Service 2003a, Appendix X-5), the interdisciplinary team (ID Team) has reviewed and in some cases refined or supplemented the Forest Plan prescribed Desired Future Conditions (DFC) to be more specific to the project area and Proposed Action. The refinements/supplements are consistent with Forest Plan prescribed DFCs. The site specific desired conditions outlined in Table 1 apply to both U-W-C and Ashley N.F. lands within the analysis area.
5
Table 1. Site-Specific Desired Conditions Resource Indicator Applicable Component of the Forest Plan Desired Site-Specific Desired Conditions Future Conditions Soil productivity Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Most soils have at least minimal A. Soils will be managed to ensure that abiotic protective ground cover. Soils have adequate physical characteristics are functioning properly, such as the properties for vegetative growth and soil-hydrologic maintenance of the A-horizon, and the absence of function. Degradation of soil quality and loss of soil pedestaling, rills, gullies, sheet erosion or soil productivity is prevented. Soil-hydrologic function and deposition. productivity in riparian areas is protected, preserving the ability to serve as a filter for good water quality and B. Allow management activities to result in no less than regulation of nutrient cycling. Soil productivity, quality, and 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation function are restored where adversely impaired and cover type (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-37). The contributing to an overall decline in watershed condition. desired condition is to provide for an upward/static trend for ground cover on the existing monitoring Ashley F.P. – Maintain or improve soil stability, site sites within the analysis area. Additionally, for any productivity and repair or stabilize damaged watersheds. new monitoring sites established within the analysis area, ground cover should fall within the range of ground cover potentials (Forest Service 2003a, page VII-1) for these major cover types listed below:
• Few Flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85%=69-82) • Silver Sagebrush 89-96 (85%=76-82) • Birchleaf Mt. Mahogany 86-95 (85%=73-81) Riparian Areas, Springs, Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Riparian areas have a range of A. Maintain or improve riparian areas to provide for Wetlands and Aquatic vegetative structural stages that are at or moving toward healthy conditions with an upward/static trend, Habitats properly functioning condition, provide a transitional zone by maintaining Properly Functioning Conditions between upland terrestrial habitats and aquatic habitats, (PFC) on all streams. and have the features necessary to promote stable stream channels and diverse habitat conditions. Desirable riparian B. Riparian areas will have well vegetated stream vegetation occupies the historical floodplain. Riparian banks with adequate deep-rooted vegetation areas provide for fish, wildlife, and water quality and/or armoring along banks to allow for stream requirements. channel stabilization, sediment filtering, erosion prevention and cool water temperatures. Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Habitats will be managed to maintain cool, clear water and well-vegetated stream C. Class I riparian areas maintaining 70% or more banks for cover and bank stability. Cool water late-seral vegetation communities, Class II temperatures will be preserved through well-vegetated riparian areas maintaining 60% or more late- banks. seral vegetation communities, and Class III riparian areas maintaining 40% or more late- Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Riparian areas have a mix of seral seral vegetation communities, (Forest Service
6
Resource Indicator Applicable Component of the Forest Plan Desired Site-Specific Desired Conditions Future Conditions and climax vegetation that is at or approaching PFC. 2003a, p. 4-37). Trees, willows, dogwood, birch, alder, sedges, rushes and hydric grasses, depending on stream substrate, gradient, - There are no Class I riparian areas within the and elevation, dominate riparian areas. These areas project area listed in Appendix VII of the W-C provide healthy self-perpetuating plant communities. FP. However, West Beaver Creek, and Middle Beaver Creek, (from the wilderness boundary to Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Riparian and aquatic plant habitats the Forest boundary), East Beaver Creek, (from and species will be protected from recreational users, Hoop Lake to the Forest boundary) and livestock and grazing wildlife. Thompson Creek (from Hoop Lake to the wilderness boundary), are mapped as 3.1A Ashley F.P. – Maintain or improve riparian areas and management prescriptions. Guideline 3.1A-2 riparian dependent resource values including wildlife, fish, allows livestock grazing with the utilization vegetation, watershed and recreation in a stable or standard for Class I riparian areas (Forest upward trend. Manage for species diversity. Service 2003a, p. 4-69). Therefore these areas will be grazed with this utilization standard. Ashley F.P. – Manage vegetation to enhance the riparian ecosystem. - In addition, the IDT applied Forest Plan direction that states: "Any stream with riparian dependent Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species is classified as a Class I riparian area." (Forest Service 2003a, p. VII – 2, Appendix VII). Riparian areas that contain Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species include: West Beaver Creek, Middle Beaver Creek, Thompson Creek, Kabell Creek, Burnt Fork and the tributary above Beaver Meadow Reservoir. Therefore these areas will be managed as Class 1 riparian areas.
- Class II managed riparian areas within the project area are: East Beaver Creek
- All riparian areas not identified above as Class I or II are Class III riparian areas. Uplands Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Maintain upland (sagebrush, A. Maintain or improve rangelands to provide for mountain brush, grassland) plant communities are healthy conditions with species compositions, dominated by desired perennial grasses, forbs, and have (on new and existing monitoring sites), that are a range of shrub cover. Associated herbaceous and dominated by native perennial vegetation and woody vegetation provides for plant communities that are desirable native plant species with high to
7
Resource Indicator Applicable Component of the Forest Plan Desired Site-Specific Desired Conditions Future Conditions diverse in seral status and structure and provide food and moderate erosion control potentials. habitat for wildlife, forage for livestock, and a variety of recreational opportunities and aesthetic values. B. Manage livestock grazing in aspen stands to ensure sprouting and sprout survival sufficient to Ashley F.P. – Maintain or improve all range in fair or better perpetuate the long-term viability of aspen condition class. clones.
Livestock Grazing Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Livestock grazing will be a Grazing levels will be adjusted and managed with an up- Management compatible use in each of the prescribed areas within to-date Allotment Management Plan (AMP) that will active allotments. It will be adjusted and managed to establish grazing systems and management based on maintain or improve watershed, terrestrial habitat, riparian the following objectives: and aquatic conditions and minimize conflicts with other uses. Vegetation will be at or moving toward desired A. The intensity & frequency of livestock grazing composition, structure and function. Structural will be controlled by managing the duration of improvements such as fences and water developments grazing in each grazing unit. Utilization should will be well maintained or removed if it is determined that be classified as moderate and not exceed they are not needed. Grazing permit holders will take full utilization standards (S24, S25 & S26) described responsibility for monitoring use, movement, and control of in the Revised Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan livestock to meet standards designed for resource (Forest Service 2003a, pp. 4-51 to 4-52). sustainability. Grazing systems will provide for rest or deferment of all areas for some portion of the rotation to B. Vary the time of year an area is grazed. achieve improved plant vigor and composition. C. Provide rangeland vegetation the opportunity to Wasatch-Cache F.P. - The importance of winter range in either grow before grazing or regrow after the Widdop Mountain area will continue to be recognized. grazing. Areas dominated by birchleaf mountain mahogany will be managed so that use of browse is at a level that not only provides for the continued maintenance of existing vegetation, but also provides for reproduction and replacement of decadent and dead individuals within the stands. The desired condition is to maintain browse utilization at less than 50% on mountain mahogany across the landscape, including all land ownerships.
Wasatch-Cache F.P. - Big game winter ranges along the Eastern North Slope of the Uintas will be maintained and enhanced with the goal of holding big game on the N.F. longer to help decrease impacts on private lands. Browse species age classes will be maintained with a higher
8
Resource Indicator Applicable Component of the Forest Plan Desired Site-Specific Desired Conditions Future Conditions proportion of older age classes than elsewhere to provide forage above the snow. Big game will continue to be monitored in coordination with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Wyoming Game and Fish Department to ensure population management prevents habitat deterioration.
Ashley F.P. – Prepare and implement a range allotment management plan for each grazing allotment.
The following table lists additional site specific objectives for the 2,745 acres of the Burnt Fork Allotment located on the Ashley N.F.
Table 2. Site-Specific Desired Conditions (Ashley N.F. Only) Applicable Component of the Resource Indicator Forest Plan Desired Future Site-Specific Desired Conditions Conditions Livestock Grazing Ashley F.P. – Prepare and A. For the Ashley N.F. portion, livestock utilization of key browse species on big Management implement a range allotment game winter range should be limited to 20% (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-33). management plan for each grazing allotment. B. In goshawk habitat (forested lands, including transitory openings created by timber harvest or fire), limit understory grazing utilization to an average of 20% by weight, not to exceed 40% on any specific site. Average browse utilization would be limited to 40% by weight, and would not exceed 60%. This guideline does not apply to non-forested habitat types (Forest Service 1986, Appendix CC – pp. CC 7-9).
9
The following items are designed to maintain or allow for improved range conditions on both upland and riparian sites:
Annual Meetings The intent of the annual meeting is to determine how livestock grazing will occur on the allotment for that year. The specific items to be covered are: 1) livestock class 2) livestock numbers, 3) grazing season, 4) unit sequence, 5) livestock distribution, 6) time of grazing, 7) range improvements, and 8) mitigation measures for other uses (i.e. special recreation events, vegetation/habitat treatments, etc.). These items will be developed into an Annual Letter of Instruction. The planning process will be based on current best management practices. Currently, these practices include time controlled grazing, which limits the duration of grazing which controls the intensity of grazing, and varies the timing of grazing and provides opportunities for plant growth before grazing or regrowth after grazing. Grazing impacts will be monitored and evaluated. Evaluations should include the previous year’s grazing, the amount of forage present, rate of plant growth, animal performance, wildlife needs, and mitigation measures for other uses. Identification of noxious weeds and any new populations of noxious weeds will also be discussed at the annual meeting.
Livestock Kind and Class Kind and class of livestock will be based in accordance with the term grazing permit. The kind of livestock listed on the term grazing permits is cattle and the class of livestock is cow/calf pairs. Class may be modified to improve management, and/or to improve resource conditions or to accomplish a specific resource objective. This may include substituting yearling cattle for cow/calf pairs to improve distribution and overall utilization. The effects of any adjustments to livestock class will be monitored and evaluated. If monitoring determines that resource objectives are not being met, then livestock class will be modified, or another adaptive management strategy implemented to ensure that resource objectives are met.
Livestock Numbers Livestock numbers will be based on the current permitted numbers, as listed on the term grazing permit. The Burnt Fork allotment is permitted for 182 cow/calf pairs and the Beaver Creek allotment is permitted for 125 cow/calf pairs. The entire Hickerson Park allotment is permitted for 300 cow/calf pairs. Livestock numbers may be adjusted due to resource conditions. This may include reductions due to drought, to accomplish specific vegetation treatments, or to improve resource conditions and management. Livestock numbers may also be adjusted to reflect changes, such as changes in areas grazed within the allotment. The effects of any adjustments to livestock numbers will be monitored and evaluated. If monitoring determines that resource objectives are not being met, then livestock numbers will be modified and/or other adaptive management strategies implemented to ensure that resource objectives are met.
Grazing Season The grazing seasons will be the seasons of use listed on the term grazing permits. The grazing season for the Burnt Fork allotment is between 6/26 to 9/30 and the season for the Beaver Creek allotment is from 7/5 to 9/10. The season of use for the U-W-C N.F. portion of the Hickerson Park allotment generally falls between 7/08 and 9/06. The grazing seasons may be adjusted due to resource conditions. This may include: reductions due to drought, to accomplish specific vegetation treatments, or to improve resource conditions and management. The grazing seasons may also be adjusted to reflect changes of areas grazed. Any adjustments to the grazing seasons will be monitored and evaluated. If monitoring determines that resource objectives are not being met, then the grazing seasons will be modified to ensure that resource objectives are met.
Unit Sequence The U-W-C portion of the Hickerson Park allotment is located within the Round Park pasture of
10 the Hickerson Park allotment; the U-W-C portion makes up approximately 15% of this pasture. Currently, the Ashley National Forest grazing strategy involves a multi-pasture rotational grazing system that grazes different pastures at different times from year to year. The Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek allotments currently use a rotation grazing strategy with a limited number of pastures, which are grazed at different times, from year to year. This alternative includes a multiple pasture rotation grazing strategy, for all allotments, that consists of following plant growth and development during the growing season. This usually involves starting in a low elevation unit, moving to the high elevation units, and then back down to the remaining low elevation units. The grazing strategy typically moves in a clockwise or counter-clockwise rotation. One year, the grazing strategy moves clockwise, the next year, it is counter-clockwise. The purpose of the clockwise/counter-clockwise rotation is to graze the different units at a different time of the year. Varying the time of year a plant is grazed provides some plants the opportunity to complete their growth cycle prior to grazing. Plants grazed early in the season are given the opportunity to regrow and complete their growth cycle after grazing. Unit sequence may be adjusted due to resource conditions. This may include: deferred use due to drought, to accomplish specific vegetation treatments, or to improve resource conditions and management. Unit sequence will be determined at the annual meeting. Any adjustments to unit sequence will be monitored and evaluated. If monitoring determines that resource objectives are not being met, then the unit sequence will be modified to ensure that resource objectives are met.
Livestock Distribution Livestock distribution will be optimized by managing livestock as a single herd within the permitted areas, thus limiting the size of an area grazed at any one time. Managing livestock as a single herd will force animals to use areas they would normally not use. The use of a herder, temporary electric fence, permanent barbed-wire fence, and existing topography as boundaries are examples of techniques used to limit areas grazed by livestock at any one time. The placement of watering structures and salt, in areas under utilized by livestock, are examples of techniques used to improve overall grazing distribution. All of these techniques are designed to cause livestock to graze the coarse less palatable forage they would normally not graze. Removing this coarse less-palatable forage allows plants the ability to produce more palatable forage in the form of regrowth during that same growing season or growth the following growing season. Increasing the availability of fresh, more palatable forage in lightly used or unused areas will improve grazing distribution for both wildlife and livestock. Improving distribution and limiting the duration of grazing will prevent over-grazing of preferred grazing sites. This will result in enhanced long-term health of forage producing plant communities on the allotment.
Time of Grazing The time in each unit will essentially depend on the current growth rate of forage plants. Time in each unit will be estimated at the annual meetings based on unit capacity and past use and incorporated into the Annual Operating Instructions. However, yearly fluctuations in growing conditions may call for Forest Service administrative adjustments during the grazing season to ensure that resource objectives are met. Livestock will be moved into the next unit when forage utilization standards are met, and/or when plants begin to regrow after being grazed by livestock and livestock are able to start grazing the regrowth. Units should be grazed once during the calendar year. Grazing intensity should be classified as moderate and not exceed utilization standards identified in the objectives.
Range Improvements This alternative includes the maintenance of all existing range improvements, i.e., spring developments, stock ponds, fences and stock trails, within the analysis area. Maintenance of existing range improvements will continue to be performed by the term grazing permit holder, as specified in their term grazing permit. This alternative also includes the reconstruction of range improvements. A range improvement structure will be reconstructed when it is determined that the structure is no longer functional, but still needed. During the reconstruction or maintenance of
11 range improvements, ground disturbance should be kept to a minimum and any areas disturbed should be reseeded. Native plant species that provide forage or cover to wildlife, protect soil, and prevent noxious weed infestations should be used. These activities will be discussed at the annual meetings.
Utilization monitoring across the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek allotments has shown some areas of uneven or patchy use, with certain areas receiving the bulk of the use and others receiving little to no use. While past grazing use has not exceeded Forest Plan utilization standards in areas preferred by livestock, it has limited the ability for those plants to regrow, by allowing for multiple defoliations of preferred sites. In order to improve the overall grazing distribution and provide rangeland vegetation the opportunity to either grow before grazing or regrow after grazing, the following range improvement projects are made part of this alternative:
Table 3. Proposed Range Improvements Map # Allotment Number Name Type Location Action 1 Burnt Fork 005146 Cow Hollow Pond SW ¼, Sec. Clean existing pond and add Middle Pond 5,T2N, R17E spring box, pipeline and tank. 2 Burnt Fork N/A Southeast of Fence NE ¼, Sec. *Construct a ¼ mile section of Beaver Res. 19, T2N, fence R17E 3 Burnt Fork N/A Southwest Fence NW ¼, Sec. *Construct a ¼ mile section of of Beaver 19, T2N, fence Reservoir R17E 4 Burnt Fork 5009 Burnt Fork Fence SW ¼, Sec. *Remove the old fence and 36, T3N, rebuild in alternate location R16E 5 Burnt Fork N/A Lower Cow Fence SW ¼, Sec. *Construct a gate and small Hollow 1, T2N, R16E gap fence less than a 1/32 of a mile 6 Burnt Fork N/A North Pond NW ¼, Sec. Construct pond to gather Widdop Mtn. 25, T3N, spring run off Pond R16E 7 Burnt Fork N/A Lower Pond SW ¼, Sec. Construct pond to gather Telephone 26, T3N, spring run off Hollow Pond R16E 8 Burnt Fork N/A Upper Pond NE ¼, Sec. Construct pond to gather Telephone 35, T3N, spring run off Hollow Pond R16E 9 Beaver N/A West of Fence NE ¼, Sec. *Construct a gate and small Creek Hoop Lake 9, T2N, R16E gap fence less than a 1/16 of a Fence mile 10 Beaver N/A Below Fence SW ¼, Sec. *Construct a ¼ mile section of Creek Georges 5, T2N, R16E fence Park Fence 11 Burnt Fork N/A Exclosure Fence NE ¼, Sec. Construct a small exclosure to 18, T2N, monitor and stabilize a R17E headcut that developed from recreational off -road ATV use. (This exclosure will be constructed and maintained by the F.S.) * Temporary electric fence will first be used in these locations. This temporary electric fence will be put up and taken down each year by the permittee. If it is determined that the electric fence is not adequate to control livestock on the allotment, then it will be replaced with a permanent barb-wire or post and pole fence.
12
Figure 2. Proposed Action Alternative - Range Improvement Map 6
7 8
4
1 10 5 9
11
3 2
The two types of water developments proposed include earth dam stock ponds and a spring collection system that will pipe water to tanks. Ponds will be located in areas where they have the highest probability to collecting runoff from snow melt and where the addition of a watering source would improve livestock distribution and overall utilization. The one spring development proposed is located on an existing stock pond site. This water development will be built to Forest Service specifications described in the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Services’ Range Structural Equipment Handbook for Livestock and Wildlife Watering Facilities (Bureau of Land Management 1989) and contain design features such as wildlife escape ramps and exclosure barriers that will allow wildlife to utilize the development without becoming injured. All of these water developments are designed to improve grazing distribution and utilization across the analysis area.
The proposed fences vary in length from what is essentially a gate to restrict livestock trailing, to a ¼ mile section of fence that prevents livestock from drifting between pastures. These fences will be designed as temporary electric fences, that will be put up and taken down each year by the permittee. The type of electric fence that will be used will be soft electric rope or ¼ inch wide electric tape, both are highly visible to wildlife. If it is determined that a section of electric fence is not adequate to control livestock and a permanent fence would allow for better control, then it will be replaced with a permanent barb-wire or pole fence. All fences will include gates on the major trails and roads to allow public access and design features described in the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Services’ Range Structural Equipment Manual for Fences (Bureau of Land Management 1988) that allow safe passage by wildlife. These fencing locations were selected in areas where the existing topography could assist in the control of livestock. By utilizing the existing topography as boundaries, fence construction and maintenance can be kept to a minimum and resource objectives can be obtained throughout the analysis area.
The proposed fences will create 14 pastures, compared to the current 7 pasture system, to
13 facilitate improved livestock distribution (see Figure 3).
All range improvements will be constructed to Forest Service specifications including design feature for wildlife such as, wildlife escape ramps for stock tanks and the appropriate height and spacing distances for barbwire fencing if constructed.
Additional range improvements may be identified in the future in order to continue implementing best management practices. If additional improvements are needed, (such as water developments or drift fences), over the course of the allotment management plan, the appropriate NEPA documentation and decision will be completed prior to construction.
Figure 3. Proposed Action Alternative - Pasture Boundary Map
Bone Gulch
Monitoring Monitoring is used to evaluate whether the prescribed management is meeting the objectives. If resource objectives are not being met on one analysis point, additional analysis should be conducted to determine the cause and extent of the situation. A small localized incident, limited to the confinements of one analysis point, should not affect management across the entire allotment or grazing unit, where the incident can be dealt with on a site specific basis.
Management actions are not limited to those listed and may include additional adaptive management strategies. Permit administration will be conducted in accordance with Forest Service Handbook direction (FSH 2209.13, Chapter 10, section 16).
Monitoring for the year will be discussed at the annual meeting. At that time, the specific monitoring for the year will be decided, as well as when it will be done. Since monitoring offers the opportunity to educate as well as learn, the Forest Service will offer to include the permittee in monitoring efforts. These opportunities will be discussed at the annual meeting. This alternative is designed to fully implement all current applicable Forest Plan direction.
14
Table 4. Burnt Fork C&H/Beaver Creek C&H/U-W-C Portion of the Hickerson Allotment Adaptive Management Plan (Proposed Action)
Resource Monitoring Trigger Adaptive Management* Indicator Site-Specific Desired Conditions (how/when/where)
Soil productivity A. Soils will be managed to ensure that A & B: How – monitoring A. The abiotic -Alter the amount of time abiotic characteristics are functioning will be conducted using characteristics are not an area is grazed (I.e. properly such as maintenance of the A- approved FS monitoring functioning properly. reduced due to over horizon, and the absence of pedastaling, techniques. Examples include: A- utilization, to accomplish a rills, gullies, sheet erosion, or soil When (long-term) – every horizon is not maintained; specific vegetation deposition. 10 years or when additional evidence of pedestaling, treatment, or to improve information is necessary to rills, gullies, sheet erosion resource conditions and B. Allow management activities to result in facilitate proper or soil deposition is management). no less than 85% of potential ground management and to occurring. -Alter livestock cover for each vegetation cover type (W- analyze the effectiveness of management (i.e., change C LRMP, p. 4-37). The desired condition the proposed management class or livestock; relocate is to provide for an upward/static trend for strategy. B. A downward trend is salting areas and trailing ground cover on the existing monitoring Where –Sites 11-4, 12-15, detected on the current routes to improve resource sites within the analysis area. Additionally, 12-18, & 14-53A. If these monitoring sites and/or a conditions and for any new monitoring sites established sites are no longer new monitoring site’s management). within the analysis area, ground cover representative (i.e. wildlfire, ground cover rating is -Alter the time of year an should fall within the range of ground etc.) at least 5% of the 87 found to be less than area is grazed (i.e., cover potentials (Wasatch-Cache Forest monitoring sites found 85% of its potential. deferred use due to Plan, page VII-1) for these major cover within the Analysis area. drought, exclude use to types listed below: improve resource Few Flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85%=69-82) conditions, or graze an Silver Sagebrush 89-96 (85%=76-82) area earlier or later in the Birchleaf Mt. Mahogany 86-95 (85%=73-81) year to accomplish a specific vegetation objective). -Implement range improvements projects (This would require further NEPA analysis). -Alter the numbers of livestock (i.e., reduced to improve management, to accomplish a specific vegetation treatment, or to improve resource conditions).
15
Resource Monitoring Trigger Adaptive Management* Indicator Site-Specific Desired Conditions (how/when/where)
Riparian Areas, A. Maintain or improve riparian areas to A & B &C: How – A&B: Hydrologic, -Alter the amount of time Springs, provide for healthy conditions with an monitoring will be vegetative, or erosion an area is grazed (I.e. Wetlands and upward/static trend, by maintaining conducted using approved deposition attributes (per reduced due to over Aquatic Habitats Properly Functioning Conditions (PFC) on FS monitoring techniques. PFC standard checklist) utilization, to accomplish a all streams. When (long-term) – every are not functioning specific vegetation 10 years or when additional properly. treatment, or to improve B. Riparian areas will have well vegetated information is necessary to resource conditions and stream banks with adequate deep-rooted facilitate proper management). vegetation and/or armoring along banks management and to -Alter livestock to allow for stream channel stabilization, analyze the effectiveness of C: The trend of late- management (i.e., change sediment filtering, erosion prevention and the proposed management seral vegetation, on class or livestock; relocate cool water temperatures. strategy. existing monitoring sites, salting areas and trailing Where – Sites 11-26 & 12- is no longer upward/static routes to improve resource C. Class I riparian areas maintaining 70% or 33. If these sites are no (i.e. trending downward) conditions and more late-seral vegetation communities, longer representative (i.e. and/or new monitoring management). Class II riparian areas maintaining 60% or wildlfire, etc.) at least 10% sites are below: -Alter the time of year an more late-seral vegetation communities, of the 21 monitoring sites - 70% in Class I area is grazed (i.e., and Class III riparian areas maintaining found within the Analysis - 60% in Class II deferred use due to 40% or more late-seral vegetation area. - 40% in Class III drought, exclude use to communities, (2003 Wasatch-Cache improve resource Forest Plan page 4-37). conditions, or graze an area earlier or later in the - There are no Class I riparian areas within year to accomplish a the project area listed in Appendix VII of specific vegetation the W-C FP. However, West Beaver objective). Creek, and Middle Beaver Creek, (from -Implement range the wilderness boundary to the Forest improvements projects boundary), East Beaver Creek, (from (This would require further Hoop Lake to the Forest boundary) and NEPA analysis). Thompson Creek (from Hoop Lake to the -Alter the numbers of wilderness boundary), are mapped as livestock (i.e., reduced to 3.1A management prescriptions. improve management, to Guideline 3.1A-2 allows livestock grazing accomplish a specific with the utilization standard for Class I vegetation treatment, or to riparian areas (2003 Wasatch-Cache improve resource Forest Plan page 4-69). Therefore these conditions).
16
Resource Monitoring Trigger Adaptive Management* Indicator Site-Specific Desired Conditions (how/when/where)
areas will be grazed with this utilization standard.
- In addition, the IDT applied Forest Plan direction that states: "Any stream with riparian dependent Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species is classified as a Class I riparian area." (2003 Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan Page VII – 2, Appendix VII). Riparian areas that contain Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species include: West Beaver Creek, Middle Beaver Creek, Thompson Creek, Kabell Creek, Burnt Fork and the tributary above Beaver Meadow Reservoir. Therefore these areas will be managed as Class 1 riparian areas.
- Class II managed riparian areas within the project area are: East Beaver Creek
- All riparian areas not identified above as Class I or II are Class III riparian areas. Uplands A. Maintain or improve rangelands to provide A &B: How – monitoring A: Species composition -Alter the amount of time for healthy conditions with species will be conducted using is trending downward an area is grazed (I.e. compositions, (on new and existing approved FS monitoring and/or is no longer reduced due to over monitoring sites), that are dominated by techniques dominated by native utilization, to accomplish a native perennial vegetation and desirable When (long-term) – every perennial vegetation and specific vegetation native plant species with high to moderate 10 years or when additional desirable native plant treatment, or to improve erosion control potentials. information is necessary to species with high to resource conditions and facilitate proper moderate erosion control management). B. Manage livestock grazing in aspen stands management and to potential. -Alter livestock to ensure sprouting and sprout survival analyze the effectiveness of management (i.e., change sufficient to perpetuate the long-term the proposed management class or livestock; relocate viability of aspen clones. strategy. B: Livestock use is salting areas and trailing Where – Sites 11-4 & 12- inhibiting aspen sprouting routes to improve resource C. For all woody vegetation, manage 15. If these sites are no and sprout survival. conditions and
17
Resource Monitoring Trigger Adaptive Management* Indicator Site-Specific Desired Conditions (how/when/where)
livestock grazing to perpetuate the long- longer representative (i.e. management). term viability of the species. wildlfire, etc.) at least 5% of B&C: Incidence of use -Alter the time of year an the 60 monitoring sites on terminal leaders area is grazed (i.e., found within the Analysis exceeds 50% deferred use due to area. drought, exclude use to improve resource conditions, or graze an area earlier or later in the year to accomplish a specific vegetation objective). -Implement range improvements projects (This would require further NEPA analysis). -Alter the numbers of livestock (i.e., reduced to improve management, to accomplish a specific vegetation treatment, or to improve resource conditions).
Livestock Livestock grazing levels will be adjusted and A &B&C: How – A: Utilization levels have -Alter the amount of time Grazing managed with an up-to-date Allotment monitoring will be exceeded: an area is grazed (I.e. Management Management Plan (AMP) that will establish conducted using approved -50% upland, aspen, and reduced due to over grazing systems and management based on FS monitoring techniques Riparian Class I utilization, to accomplish a the following objectives: to determine the number of -60% Crested Wheat specific vegetation A. The intensity & frequency of grazing will times a unit is defoliated, grass and Riparian Class treatment, or to improve be controlled by managing the duration of the degree of use a unit II & III resource conditions and grazing in each grazed unit (pasture). receives, and the amount of management). Utilization should be classified as time available for a unit to Greenline stubble height -Alter livestock moderate and not exceed utilization grow or regrow. at end of growing season: management (i.e. change standards (S24 & S25) described in the When (short-term) – every -Riparian Class I – no class or livestock; relocate Revised Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan year and/or every 5 years less than 5” salting areas and trailing (USDA Forest Service 2003a, pages 4-51 Where – In each grazed -Riparian Class I I– no routes to improve resource to 4-52). unit (pasture) in the less than 4” conditions and
18
Resource Monitoring Trigger Adaptive Management* Indicator Site-Specific Desired Conditions (how/when/where)
analysis area. -Riparian Class I II– no management). B. Vary the time of year an area is grazed. less than 3” -Alter the time of year an area is grazed (i.e., C. Provide rangeland vegetation the deferred use due to opportunity to either grow before grazing B: Pastures grazed drought, exclude use to or regrow after grazing. during the same time improve resource period year after year. conditions, or graze an area earlier or later in the C: Repeated use of the year to accomplish a same area throughout the specific vegetation grazing season. objective). -Implement range improvements projects (This would require further NEPA analysis). -Alter the numbers of livestock (i.e., reduced to improve management, to accomplish a specific vegetation treatment, or to improve resource conditions).
Livestock ASHLEY PORTION OF BURNT FORK A: How – monitoring will be A. Browse species Alter the amount of time an Grazing ALLOTMENT ONLY: conducted using approved utilization is found to area is grazed (I.e. reduced Management A. For the Ashley N.F. portion, livestock FS monitoring techniques. exceed 20% on big due to over utilization, to utilization of key browse species on big When (long-term) – every game winter range on accomplish a specific game winter range should be limited to 10 years or when additional the Ashley NF portion vegetation treatment, or to 20% (Ashley F.P. page IV-33). information is necessary to of the Burnt Fork improve resource facilitate proper Allotment. conditions and In goshawk habitat (forested lands, including management and to management). transitory openings created by timber harvest analyze the effectiveness of Understory forested -Alter livestock or fire), limit understory grazing utilization to the proposed management habitat type utilization management (i.e., change an average of 20% by weight, not to exceed strategy. is found to exceed class or livestock; relocate 40% on any specific site. Average browse Where –in each grazed unit 20% average salting areas and trailing utilization would be limited to 40% by weight, (pasture) within the Ashley utilization by weight, routes to improve resource and would not exceed 60%. This guideline NF portion of the Burnt Fork 40% on any specific conditions and
19
Resource Monitoring Trigger Adaptive Management* Indicator Site-Specific Desired Conditions (how/when/where)
does not apply to non-forested habitat types Allotment. site, and/or browse management). (Appendix CC – Ashley Forest Plan utilization exceeds -Alter the time of year an Amendment pages CC 7-9). 40% by weight or area is grazed (i.e., 60% total use. deferred use due to drought, exclude use to improve resource conditions, or graze an area earlier or later in the year to accomplish a specific vegetation objective). -Implement range improvements projects (This would require further NEPA analysis). -Alter the numbers of livestock (i.e., reduced to improve management, to accomplish a specific vegetation treatment, or to improve resource conditions).
* If short term or long term monitoring evaluations determine that livestock grazing is not allowing the desired conditions to be met and additional analysis has validated this determination and the extent of the affected area, then management actions will be taken accordingly once that determination is made. Those management actions may include one of or any combination of the adaptive management strategies.
20
Alternative 2 – No Grazing
Under this alternative, permitted livestock grazing would be eliminated within the analysis area. The permittees would be given two years advance notice of cancellation of the permit as provided for under 36 CFR 222.4(a)(1). Existing range improvements would be removed at Forest Service expense. The exception to this would be fences on the National Forest boundary which are privately owned and actually located on the private land side of the boundary. Livestock driveways and trails would not be maintained. Developed springs would be retained for wildlife use and would be maintained at Forest Service expense. The grazing permittees would be reimbursed for their portion of range improvements per 36 CFR 222.6(a).
Alternative 3 – No Action (management as described in existing AMPs)
Under this alternative, livestock grazing would continue to be permitted under current management (as described in each allotments AMP). This includes all applicable standards and guidelines from the current Land and Resource Management Plan, as well as any requirements from consultation under the Endangered Species Act or other legal requirements that have been added to the term grazing permit. The on-the-ground grazing management would be based on scattering livestock through a minimal number of pastures by riding and herding and maintaining resource conditions through implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines only. Range improvements would be maintained by the term grazing permit holders, as specified in the term grazing permit. No new range improvements would be constructed to implement better management. Monitoring and inventory data would be collected as needed. Changes to grazing management would be administrative only for permit violations and/or adjustments required due to unsatisfactory resource conditions. Livestock grazing would be authorized through the annual applications and grazing bills and would be based on the livestock numbers and season of use specified in the term grazing permits.
21
Figure 4. No Action Alternative - Pasture Boundary Map
Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan Direction Common to All Alternatives For the 33,350 acres located on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest the 2003 Revised Forest Plan sets forth management direction for managing the land and resources of the Wasatch- Cache National Forest, and among other things, describes management goals and objectives, resource protection methods, and desired resource conditions. The Forest Plan is the result of programmatic analysis, which is addressed in the Forest Plan FEIS (Forest Service 2003a). This environmental analysis incorporates applicable direction from the Revised Forest Plan.
The Proposed Action is a project-level analysis; its scope is confined to addressing the significant issues and possible environmental consequences of the project. Where appropriate, the Proposed Action tiers to the Forest Plan FEIS, as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20.
Chapter 4 of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Revised Forest Plan contains Forest-wide as well as area-specific management direction (Forest Service 2003a). Wasatch-Cache Revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines pertinent to this analysis are as follows:
Standards (S2) Apply runoff controls during project implementation to prevent pollutants including fuels, sediment, oils, from reaching surface and groundwater. (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-36)
(S3) Unclassified roads and trails will be administratively closed and rehabilitated. (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-36)
(S4) Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water. (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-36)
22
(S5) Prior to issuance of a permit or license for activities such as mining, hydropower development, snowmaking, or water transmission facilities, instream flow determinations will be required of all future permitted and licensed activities. For existing authorized uses and activities, minimum instream flows will be established to meet the beneficial use of the stream, and will be a condition of any licensing and permit renewal. (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-36)
(S8) In Lynx Analysis Units with current habitat at 30% or more in unsuitable condition, allow no vegetation management activities that would result in a further increase of unsuitable conditions. (Forest Service 2003a, Page 4-39)
(S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (See Appendix VII in the Forest Plan for potential ground cover values by cover type.) (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-37)
(S10) In Lynx Analysis Units allow no net increase in groomed or designated open over-the-snow routes or play areas. (Forest Service 2003a, Page 4-39)
(S24) As a tool to achieve desired conditions of the land, maximum forage utilization standards for vegetation types in satisfactory condition using traditional grazing systems (rest rotation, deferred rotation, season long) are as follows (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-51):
Forest Plan, Table S24: Percent utilization of key grass or grass like vegetation, by vegetation type, for rangelands in satisfactory condition. Vegetation Type Condition Percent Utilization Key Grass or Grass like Upland and Aspen Satisfactory 50 Crested Wheatgrass Satisfactory 60 Riparian* Class I Satisfactory 50 Riparian* Class II & III Satisfactory 60 *Riparian, away from greenline
(S25) As a tool to achieve desired conditions of riparian areas, maximum forage utilization standards (stubble height) for low to mid elevation greenline species in Class I, II, and III (see Forest Plan Appendix VII) riparian areas in satisfactory condition are as follows: (Key species being grazed include water sedge, Nebraska sedge, and and/or wooly sedge.) (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-51)
Forest Plan, Table S25. Greenline stubble height at the end of the growing season, by riparian class, for rangeland satisfactory condition. Riparian Class Condition Greenline Stubble Height at End of Growing Season Riparian Class I Satisfactory No Less Than 5” Riparian Class II Satisfactory No Less Than 4” Riparian Class III Satisfactory No Less Than 3”
(S26) For all rangelands, including big game winter range and riparian areas, permit no more than 50% of the current year’s growth on woody vegetation to be browsed during one growth cycle (i.e., when use has reached 50% allow no additional livestock use). ( Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-52)
Guidelines (G3) Proposed actions analyzed under NEPA should adhere to the State Nonpoint Source Management Plan to best achieve consistency with both Sections 313 and 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-37)
23
(G4) At the end of an activity, allow no more than 15% of an activity area to have detrimental soil displacement, puddling, compaction and/or to be severely burned. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4- 37)
(G5) Do not allow activities that could result in water yield increases that would degrade water quality and impact beneficial uses. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-37)
(G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-37)
(G9) Avoid soil disturbing activities (those that remove surface organic matter exposing mineral soil) on steep, erosive, and unstable slopes, and in riparian, wetlands, floodplains, wet meadows, and alpine areas. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-38)
(G11) Use Best Management Practices and Soil and Water Conservation Practices during project level assessment and implementation to ensure maintenance of soil productivity, minimization of sediment discharge into streams, lakes and wetlands to protect of designated beneficial uses. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-38)
(G12) Locate new actions (such as incident bases, fire suppression camps, staging areas, livestock handling facilities, recreation facilities, roads and improvements including trails) outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. If the only suitable location for such actions is within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, sites will be located to minimize resource impacts. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-38)
(G13) Any long-term crossing of stream channels containing fish habitat will provide for desirable aquatic passage. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-38)
(G15) In goshawk habitat design all management activities to maintain, restore, or protect desired goshawk and goshawk prey habitat including foraging, nesting and movement. (Forest Service 2003a, p.4-42)
(G18) In Lynx Analysis Units design all management activities to maintain, restore, or protect desired lynx and lynx prey habitats including foraging, denning and movement. (Forest Service 2003a, p.4-42)
(G21) For projects that may affect Forest Service Sensitive species, develop conservation measures and strategies to maintain, improve and/or minimize impacts to species and their habitats. Short-term deviations may be allowed as long as the action maintains or improves the habitat in the long term. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-43)
The following grazing management guidelines and management prescriptions described in the Wasatch Forest Plan may also be used when applicable to help manage livestock grazing on the U-W-C National Forest portion of the analysis area:
(G71) As a tool to achieve rehabilitation of upland, aspen, and riparian communities away from the greenline that are not meeting or moving toward objectives (i.e., in unsatisfactory condition), maximum allowed forage utilization will be 30 to 40 percent. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-52)
24
(G72) Modify grazing practices that prevent attainment of desired future conditions for vegetation and/or aquatic resources. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-52)
(G73) Delay livestock use in post-fire and post-harvest created forest openings until successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components occurs (aspen trees reach an average height of 6 feet). (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-52)
(G74) Stock driveways and trailing routes will be located outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas unless terrain and/or vegetation are prohibitive. When driveways and trailing routes must pass through Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, they will be located and livestock moved through them in such a way to minimize the extent and/or severity of potential damage caused by trailing. (Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-52)
(G75) Annual operating instructions (and/or Allotment Management Plans) should be evaluated and additional site-specific objectives defined if needed for any or all of the following five parameters: . stubble height on selected key species on the greenline, . stubble height on selected key species and/or the amount of bare ground within the riparian zone but away from the greenline, . riparian woody browse utilization (trees and shrubs), . stream bank trampling on key reaches, and . stubble height and/or incidence of use on key species in the uplands. ( Forest Service 2003a, p. 4-52)
Wilderness Standards (S) and Guidelines (G) MA-01-022 - (G) Grazing of livestock established prior to Sept. 1984 shall be permitted to continue, subject to regulations. Manage allotments to protect the wilderness resources. (FSM 2323.22)
MA-01-023 - (G) As wilderness AMPs are revised, include wilderness resource objectives.
MA-01-028 - (G) Coordinate management of livestock and recreation use to protect the wilderness character of the area.
MA-01-029 - (G) Regulate grazing use on and adjacent to heavily used recreation areas to prevent deterioration of the wilderness resource and minimize user conflicts.
MA-01-030 - (S) Allow predator control only when necessary to protect threatened or endangered species or to prevent special and serious losses of domestic livestock.
MA-01-031 - (S) Direct predator control at eliminating the offending animal(s) while presenting the least possible hazard to other animals or people.
MA-01-032 - (S) Allow no aerial predator control in the High Uintas Wilderness.
The Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan divides National Forest System lands into management areas based on resource needs and opportunities. The Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments and the U-W-C portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment are within the Eastern Uintas Management Area.
The analysis area is located within the following Management Prescriptions: 1.2 (Wilderness - Opportunity Class II), 1.3 (Wilderness - Opportunity Class III), 1.5 (Proposed Wilderness), 2.6 (Undeveloped Areas) 3.1a (Aquatic Habitat Emphasis), 3.2d (Terrestrial Habitat Emphasis –
25
Developed), 4.1 (Backcountry Non-Motorized Emphasis), 4.4 (Dispersed Motorized Emphasis), 5.1 (Maintaining/Restoring forested Ecosystem Integrity), and 5.2 (Timber Growth & Yield Emphasized). Within these management prescriptions, livestock grazing is allowed on open allotments to meet site-specifically defined desired conditions. In the 3.1A management prescription, grazing is allowed with a more restrictive utilization standard for Riparian Class 1 (Forest Service 2003a, pp. 4-65 to 4-73).
Ashley National Forest Plan Direction Common to All Alternatives For the 2,745 acres located on the Ashley National Forest the 1986 Forest Plan sets forth management direction for managing the land and resources of the Ashley National Forest. This environmental analysis incorporates applicable direction from the Ashley Forest Plan. The following Ashley Forest Plan standards and guidelines apply only to those lands located on the Ashley National Forest
Standards and Guidelines - Prevent damage to any significant cultural resource site (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-20).
- Identify and map elk calving areas, deer and antelope fawning areas, and sage grouse strutting and nesting areas for assessing cumulative impacts (Forest Service 1986, p IV-29).
- Provide appropriate aquatic and terrestrial habitat analysis input to all resource management activities (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-29).
- Resource management activities will be allowed if they will not adversely affect any T and E or sensitive species (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-30).
- Identify vacant niches and mitigate conflicts with other resources (Forest Service 1986, p. IV- 31).
- Rangelands in unsatisfactory condition and which will not or cannot be improved will not be allocated to livestock grazing (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-32).
- In goshawk habitat (forested lands, including transitory openings created by timber harvest or fire), limit understory grazing utilization to an average of 20% by weight, not to exceed 40% on any specific site. Average browse utilization would be limited to 40% by weight, and would not exceed 60%. This guideline does not apply to non-forested habitat types (Forest Service 1986, Amendment CC pp. CC 7-9).
- Locate range fences to allow for movement of people and to exclude livestock from areas of concentrated recreational use (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-32).
- Limit forage utilization by livestock of key browse species on big game winter range to 20% (Forest Service 1986, p. page IV-33).
- Improve rangeland classified as unsatisfactory where cost effective (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-32).
- Transitory range may be allocated to livestock (Management Areas b – Moderate Timber Production, d – High Forage Production, k – Maximum Water Yield Recreation, n – Range of Resource Uses & Outputs; Forest Service 1986, p. IV-32).
- Revise range allotment plans to be consistent with the Forest Plan (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-32).
26
- Priority for new range structural improvements will be to develop water sources where there are no available sources within one mile. Design for development will allow for use by game animals and birds (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-33).
- Give priority to restoring needed existing structural improvements before constructing new ones (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-33).
- Protect springs and seeps from grazing livestock where resource damage is occurring (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-33).
- Place additional responsibility and accountability on the permittees for livestock management and obtain at least 50 percent permittee participation in all range improvement construction costs (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-33).
- Control all group I noxious weeds and all group II noxious weeds as defined by Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200 (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-33; Forest Service 2003).
- Maintain or improve current stream channel stability ratings (FP page IV-37).
- Maintain and protect established watershed improvement projects until project objectives have been met (Forest Service 1986, p.IV-39).
- Maintain natural complexity and high relative productivity of riparian areas (FP page IV-45).
- Maintain capability of riparian areas to act as an effective sediment buffering zone in relation to upslope activities (Forest Service 1986, p.IV-45).
- Riparian areas will be given a high priority for rehabilitation in range improvements… (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-46).
- Manage vegetation in riparian areas to be in good or excellent ecological condition (DFC), with a stable or upward trend (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-46).
- Allow a maximum of 50% use of current year’s growth on browse species in riparian areas (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-46).
- Maintain the hiding and thermal cover qualities of forested riparian areas giving priority to the preservation of old growth for cavity dependent species, the preservation of hiding cover adjacent to mineral licks, wallows, and calving or fawning areas, and the preservation of hiding and thermal cover along waterways (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-45)
- Resource management. activities will be allowed if they will not adversely affect any TES (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-30)
- Manage the habitat of all TES animal species to maintain or enhance their status (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-30)
- Riparian areas are given high priority for rehabilitation in range improvement, fish and wildlife improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance, and KV programs (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-46)
The following grazing management guidelines and management prescriptions described in the Ashley Forest Plan may also be used when applicable to help manage livestock grazing on the Ashley National Forest portion of the analysis area:
27
- Place additional responsibility and accountability on the permittees for livestock management and obtain at least 50 percent permittee participation in all range improvement construction costs (p. IV-33)
- Riparian area dependant resources will be given preferential consideration in cases of unresolvable conflicts (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-45).
- Adjust allotment boundaries to reduce operating and management costs where possible (Forest Service 1986, p. IV-33).
- Where it is determined through the landscape assessment process that ungulate grazing is contributing to an indentified functioning-at-risk condition relative to habitat needed to support goshawk and its prey, modify grazing practices to maintain or restore the desired seed, mast, and foliage production defined in the landscape assessment process. Review success of the modifications annually. If modifications are not providing for the desired progression toward production objectives defined in the landscape assessment, modify practices through the next annual operating plan. (Northern Goshawk Forest Plan Amendment, Guideline X)
- Riparain areas are given high priority for rehabilitation in range improvement, fish and wildlife improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance, and KV programs (p. IV-46)
Standards and guidelines from the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000) that apply to grazing these allotments are listed below.
- Mange livestock grazing within riparian areas and willow carrs in lynx habitat to provide conditions for lynx and lynx prey.
- Maintain or move towards native composition and structure of herbaceous and shrub plant communities.
- Ensure that ungulate grazing does not impede the development of snowshoe hare habitat in natural or created openings within lynx habitat.
- Manage grazing in aspen stands to ensure sprouting and sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long term viability of aspen clones.
- Within the elevation ranges that encompass forested lynx habitat, shrub-steppe habitats should be considered as integral to the lynx habitat matrix and should be managed to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition.
- Within lynx habitat, manage livestock grazing in riparian areas and willow carrs to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition to provide for cover and forage for prey species.
The following direction from the LCAS may also be used when applicable:
- Do not allow livestock use in openings created by fire or timber harvest that would delay successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components. -
Table 5. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Issue/Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) (No Grazing) (Existing AMPs) Rangeland Health Maintain and /or improve Short-term improvement, Maintain current (Issue 1) rangeland health and possible long-term conditions.
28
productivity. stagnation dependent on wildlife herbivore selectivity. Threatened, Sensitive, No Threatened, Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1. or Proposed Sensitive Endangered, or Sensitive Plants Plant species are known to occur within the Allotments. Noxious Weeds No increase in noxious Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 weed infestations. All known noxious weed sites are being treated by chemical and/or mechanical methods, in accordance with applicable State and Federal Regulations. Soils Soil quality would be in Soil quality would be in Same as Alternative 1 good condition. good condition. No except that soil impacts to soils would disturbance associated Minimal soil disturbance occur from construction with construction of associated with of range improvements. range improvements construction of range would not occur. improvements would occur. Water Resources Streambank conditions Streambank conditions Current Management are expected to improve are expected to improve. would continue to meet with increased livestock No impacts from watershed standards. distribution and permitted livestock implementation of grazing activities. alternative water sources. Very little impact to water quality and floodplains is expected. Watershed standards would continue to be met. Fish and Aquatic Aquatic MIS: Colorado Aquatic MIS and Aquatic Aquatic MIS and Aquatic Species/Habitat Cutthroat Trout (W-C and Species: No impact Species: Same as (including riparian) ANF) Macroinvertebrates from permitted livestock Alternative 1. (Issue 2) (ANF only) - grazing activities. Implementation of the Riparian Habitat: Proposed Action will not Riparian Habitat: Riparian habitat would change the Forest-wide Riparian habitat would continue to be population trends for MIS continue to be maintained in species. maintained in satisfactory condition. Bonneville Cutthroat satisfactory condition. Trout (W-C and ANF) – Not within the Project Area.
Aquatic Species: Most water sources are in very good condition and it is expected that aquatic conditions will continue to maintain the aquatic habitat.
29
Riparian Habitat: Riparian habitat would continue to be maintained in satisfactory condition. Range improvements would help improve distribution and provide alternative water sources for livestock and wildlife. Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial MIS: Terrestrial MIS: Same Terrestrial MIS: Same (Issue 3) Northern Goshawk (W-C as Alternative 1. as Alternative 1. &ANF), Snowshoe Hare (W-c), Beaver (W-C), Threatened, Red-naped Sapsucker Threatened, Endangered, or (ANF), Mule Deer (ANF), Endangered, or Proposed Species: May Rocky Mountain Elk Proposed Species: affect, but not likely to (ANF) -Implementation of No effect to Canada adversely affect Canada Alternative 1 will not lynx. lynx. change the Forest-wide population trends for MIS Sensitive Species: species. Competition from Sensitive Species: permitted livestock for Benefits from the range Greater Sage Grouse, forage would cease. improvements would not Warbling vireo, Linon’s occur. Overall impact to Sparrow, Song Sparrow, sensitive species would Golden eagle, and White- Neotropical Migratory be the same as tailed ptarmigan (all ANF Birds: No impact. Alternative 1. MIS only) – these species do not have suitable habita Game Species: within the project area. Competition from Neotropical Migratory permitted livestock for Birds: Same as Threatened, Endangered, forage would cease. Alternative 1. or Proposed Species: Canada Lynx - May Game Species: affect, but not likely to Occasional short-term adversely affect. minimal displacement of wildlife by livestock Sensitive Species: movement and Wolverine , Rocky occupancy. Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Boreal Owl, Great Gray Owl, Northern Goshawk - May impact individuals, but is not likely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The proposed water sources would be a benefit to wildlife and improved distribution of livestock would lessen competition for forage.
30
Neotropical Migratory Birds: Little to no impact to nesting or foraging habitat.
Game Species: Occasional short-term minimal displacement of wildlife by livestock movement and occupancy. Proposed fencing would meet wildlife construction standards. Proposed ponds would provide additional water sources for wildlife.
Effects to Permittee Slight increase from Livestock management Livestock management (Issue 4) current level during initial activities, such as riding, activities would continue construction of range salting, herding and at the present level. improvements. Then maintenance of range Continue at present level improvement structures Number of water with a shift in the would cease on Forest developments: 3 workload from herding to Service administered existing water fence maintenance; no lands once the term developments; no discernable difference. grazing permits were additional water phased out. developments. Number of additional water developments: 6 Number of additional Miles of fenceline: 17 water developments water developments: miles of existing fence . maintained every 15-20 none. years – minimal impact to permittees after initial Miles of fenceline: no cost interior FS boundary or pasture boundary Miles of fenceline: 17 fenceline would be miles of existing fence – maintained by the minimal impact after permittee. initial cost and labor to Approximately 11 miles construct ~1 mile of new of exterior boundary fence and relocate fence would continue to portions of existing fence be maintained by the permittee.
Recreation/Wilderness Maintain current Recreationist/livestock Maintain current (Issue 5) Wilderness character and conflicts on Forest Wilderness character opportunity class. Service administered and opportunity class. lands would cease once Recreationist/livestock term grazing permits Maintain current conflicts on Forest were phased out. recreation experience. Service administered lands would decrease slightly with the implementation of additional pastures (i.e.
31
livestock would be in an area for a shorter duration decreasing likelihood of interaction) Environmental Justice Implementation of any alternative would not have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities or low-income individuals. No civil liberties would be affected.
Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study
Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14).
All alternatives developed by the interdisciplinary team are analyzed in detail. No additional alternatives were proposed by the public or were necessary to address issues or resource concerns; therefore, no alternatives were developed or dismissed from detailed study.
32
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIORNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Resource Specialist Reports in the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). These reports contain the detailed data, executive summaries, regulatory framework, assumptions and methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the resource specialists relied upon to reach conclusions in this EA.
This Chapter presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter II.
The analysis makes the following assumptions: • Analysis of effects was based on current or average levels of use. • If long-term or yearly monitoring determines that resource objectives are not being met, then grazing will be modified to ensure that resource objectives are met using an adaptive management strategy. • Current and accurate science was used and scientific uncertainty was disclosed if applicable.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Principle past, present/ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects or events must be considered to analyze cumulative effects. Past, present, and ongoing activities have resulted in the resource’s existing condition which is described by resource in this chapter. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are also considered. Not all projects or events on the list are applicable in order to analyze the cumulative effects of each resource. Only relevant projects or events will be discussed. Reasonably Foreseeable future actions, including ongoing activities that are anticipated to continue into the future are:
• Increasing Recreational Use on the Allotments - Recreational activities of various kinds include camping, hiking, horseback riding, ATV and vehicle traffic. These uses span the allotments and recreational use is increasing as the visitor populations grow.
• Livestock Grazing (including historic sheep and cattle grazing at level greater than present management) and associated infrastructure (fences, water impoundments, etc). Heavy grazing across these allotments in the early 1900s likely resulted in a loss of topsoil and reduced site productivity. In addition, livestock grazing continues in most areas surrounding these allotments including privately owned lands.
• Road use and maintenance (approximately 19 miles of FS system roads in the Beaver allotment and 14 miles of FS system roads in the Burnt Fork allotment). A fish passage at road crossings assessment was conducted in 2006 on most Forest culverts including the eight found on these allotments. Of these eight, four culverts were identified as a barrier to fish passage blocking approximately 21 miles of stream (Chase et al. 2006). In 2009, two of these culverts were replaced to allowing fish passage to13.2 miles of stream. The largest barrier remaining is on Thompson Creek in the Burnt Fork Drainage. Whirling disease is present below the barrier but not above, so this barrier will be left in place for now. In addition, a number of non-motorized trail occur throughout these drainages. As with the roads, most of these are located away from streams and include adequate buffers.
• Trail use and maintenance (approximately 12 miles of FS system trails in the Beaver allotment, 27 miles in the Burnt Fork allotment, and 1 mile in the U-W-C portion of the 33
Hickerson allotment).
• Aquatic management (non-native fish introductions). Brook trout continue to have impacts to CRCT in the Beaver Creek Drainage. Brook trout are well established in the drainage and likely influence CRCT populations through predation and competition. This population of brook trout will likely continue to expand and likely represents the greatest threat to CRCT in the Beaver Creek Drainage.
• Personal use fuelwood collection, pole and post and Christmas tree harvesting
• Vegetation Management Projects – The UWC NF is proposing a sagebrush project around Hoops Lake. On the Flaming Gorge District, the ANF is proposing the North Flank Vegetation Management Project which would salvage dead trees on ~1,296 acres and commercially thin ~ 524 acres within Cow Hollow area. Restoration and maintenance of aspen on 510 acres. Prescribed fire on ~4,100 acres. A portion (approximately 2 units) are within the project area.
Physical Environment
Topography
The Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, and Hickerson Park Allotments are located on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. The elevation of the allotments varies from just over 8,000 feet near Widdop Mountain on the northern end to nearly 11,000 feet near Fish Lake.
The broad core of the Uinta Mountains consist of late Pre-Cambrian brick red to purplish red beds of quartzite, sandstone and shale that were formed over a billion years ago under primarily marine conditions that persisted until uplift and building of the Uinta Mountains began about 65 million years ago. Many of the landforms found in the Beaver, Thompson, and Burnt Fork valleys are derived from multiple periods of glacial advance and retreat. The landforms change markedly in the northern end of the allotments where a series of parallel hogback ridges occur. These hogbacks, or cuestas, are composed of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian aged limestone, sandstone, and shale marine deposits and remain largely intact and unaffected by glacial activity. The north facing slopes on these ridges are steeply sloped scarps where the interbedded marine rocks are exposed, with distinctive vegetation patterns matching the different underlying geologic deposits and associated soil types. The south facing slopes on the hogback ridges are composed of less steep dip slopes, usually capped by a layer of Pennsylvanian aged limestone and covered with Douglas fir forests.
Successive periods of glacial scouring of the upper basins, and the subsequent deposition of this material into moraines and other glacial landforms, have greatly affected soil development within the allotment and subsequent vegetative distribution. For example, soils derived from sandstone and shale formations are relatively infertile and produce less forage. The steepness of slope and aspect are also found to directly influence water availability and subsequent vegetative distribution. Topography has an indirect affect on plant distribution by allowing a deposition or accumulation of snow that remains into the growing season. Helm (1982) found that vegetation on north and south aspects can vary in alpine snowbed communities. The aspect of the slope also affects duration of exposure to sunlight and subsequent water availability. The angle or degree of slope affects water availability by influencing where water will accumulate or how quickly it will be moved off site. Slope stability can also influence vegetative distribution. Steep slopes are usually related to instability of substrate and support species adapted to this instability (Brown 2006). Glaciers played a major role in forming the topography of the landscape at the coarse scale and directly influenced plant growth and distribution at finer scales (Brown 2006). 34
The climate for the allotment is described as a continental mountain climate. Annual precipitation may vary from a low of 15 inches per year on the lower northern end of the allotment to a high of 51 inches per year on the southern end in the upper elevations of the Uinta Mountains. The average annual precipitation for the entire allotment is 20 to 40 inches (NOAA 2009a). Precipitation occurs from winter snowfall and summer thunderstorm activities. Most of the precipitation falls as snow between the months of October and April; however thunderstorms generally occur in the summer from July to early August. Thunderstorms generally occur as a cloudburst that may drop heavy precipitation along a narrow path (Ashcroft et al. 1992). On average a 30 minute storm will produce 0.35 inches of water on the allotment.
In addition to precipitation patterns, other climatic factors affecting plant growth and distribution include temperature, extreme wind conditions, duration and depth of snow, freeze-thaw cycles and sunlight availability. This allotment is predominantly populated with cool season plants. Growth begins for cool season plants when the ground temperature reaches 42 degrees Fahrenheit. For example, alpine ecosystems are characterized by a low mean air temperature which keeps the ground colder for a longer period of time, shortening the growing season and limiting plant distribution to those species that can adapt to this shorter growing season. In addition, snow can act as an insulating layer, keeping ground temperatures below 42 degrees Fahrenheit and limiting sunlight availability. The length of time snow remains in place and how it comes off is indirectly dependant on annual variations in air temperature, sunlight, wind, and snow depth. Extreme winds can have a direct effect on plant distribution and growth. Brown (2006) noted that, “Alpine vegetation is often low-growing, mat-forming, or dwarfed due to frequent high winds.” Freeze-thaw cycles also influence vegetative distribution. This cycle creates frost boils, hummocks and has been attributed to forming assorted rock patterns (Corte 1963; Washburn 1956). The amount of sunlight a particular area receives also influences plant distribution. Slope aspect and above ground canopy cover are two variables that influence sunlight availability.
Slight differences caused by these environmental factors create numerous microhabitats scattered throughout the allotment. These environmental factors play a major role in defining current species composition, cover and production found within each microhabitat. This will be discussed further in the Soils and Rangeland Health sections. Soils
Basic soil resource information for the non-wilderness portions of the allotment can be found in the unpublished Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) for the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains (Forest Service 1995). Soil types within this SRI were mapped at a Level III level of detail, with soils identified as associations and complexes of soil families.
There are twenty four soil types found on the allotments. These soil types are put together in various combinations based upon slope, glacial geology/landform, and micro-climate to produce the eighteen soil map units found on the allotment. The relationships between soil type, soil map unit, glacial geology, landform, micro-climate, and native vegetation are described in Table 6.
Table 6. Soil Types and Characteristics Soil Name Acres Location Dominate Native Vegetation Burnt Beaver Fork* Creek UT647_NS102 7 540 Lower sideslopes Lower sideslopes: Mt. big sagebrush, Sessions-Furniss and bottoms of Idaho fescue, needlegrass Families Assn. meadows Bottoms: silver sage, willow, tufted hairgrass, beaked sedge
35
Soil Name Acres Location Dominate Native Vegetation Burnt Beaver Fork* Creek UT647_NS104 510 834 Terraces and Terraces: Mt. big sagebrush, Idaho Foxcreek-Turson- floodplains along fescue, needlegrass, sedges Monchego Families streams Floodplains: willow, tufted hairgrass, Assn. beaked sedge UT647_NS105 551 232 Colluvial Mt. big sagebrush, bluegrass, Widstoe-Windham toeslopes under needlegrass, mountain brome, and Familes Assn. limestone and arrowleaf balsamroot Same as ANF NF4 sandstone cuestas UT647_NS202 467 0 Kettles and Alpine timothy, plantain, redtop, silver Redlodge-Plimpton drainages cinquefoil, tufted hairgrass, yarrow Families Complex UT647_NS205 272 0 Dry alpine Bistort, alpine timothy, plantain, Hoodle Family meadows erigeron, tufted hairgrass, yarrow UT647_NS208 68 0 Outwash fans Mt. big sagebrush, Idaho fescue, Fourmile Family and stream needlegrass terraces UT647_NS221 0 114 Ground moraines Lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, grouse Duchesne Family, Cold whortleberry, heartleaf arnica UT647_NS223 0 372 Ground moraines Lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, grouse Duchesne Family, Cold whortleberry, heartleaf arnica UT647_NS225 2,453 2,167 Ground moraines Lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, grouse Duchesne-Mirror Lake on upper whortleberry, heartleaf arnica Families, Cold phase sideslopes UT647_NS233 1,152 2,259 Knob and kettle Lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, currant, Mirror Lake-Cluff moraines common juniper, grouse whortleberry, Families Assn. heartleaf arnica, lupine UT647_NS238 1,402 155 Knob and kettle Knobs: Lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, Duchesne, Cold- moraines grouse whortleberry, heartleaf arnica Furniss-Senchert Kettles: silver sage, willow, tufted Families hairgrass, beaked sedge
UT647_NS310 0 566 Residual Lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, currant, Seitz-Cluff Familes Pediments common juniper, grouse whortleberry, Assn. heartleaf arnica, lupine UT647_NS312 0 682 Residual Lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, currant, Seitz-Cluff Familes Pediments common juniper, grouse whortleberry, Assn. heartleaf arnica, lupine UT647_NS350 349 242 Lower sideslopes Lodgepole pine, ross sedge, grouse Afflack-Duchesne and valley floors whortleberry, heartleaf arnica Families Assn. on residual Same as ANF GP1 pediments UT647_NS351 3,735 0 Residual Columbia needlegrass, common Duchesne-Mirror Lake- pediment juniper, heartleaf arnica, lodgepole pine, Teewinot families dipslopes and lupine, pinegrass complex south facing Same as ANF GP2 sandstone scarpslopes UT647_NS480 127 0 Dipslopes on Douglas fir with an understory of Condie gravelly loam limestone snowberry, Oregongrape, Cuestas mountainlover, wheatgrasses, bluegrass, and elk sedge UT647_NS485 1,122 1,200 South facing Gany&Richollow- aster, big sagebrush, Gany-Richollow- scarp slopes on columbine, mountain brome, mountain Geemore Families limestone snowberry, slender wheatgrass, sticky Assn. cuestas geranium 36
Soil Name Acres Location Dominate Native Vegetation Burnt Beaver Fork* Creek Same as ANF NF3 Geemore- Woods' rose, birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain brome, serviceberry, slender wheatgrass, snowberry, wheatgrass UT647_NS486 609 1,208 South facing Columbia needlegrass, hawksbeard, Monida-Mult-Teeler scarp slopes of mountain big sagebrush, mountain Familes Complex interbedded brome, mountain snowberry, sheep Same as ANF NF12 shale, sandstone, fescue, slender wheatgrass, sticky and limestone geranium, yarrow
UT647_NS487 2,007 4,691 North facing dip Douglas-fir, Oregongrape, bluebunch Telcher-Tamarron- slopes of wheatgrass, mountain brome, mountain Charpeak Families interbedded snowberry, slender wheatgrass Assn. shale, sandstone, Same as ANF NF1 and limestone UT647_NS488 267 1,525 Tree covered Frisco- Columbia needlegrass, Frisco-Kingmine-Trout south facing Engelmann spruce, Letterman's Creek Families Assn. slopes on needlegrass, elderberry, gooseberry Same as ANF NF2 limestone currant, heartleaf arnica, lupine, cuestas pinegrass, sticky geranium, subalpine fir, white fir Kingmine- Douglas-fir, Oregongrape, bluebunch wheatgrass, mountain brome, mountain snowberry, slender wheatgrass Trout- Columbia needlegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, Oregongrape, common juniper, quaking aspen, slender wheatgrass UT647_NS501 187 0 Alpine residual Lodgepole pine, englemann spruce, Talus-Rock Outcrop- pediments sub-alpine fir, ross sedge, grouse Mirror Lake , Cold, whortleberry, heartleaf arnica Families Assn., 10 to 40% UT647_NS502 214 0 Alpine residual Lodgepole pine, englemann spruce, Talus-Rock Outcrop- pediments sub-alpine fir, ross sedge, grouse Mirror Lake , Cold, whortleberry, heartleaf arnica Families Assn., 40 to 80% UT647_NS520 621 0 Alpine Ridgetops Engelmann Spruce, lodgepole, curly Mirror Lake, Cold and plateaus sedge, cushion plant community Family-Talus-Rock Outcrop/ UB6 UT647_NS740 234 8 Low elevation bluebunch wheatgrass, bottlebrush Dahlquist very cobbly alluvial fan squirreltail, Letterman needlegrass, sandy loam terraces needleandthread, antelope bitterbrush, and big sagebrush UT647_NS743 17 0 Low elevation black sagebrush, bluebunch Harpole very stony alluvial fans wheatgrass, prairie junegrass, sandy loam bluegrass, and stemless goldenweed UT647_NS744 0 11 Low elevation Luhon- bluebunch wheatgrass, Luhon-Hickey-Heath glacial moraines muttongrass, prairie junegrass, complex Luhon –Knolls needleandthread, common stonecrop, Hickey- rock goldenrod, black sagebrush, and Sideslopes fringed sagewort Heath – Concave Hickey- black sagebrush, bluebunch
37
Soil Name Acres Location Dominate Native Vegetation Burnt Beaver Fork* Creek snowdrift areas wheatgrass, bluegrass, and prairie junegrass Heath- western wheatgrass, Columbia needlegrass, bluegrasses, and mountain big sagebrush UT647_NS749 163 0 Low elevation Luhon-bluebunch wheatgrass, Luhon-Evanston hills thickspike wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, complex Luhon-West and needleandthread, and big sagebrush north facing Evanston- thickspike wheatgrass, slopes bluebunch wheatgrass, Evanston –East needleandthread, and big sagebrush facing swales and snowdrift areas *Includes soil map units and acreages for Hickerson Park area of the Ashley National Forest
As Table 6 indicates, the geology and soils have a strong influence on the vegetation found in any area on the allotment. Correlations between flora and geology are discussed further in the Rangeland Health section.
In the 1960s, range condition surveys were conducted for these allotments. Results of these surveys indicate that there were about 240 acres of “poor soil condition areas” identified within the sagebrush vegetation types of the allotments. These areas were located between Hoop Lake and Beaver Creek on extremely steep slopes with predominately southern and southwestern facing aspects. The Gany and Richhollow soils associated with these steep landforms are very rocky and shallow to either limestone or shale bedrock. It is likely that the poor soil conditions identified in the 1960 range trend and condition surveys are in reality more associated with the droughtiness and limited productivity potential associated with these soil types than with actual grazing impacts. The remainder of the vegetation types in these allotments had soil conditions that ranged approximately equally between fair, good and excellent.
During the summer of 2009, the Soil Scientist for the UWC NF evaluated the existing soil quality conditions. A variable length step survey method was used within capable range portions of the allotment that were likely to be used by livestock. The presence of any of the following ground cover characteristics were noted at each sample point: 1) vegetation or litter, 2) rock, 3) bare soil associated with gopher activity, and 4) bare soil resulting from causative agents. Descriptions and maps of transect location, length, and vegetation types are contained in the project record (Flood 2009a).
Vegetation and litter cover ranged from 62 to 98% cover. Bare soil associated with gopher activity ranged from 0 to 15% of the transect sample points. Areas containing bare soil that could not be associated with any specific causative agent ranged from 0 to 23% of the transect sample points. Ground cover data for each transect is summarized in Table 7. All transects met minimum ground cover standards, as referenced in the Revised Forest Plan (RFP), for the specific vegetation community.
Table 7. Summary of 2009 Ground Cover Transect Monitoring Data Percent of Ground Cover in Vegetation Vegetation and Bare Soil Bare Soil Allotment Type Transect # Litter Combined Rock (gopher) (other) Beaver Sage-grass 01040809t 74 14 1 11 Cr. Beaver Black sage 02040809t 79 9 4 8 38
Percent of Ground Cover in Vegetation Vegetation and Bare Soil Bare Soil Allotment Type Transect # Litter Combined Rock (gopher) (other) Cr. Beaver Aspen-forb 03040809t 98 1 1 0 Cr. Beaver Dry meadow 04040809t 93 0 3 4 Cr. Burnt Sage-grass 05040809t 69 8 0 23 Fork Burnt Sage-grass 06040809t 78 8 3 11 Fork Burnt Black sage 07040809t 88 4 0 8 Fork Burnt Sage-grass 08040809t 62 24 0 14 Fork Burnt Sage-grass 01050809t 72 3 6 19 Fork Burnt Dry meadow 02050809t 85 0 15 0 Fork Source: Flood, P. 2009a.
Overall existing soil quality was found to be in good condition for the areas surveyed throughout the allotments. A small area of lower than expected ground cover was observed along a terrace above Burnt Fork Creek where cattle trail between the Bone Gulch and the Forks pastures.
In addition, the abiotic characteristics of long-term upland monitoring sites were also evaluated. Characteristics evaluated included the maintenance of the A-horizon, and the presence or absence of pedestaling, rills, gullies, sheet erosion or soil deposition. This evaluation concluded that overall soil surface conditions on the allotment are healthy and functioning properly (Table 10; McConkey 2010).
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Soils
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action Because existing soil quality was found to be in good condition for the areas surveyed throughout the allotment, overall soil surface conditions on the allotments would remain healthy and functioning properly under alternative 1. Soil condition trend would remain stable, and all Forest Plan (soils related) standards, guidelines would be met and overall soil conditions would continue to move slowly towards the desired future condition.
Minor improvements in fencing (see Figure 2; & Table 3) and changes in pasture rotations should be sufficient to restore effective amounts of ground protecting cover in the area of poor ground cover observed on the terrace above Burnt Fork Creek between Bone Gulch and the Forks pastures. Other range improvements are part of the proposed action, including small pond and fence construction at several locations throughout the allotments. Fence construction will disturb a very small amount of soil where the holes for the fence posts are dug. Pond construction will disturb less than ¼ of acre at each of the four proposed locations. Disturbance will occur in the form of displaced topsoil as the pond is excavated and excavated material formed into a berm. Although the majority of disturbance will occur in dry upland soils, a very small amount of wetlands (less than 100 square feet) will be disturbed by the installation of a spring collection box and distribution pipe. This disturbance will be very short term as the moist and fertile character of the wetland soils affected will allow for quick revegetation and restoration of the area to pre- disturbance conditions. Total soil disturbance for all range improvements is estimated to be less than 1 acre in size. 39
Alternative 2 -No Grazing As with both of the action alternatives, overall soil surface conditions on the allotment would remain healthy and functioning properly under alternative 2. Soil condition trend would remain stable, and all Forest Plan (soils related) standards, guidelines would be met and overall soil conditions would continue to move slowly towards the desired future condition. Alternative 2 would result in improved vegetation vigor and more ground cover, more ground cover, and slowly improving trend in soil condition. Over the long term, it is possible that vegetation vigor and ground cover would decrease as plants reach maturity and stagnate or decline. In this event, the slow improving trend in soil condition would stabilize.
The majority of disturbance will occur in dry upland soils. Fence removal would disturb a very small amount of soil where the holes for the fence posts are dug. This disturbance will be longer term as the dry and infertile character of the upland subsoil affected will allow for slower revegetation and restoration of the area to pre-disturbance conditions. Some short term soil disturbance would occur as trucks and heavy equipment is used to access the improvements for removal purposes. There would also be some soil disturbance associated with removal of spring developments (i.e. tanks and spring boxes). Soil disturbance associated with the improvements proposed under alternative 1 would not occur.
Alternative 3- No Action (management as described in existing AMPs) Because existing soil quality was found to be in good condition for the areas surveyed throughout the allotments, overall soil surface conditions on the allotments would remain healthy and functioning properly under alternative 3. Soil condition trend would remain stable, and all Forest Plan (soils related) standards, guidelines would be met and overall soil conditions would continue to move slowly towards the desired future condition. Because there would not be any improvements in fencing nor changes in pasture rotations, the small, isolated area of poor ground cover observed on the terrace above Burnt Fork Creek between Bone Gulch and the Forks pastures would remain in poor condition.
Soil disturbance associated with the improvements proposed under alternative 1 would not occur.
Cumulative Effects to Soils The scope of the cumulative analysis identifies key issues, the geographic area, time frame for analysis, and other actions affecting the resources of concern. The cumulative effects issue related to soil resources is that certain past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management activities have the potential to create disturbances to soils. These disturbances could consist of detrimental amounts of erosion or compaction. The indicator for cumulative effects is the kind and amount of detrimental disturbance observed, predicted, or anticipated from the various types of management activities that have the potential to create disturbances to soils. The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative effects to soils will be the individual activity areas represented by the grazing allotment pastures. The time frame for the analysis of reasonably foreseeable actions is about 10 years, which represents the approximate length of time the term grazing permits. The time frame for the analysis of past actions is about 100 years.
Other actions that may have an influence on soil resources within the cumulative effects analysis area are listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions section of the environmental assessment document. Historically, sheep and cattle grazing have occurred in the allotments at levels greater than what is currently being proposed. Recreational activities of various kinds span the allotments, and recreational use is increasing as the resident and visitor populations grow. Past timber harvest consisted of tie-hack operations during the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries. There are no current or future proposed timber harvest activities proposed within the allotments.
40
Several effects may occur from other activities occurring within the cumulative effects area. Generally, past levels of historic over-grazing may have caused erosion and sedimentation by shearing soil and leaving bare surface soil that can erode during storm events. Recreation uses create impacts on soil quality associated with the establishment of dispersed camp sites and user-developed ghost roads accessing these sites, legal and illegal ATV use, and general foot, horse, and vehicle traffic. Motorized roads and trails have the potential to erode during storm events that may cause sedimentation of streams if they are close by. Dispersed recreation may cause detrimental amounts of soil disturbance and trampling that could lead to accelerated soil erosion. Recreation uses intersect and contribute cumulatively where similar impacts are occurring due to grazing.
At this time, soil conditions on the allotments were observed to be healthy and functioning properly, indicating that the effects on soils from past overgrazing have stabilized. Therefore, current grazing activities are seen as having little or no effects upon the soil resources in the allotment pastures.
Sheep and cattle grazing resulted in high impacts to soil resources from the late 1800s until the 1930s when active grazing management took effect in the area. Since then, improvement in land conditions has occurred as indicated by increased ground cover and absence of active soil erosion in most areas within grazing allotments. Implementation of the Proposed Action or its alternative would have little or no cumulative effects on the improvement of soil quality that has been occurring as a result of past livestock number reductions within the vegetation communities of the allotment pastures.
Motorized and dispersed recreation uses are concentrated around Beaver Meadow and Hoop Lake, and along Forest Roads 078, 079, and 082. The principal effects to soil quality from these features and activities are detrimental amounts of soil compaction and soil erosion. It is anticipated that these effects will increase over time as forest recreation increases in the cumulative effects analysis area. Because these areas only have a very limited intersection with where domestic livestock grazing actually occurs in these pastures, implementation of the Proposed Action or its alternative will have little or no cumulative effects on the detrimental soil compaction and erosion that occurs now or in the future as a result of motorized road/trail usage and dispersed recreation activities. Where past motorized recreation uses have degraded soil conditions, as in the eastern end of Lost Creek park, implementation of fencing proposed under alternative 1 would prevent cumulative damages to the wetland seep area from incidental livestock grazing there, and hasten the recovery of the degraded soil and vegetation conditions.
The effects of historical timber harvest on soil quality have dissipated over time and become undetectable. Since there are no longer any direct or indirect impacts to soil quality from past timber harvest activities, there will be no cumulative effects resulting from the Proposed Action or its alternative.
Applicable Revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Soil conditions were evaluated to determine compliance with applicable standards and guidelines defined in the Revised Forest Plan. Results of this analysis are as follows:
Standard (S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (See Appendix VII in the Forest Plan for potential ground cover values by cover type.) (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-37)
The Revised Forest Plan intended for this standard to be applied to only Rangeland Cover Types. Ground cover ranges at potential for the range vegetation types found in the allotment are listed in Appendix VII of the Revised Forest Plan (Forest Service 2003) and in Tables 4 through 6 of the First Year Forest Plan Monitoring Report (Forest Service 2004). Site specific monitoring of ground
41 cover indicates that current vegetation/litter/rock ground cover conditions range from 62% to 98% on sites with vegetation types such as Wyoming big sage, black sage, and riparian communities utilized by cattle. A portion of the observed bare soil conditions were due to gopher activity, and are considered to be an inherent property of this vegetation cover type (Goodrich 2006). Bare soil due to other causative agents, which includes grazing activities but is not solely attributed to grazing, ranged from 0% to 23%, indicating that Forest Plan standard S7 is being fully met under current terms and conditions for grazing on these allotments. This is discussed further in the Ecological Status and Trend section.
Guideline (G4) At the end of an activity, allow no more than 15% of an activity area to have detrimental soil displacement, puddling, compaction and/or to be severely burned. (Forest Service 2003, page 4-37)
This guideline is intended to be applied to soil disturbances that result from management activities only. Soil displacement, puddling, compaction, or burning from inherent, natural processes is not considered to be detrimental for the purpose of applying this guideline.
Ground cover transects conducted within the pastures reveal that the primary causative agent in producing disturbed and barren soils is gopher burrowing and casting, an inherent, natural process that can occur anywhere there is a sufficient depth of insulating snow to produce a sub- nivean environment. Because it is a natural feature of these pastures, soil displacement produced by this activity should not be considered a detrimental soil disturbance for the purpose of evaluating the effects of proposed management activities.
Bare soil due to grazing activity can result in detrimental soil displacement (erosion) or compaction. Neither soil compaction nor erosion conditions were noted along the during soil quality monitoring along the ground cover transects, indicating that Forest Plan guideline G4 is being met.
Guideline (G9) Avoid soil disturbing activities (those that remove surface organic matter exposing mineral soil) on steep, erosive, and unstable slopes, and in riparian, wetlands, floodplains, wet meadows, and alpine areas. (Forest Service 2003, page 4-38)
Unstable slopes are not a common feature on this allotment. Steep and erosive slopes are found on the dip and scarp slope topography along the both the North and South facing sides of limestone/sandstone cuestas located in the northern pastures of the allotments. The gradient of some of most of these slopes exceeds 50%, and as such these areas are not considered to be part of the capable range acres for this allotment. Also, the steep upper portions of these slopes are generally not utilized by cattle due to lack of nearby water, and as such very little livestock grazing occurs on these very steep portions of these landforms. Although riparian and alpine areas are part of the suitable/capable grazing acres for this allotment, monitoring of soil quality conditions detected little or no detrimental disturbance associated with cattle trailing or grazing in these areas. Monitoring results from Table 6 show that bare soil conditions associated with grazing are generally not found within the wet and dry meadow areas surveyed, indicating that Forest Plan guideline G9 is being met.
Guideline (G11) Use Best Management Practices and Soil and Water Conservation Practices during project level assessment and implementation to ensure maintenance of soil productivity, minimization of sediment discharge into streams, lakes and wetlands to protect of designated beneficial uses. (Forest Service 2003, page 4-38)
Best management practices currently being implemented include: 1) controlling the intensity of grazing by managing the duration of grazing, 2) varying the time of grazing, and 3) providing rangeland vegetation the opportunity to either grow before grazing or regrow after grazing. Site
42 specific management practices include: avoiding concentrated use and subsequent soil disturbance by limiting the duration and placement of bedding and salting areas, and locating these areas away from water sources. Forest Plan guideline G11 is being met. Rangeland Health (Issue 1)
Ecological Status and Trend Range analysis has been recorded within the analysis area since the 1960s. A variety of monitoring and evaluation techniques have been used. Currently, there are 87 trend studies found within the analysis area. Some of these studies contain historic photos that date back to the 1870s. These sites have been re-read over time enabling us to determine current status and trend. In order to determine trend on the allotment, it is important to understand the history of the ecology of the area.
Livestock grazing is a major contributing factor in determining trend on rangelands. In recorded history, domestic livestock have grazed the analysis area for at least 90 years. Past grazing use was considerably higher than today. Livestock grazing was unregulated prior to the establishment of the National Forest. Beginning in 1906, the first steps to control livestock grazing were initiated. These early efforts focused on controlling livestock numbers and season of use.
While the control of livestock numbers and season of use was initiated shortly after the establishment of the National Forest, livestock management continued to be very simple. Early livestock management consisted of various herds of both cattle and sheep grazing different and overlapping portions of the analysis area. This would have resulted in over utilization and depleted resource conditions.
From the 1930s to the 1990s significant changes were made. Reductions in season of use and livestock numbers were implemented throughout this time period and the first pasture rotations were also developed.
Recent resource information collected by specialists shows that the current level of livestock management is meeting or moving toward desired condition objectives identified in the 2003 Revised Wasatch Forest Plan and the 1986 Ashley Forest Plan. Management is consistent with Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, Goals, and Objectives. The Proposed Action will continue to meet Forest Plan direction and those site specific objectives identified for the analysis area.
Capability / Suitability The U-W-C National Forest portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment (1,288 acres), all of Beaver Creek C&H and 15,254 acres of Burnt Fork C&H allotments lie within the Eastern Uintas Management Area of the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan and contain lands considered capable and suited for domestic livestock grazing (Forest Service 2003). Approximately 2,745 acres of the Burnt Fork C&H allotment lies within the Flaming Gorge Ranger District – Management areas b, l, n, and f, of the Ashley Forest Plan and contains lands suitable for domestic livestock grazing. Continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals, objectives and guidelines for those lands administered by each respective Forest Plan.
Rangeland capability is represented by “the physical attributes or characteristics of the landscape that are conducive to livestock grazing” (Forest Service 2003). Criteria used to determine capable rangeland acres are identified in the Revised Wasatch Forest Plan (Forest Service 2003a). For cattle these include: rangelands that produce at least 200 lbs/acre of forage, are one mile or less from available water sources, and occur on slopes less than 30 percent. Once acres of capable rangeland are determined then those acres must be evaluated to determine if they are suitable. Rangeland suitability is represented by those lands “that are allocated to grazing use 43 based on decisions related to social, economic, or environmental choices and uses foregone” (Forest Service 2003). Range suitability identifies areas within the capable land base where grazing is appropriate within the context of land management considerations such as economics, environmental consequences, rangeland conditions and other uses or values of the area. The 2003 Revised Wasatch Forest Plan generally determined that capable acres within the analysis area are also suitable except where excluded from grazing by a fence. Within the analysis area, these areas include developed campgrounds and exclosures which total approximately 65 acres.
In 1964 and 1970, a comprehensive range analysis assessment was preformed within the analysis area. Seventy-two monitoring sites were used to evaluate ecological condition, determine production per vegetation type, map vegetation types and evaluate utilization levels. This analysis was performed in order to determine a tentative grazing capacity estimate for each allotment. Results of this analysis determined that the majority of the analysis area was in good ecological condition with a stable trend. However, seven monitoring points were found to be in fair condition with a stable or downward trend and one area, above Beaver Reservoir, was found to be in poor condition. For the suitable acres delineated in 1964 only one small timbered area was found not to produce 200 lbs. per acre, this area has been excluded from the 2010 suitable acres analysis. The remaining seventy-one monitoring points that analyzed suitable acres delineated in 1964 and 1970, estimated that the potential production per acre ranged from 200 pounds per acre to 2,000 pounds per acre within the analysis area, with 8,851 acres or 24.5% of the analysis area delineated as suitable for livestock grazing at that time (Forest Service 2009).
Past fire suppression efforts have allowed woody vegetation to increase at a higher rate than would naturally occur with the absence of human intervention. In many areas, as woody overstory vegetation increases and encroaches into the open parks, the understory vegetation often decreases, resulting in fewer capable grazing acres. Thirty-five long term monitoring points used as part of this analysis, document this trend. The following photo comparison illustrates this occurrence within the analysis area.
Figure 5. Hole-in-the-Rock near Forest Boundary
1909 - Atwood Early Forest Surveys 7/22/2009 - C. Crooker Rocky Mountain Research Station
As the number of acres suitable for grazing has decreased from the 1960s analysis due to the increase in woody vegetation a more up to date analysis was performed. This recent analysis compared the 1960s and 1970s suitable acres and production information to recent on the ground field analysis, monitoring points and GIS data. The 1960s vegetation / capable acres layer was combined with recent 2006 NAIP imagery. Vegetation cover types were then updated and suitable acres were estimated using the method described in the 2003 Revised Wasatch Forest Plan combined with 1960s and 1970s production information as compared to recent field analysis. This method of analysis was preformed for the entire analysis area including the Ashley National Forest portion and has provided a more accurate estimate of suitable range acres. Currently, it is estimated that about 7,061 acres or 20% of the analysis area is suitable for grazing by cattle. This reduction in capable acres from the 1960’s analysis is a typical trend found on
44 mountain rangelands in the western states. This analysis updates the 1960s and 1970s capability / suitability determinations for grazing in the analysis area. The following table compares the current and historic suitable acres determinations by allotment.
Table 8. Comparison of Suitable Acre Determinations by Allotment Year Allotment Total Suitable Percent Allotment Acres Suitable Acres 1960s Beaver Creek C&H 16,808 4,038 24% Suitable Acres Estimate Current Beaver Creek C&H 16,808 3,093 18% Suitable Acres Estimate 1960s Burnt Fork C&H 18,000 4,528 25% Suitable Acres Estimate Current Burnt Fork C&H 18,000 3,755 21% Suitable Acres Estimate 1970s Hickerson Park C&H 1,288 285 22% Suitable Portion of U-W-C Acres National Forest Estimate Current Hickerson Park C&H 1,288 213 17% Suitable Portion of U-W-C Acres National Forest Estimate Total 1960s Analysis Area 36,096 8,851 24.5% and 1970s Suitable Acres Estimate Current Analysis Area 36,096 7,061 19.5% Suitable Acres Estimate
As this table indicates the increase in woody vegetation has resulted in an average 5% decrease in suitable grazing acres found within the analysis area.
Stocking Range analysis conducted in 1960s and 1970s established a tentative livestock grazing capacity for the allotments within the analysis area. The tentative capacity was an “experimental capacity that should be firmed up by proper use studies following the determination of the tentative capacity” (Forest Service 2003b, Region 4, FSH 2209.21, Range Analysis Handbook 1981). On average, the allotments within the analysis area are currently stocked 35% below the tentative grazing capacity estimates. However, Forest Service direction for the management of grazing on the National Forests including the determination of grazing capacity has evolved over time. Currently, the grazing capacity is determined by analyzing the effects of livestock grazing on the
45 resource in the analysis area and determining if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met. The monitoring section of this document evaluates the applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to grazing. This analysis has concluded that all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met. In addition to this analysis the 2003 Revised Wasatch Forest Plan has determined that the average stocking rate or “suitable acres per animal unit month (AUM)” for U-W-C National Forest grazing allotments is 4.78 acres per AUM. The following table lists the current acres per AUM by allotment as compared to the average U-W-C National Forest grazing allotment:
Table 9. Comparison of Suitable Acres per Animal unit Month (AUM) Allotment Suitable Acres Permitted AUM’s Acres per AUM Average U-W-C National Forest grazing allotment 4.78 Beaver Creek C&H 3,093 370 8.3 Burnt Fork C&H 3,755 750 5.0 Hickerson Park C&H Portion of 213 66 3.2* U-W-C National Forest Total 7,061 1,186 5.9 * Currently stocked 49% below its tentative grazing capacity. The average number of acres/AUM for the entire Hickerson Park Allotment (4.53 acres/AUM)is just below the U-W-C average of 4.78 acres/AUM.
As this table indicates, current stocking rates on the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek allotments are lighter than the average U-W-C National Forest grazing allotment. The heavier stocking rate observed for the portion of the Hickerson Park allotment located on the U-W-C National Forest, is a reflection of the high vegetative production found within this relatively small portion of the analysis area (60% of the 213 acres consist of wet meadows). The average number of acres/AUM for the entire Hickerson Park Allotment is just below the U-W-C average (4.53 acres/AUM). The overall lower stocking rate for the entire allotment when compared to the portion on the U-W-C National Forest is reflective of less productive suitable acres located on the allotment. Overall, improved management combined with lighter stocking rates have provided for healthy rangeland conditions with light to moderate grazing use as indicated by recent monitoring. Current permitted AUM’s on each allotment are at an appropriate level to achieve Forest Plan management direction.
Monitoring In 2007 and 2008, six long-term monitoring sites were evaluated on the U-W-C National Forest portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment. In 2009, 60 upland and 21 riparian long-term monitoring sites were again evaluated across the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments on both the Ashley and U-W-C National Forests. Regional and Forest level management direction was then used to determine the current status of the desired plant communities, utilization levels and current condition and trend.
The Society for Range Management defines a desired plant community as “the plant community that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan’s objectives for the site. It must protect the site as a minimum” (Bedell T. 1998). The 2003 Revised Wasatch Forest Plan has established that rangelands should be “dominated by desired perennial grasses and forbs, with a range of shrub cover.” The 1986 Ashley Forest Plan has also established that rangelands should be managed to “maintain or improve all range in fair or better condition class.”
All monitoring sites containing species lists were evaluated by comparing site specific species composition lists to the 2005 Region 4 Range Management Resource Value Rating Guide, (Forest Service 2005, Exhibit 01), to determine the presence or absence of plant species that display a moderate to high erosion control potential. As the regional list does not include many of the plants found in the Uinta Mountains, a localized list prepared by Goodrich (2008) was also used in this analysis. Plant species were considered to have a high or moderate erosion control
46 potential if the “plant has aggressive growth habits, persistent plant structure, high potential biomass and/or a good soil-binding root-rhizome-runner system in established stands.” (Forest Service 2005, Exhibit 01). The degree to which a plant displays these characteristics determines if a plant possesses a high, moderate or low erosion control potential. As compared to those species that possess high or moderate erosion control potentials, “Information from the Range Inventory Standardization Committee Report (1983) suggests that a value of 75% similar or greater may be used to differentiate between meeting and not meeting management objectives.” (FSH 2209.21).
An evaluation of long-term monitoring sites, containing a species list within the analysis area, has determined that all sites are currently dominated by desirable native perennial plant species. It has also been determined that all but one (site 12-30B, Lower Lost Creek), contain greater than 75% desirable native plant species with high to moderate erosion control potentials. Site 12-30B is located in an area that receives prolonged grazing use. Wild ungulates begin grazing this area in early spring and then livestock continue to graze the area throughout the summer under the current AMP. This type of use allows for repeat defoliations until forest plan utilization standards are met, which leaves very little chance for desirable natives to complete their growth cycle and produce seed. While this area is currently meeting Forest Plan direction and is dominated by desired perennial grasses and forbs, it does represent an area that could progress with time controlled grazing practices. Monitoring results for all long-term monitoring sites found within the analysis area are displayed in Table 10 of this analysis.
The level of utilization, timing of grazing, frequency of use and the opportunity for plants to grow before grazing and/or regrow after grazing are all annual variables of grazing that cumulatively affect the long-term condition and trend of rangelands. As utilization is a part of these variables, the 2003 Revised Wasatch Forest Plan and the 1986 Ashley Forest Plan established specific utilization standards to address this issue. Utilization will vary on a yearly basis between the different grazing areas. Past use records, photo point monitoring, paired plot clippings and individual site evaluations were used to determine the overall standard level of use received in a particular grazing area. This evaluation has concluded that Forest Plan utilization standards are being met throughout the analysis area. However, under the current AMP grazing distribution has been limited, which has resulted in certain areas being left unused while other areas are more heavily utilized throughout the grazing season. 2009 utilization evaluations found that grazing use varied between 0 – 60%, depending on the area surveyed. This type of uneven grazing distribution has resulted in the early removal of livestock from certain portions of the analysis area in past years, to prevent from exceeding utilization standards. In addition, and most importantly, as utilization is one of the annual variables affecting long-term condition and trend, the cumulative effects of proper utilization will also be evident in long-term site evaluations displayed in Table 10 of this analysis.
In 2009 eight line-intercept monitoring points were reread across the analysis area, primarily looking at birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate), and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). Sites 12-6 and 11-15B recorded an increase in mountain big sagebrush. Sites 12-15, 12-6B and 12-23A recorded a decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush. These decreases were attributed to past drought, inconsistency in monitoring methods and wildlife winter use. Sites 12-22A, 12-26A and 12-28 recorded a decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany between the mid 1960s and the late 1990s and then an increase between the 1990s and 2009. This increase may be attributed to a difference in sampling methods, as the photos do not illustrate this trend. Pellet group counts indicate that the bulk of the use occurs from elk, primarily during late fall, winter and early spring. Utilization monitoring photos taken on sites 12-23A and 12-28, at the end of the grazing season showed that stem leader growth on birchleaf mountain mahogany remained between 6-12 inches throughout the grazing season with little use by herbivores. This indicates that the bulk of the grazing use on birchleaf mountain mahogany is taking place during
47 the winter when livestock are off the forest. The majority of these studies indicate that winter browsing use by wild ungulates has impacted mountain mahogany and sagebrush within the analysis area.
Conversely, 44 long-term monitoring sites displayed a notable increase in conifers, aspen and/or willows. Long-term site evaluations of aspen sprout development and survival displayed a notable increase in aspen growth and development as compared to past evaluations. These results are displayed in Table 10 of this analysis and are illustrated below in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Cow Hollow, Ashley National Forest. Aspen suckers encroaching into open park along tree line
8-22-1977 R. Zobell U.S. Forest Service 7-01-2009 J. McConkey U.S. Forest Service
Past use records, photo point monitoring and individual site evaluations have not recorded any areas where utilization during the permitted grazing season has exceeded 50% of the current year’s growth on woody vegetation. Overall, domestic livestock grazing use on woody vegetation is classified as “light” throughout the allotment. This evaluation has concluded that Forest Plan utilization standard S26 is being met.
Rangeland health is defined in Region 4 as either functioning, functioning-at-risk, or not functioning. As described in the 2005 Region 4 Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Management Handbook, FSH 2209.21,22, Sec.20.05, rangelands are functioning when they are meeting a desired condition identified in long-term specified management objectives, standards, and/or guidelines; and have the capability across the landscape for renewal, for recovery from a wide range of disturbances, and for retention of its ecological resilience (FSH 2209.21). Trend is defined as, “The direction of change in an attribute as observed over time” (SRM 1998). Trend on the allotment was derived by the use of both apparent and measured trend. Region 4 requires that trend be expressed in terms of “meeting”, “moving toward”, or “not meeting” desired conditions. Long-term monitoring has indicated that the Revised Wasatch Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being achieved within the analysis area (McConkey 2010).
Table 10 lists the monitoring points found within the allotment, along with an evaluation of the desired plant communities and current condition and trend.
48
Table 10. Evaluation of Monitoring Points RIPARIAN MONITORING SITES Site I.D. Monitoring Rangeland Health and Trend Status / Individual Site Evaluation 10-30E, West PFC, Riparian - Channel is located in a heavily wooded draw which receives little to no use by livestock. Beaver Creek Characteristics - Young willows inhabit the site. Evaluation, Photo Point - Green line primarily consisting of CAAQ and large boulders and cobble. - >90% ground cover observed on site. 11-7, Hoop Lake Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in ground cover with revegetation occurring on the south bank of Drainage #5 Photo Point the drainage. - Site displays an increase in conifers, sagebrush and willows since 1978. 11-7B, Hoop Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in ground cover compared to 2003 photos. South bank Lake Drainage #6 Photo Point continues to reach the angle of repose, which is allowing more vegetation to become established on the slope. 11-19B, Middle Photo Point - Channel is located in a heavily wooded draw (many dead and down trees) with patchy Fork Beaver, green line vegetation. Area receives little to no use by livestock. Upper 11-20A, West of 1948 Historic Photo - As compared to 1948, the area displays a significant increase in willows along riparian Hoop Lake Retake area. 11-20C, West of Apparent Trend Rating, - Appears to be an increase in ground cover, as compared to 2005, however 2009 photo Hoop Lake Photo Point was taken 2 months earlier which makes it difficult to determine. 11-21, Hoop Lake 1952 Historic Photo - As compared to 1952, the area has revegetated with willows and carex allowing the site to Road Washout Retake stabilize from the 1950s road reroute project which had failed. 11-26, Georges Green line, PFC, Riparian - Channel displays an increase in ground cover compared to 2004 analysis. Wildlife use Park #1 Characteristics noted on willow with young willow establishment also observed on site. Evaluation, Photo Point - > 80% ground cover observed on site. - 94% late-seral vegetation community recorded on site. 11-26A, Georges PFC, Photo Point - Channel displays a slight increase in ground cover compared to 2004 analysis. Park #2 - >85% ground cover observed on site. - 90% late-seral vegetation community observed on site. 12-12B, Burnt PFC, Riparian - Channel possesses well armored stream banks with large boulders and cobble. Fork, Lower Characteristics - Young cottonwoods and willows are becoming established on site. Evaluation, Photo Point - 90% ground cover observed on site. - 80% late-seral vegetation community observed on site. 12-25B, PFC, Riparian - Channel is located in a heavily wooded draw which receives little to no use by livestock. Thompson Creek Characteristics - Young aspen, pine and willows inhabit the site. Evaluation, Photo Point - 85% late seral species community observed on site, primarily consisting of CAAQ. - >75% ground cover observed on site. 12-25C, Kabell PFC, Riparian - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with young willows (aged Creek Characteristics between 3-4 years old) becoming established on site.
49
Evaluation, Photo Point - >85% ground cover observed on site. - 90% late-seral vegetation community observed on site. 12-30C, Lost PFC, Riparian - Channel is dominated by Coyote Willow which has established after the 1965 flood Creek Characteristics caused by a breach in Beaver Reservoir dam. The flood deposited a lot of sediment Evaluation, Photo Point downstream and formed many cut banks, which can still be seen. - Riparian area continues to recover with young willow establishment observed on site. - 75% ground cover observed on site. - 70% late-seral vegetation community observed on site. 12-33, Burnt Green line Transect, - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with large woody debris, Fork, Middle #1 PFC, Photo Point rocks and deep rooted plants. Young willow establishment also observed on site. - > 95% ground cover observed on site. - 99% late-seral vegetation community recorded on site. 12-34, Burnt Photo Point, Apparent - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with young aspen suckers Fork, Middle #2 Trend Rating becoming established on site. - Little change from 2006 evaluation. 12-35, Burnt Photo Point, Apparent - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with little change from Fork, Middle #3 Trend Rating 2006 evaluation. - 85% late seral species community observed on site, primarily consisting of CAAQ. - 95% ground cover observed on site. 12-36, Burnt Photo Point, Apparent - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with no evidence of past Fork, Upper Trend Rating stream bank damage. Middle - Green line possesses an estimated 90% late seral species community, primarily consisting of CAAQ. - 90% ground cover observed on site. 12-37, Burnt PFC, Riparian - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with large woody debris, Fork, Upper #1 Characteristics rocks and deep rooted plants. Evaluation, Apparent - Little change from 2006 evaluation. Trend Rating, Photo Point - 90% late seral species community observed on site. - >90% ground cover observed on site. 12-38, Burnt Photo Point - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with large woody debris, Fork, Upper #2 rocks and deep rooted plants. - Little change from 2006 evaluation. 12-39, Burnt PFC, Riparian - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with young pines Fork, Middle #4 Characteristics becoming established on site. Evaluation, Photo Point - > 95% ground cover observed on site. - >85% late-seral vegetation community observed on site. 22-01, Burnt Fork Photo Point - Could not relocate in 2009. Creek, - Channel possesses well vegetated and armored stream banks with large woody debris, Wilderness rocks and deep rooted plants. (2003 photo) Boundary
50
UPLAND MONITORING SITES Site I.D. Monitoring Rangeland Health and Trend Status / Individual Site Evaluation 11-4, Middle Ocular Plant - Site displays a dramatic improvement in ground cover from 1978. Sagebrush has Beaver #1 Composition, Rangeland increased since 1995. Aspen and willows have increased since 1978. Health Evaluation, Photo - 98% ground cover found on site. Ground cover range at potential – Few-flowered Point Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - While the site is dominated by native plant species it does contain a high amount of introduced species. This is most likely a result of past overgrazing. - 79% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials, with 97.1% of the vegetation possessing high to moderate erosion control potentials. 11-6B, West Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in pine and a decrease in sagebrush since 1971. The decrease Draw, Middle Photo Point in sagebrush is a result of the 1983 brush treatment. Beaver 11-6C, Middle Apparent Trend Rating, - This site shows the effects of the 1983 brush treatment. Site illustrates that birchleaf Beaver Hillside Photo Point mountain mahogany did not respond well to the treatment, with more birchleaf #1 mountain mahogany in the untreated side versus the treated. 11-6D1, Middle Apparent Trend Rating, - Little change from 2004 photos. Wildlife use was noted on birchleaf mountain Beaver Hillside Photo Point mahogany. #2 11-8A, Georges Ocular Plant - Old head cut continues to re-vegetate and improve from 1978 analysis. Park #1 Composition, Rangeland - Site possesses low species diversity, which was most likely caused by poor historic Health Evaluation, Photo grazing practices. Point - 90% ground cover recorded on site. Used for subalpine meadow - Ground cover range at potential – Silver Sagebrush 89-96 (85% = 76-82 (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - 78% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 11-8B, Georges Apparent Trend Rating, - Ground cover has not change significantly from 1999 and 1972 analysis. Park #2 Photo Point - Sage brush in foreground does appear to have decreased since 1972. 11-8D, Georges 1947 Historic Photo - Site displays an obvious increase in the amount of willows growing along the riparian area Park #3 Retake in the middle of the photo. - This site also displays an increase in ground cover and a decrease in pocket gopher activity as well as an increase in shrubs in foreground. - Conifers along skyline ridge have also increased. 11-8E, Georges Photo Point - Site was not re-photographed in 2009. 2003 evaluation shows successful aspen Park #4 regeneration in clear cut. 11-9, Coal Mine Ocular Plant - Site possesses high plant species diversity with little change from 1999 analysis. Hill Composition, Rangeland - Birchleaf mountain mahogany appears to have decreased from 1972 photo Health Evaluation, Photo comparison. Point - 87% ground cover recorded on site. Ground cover range at potential – Birchleaf Mt
51
Mahogany 86-95 (85% = 73-81) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - 97% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 11-9B, Historic, 1909 Historic Photo - This site is located just off the forest looking back onto the National Forest. Site displays a Hole-in-the-Rock Retake major increase in conifers and a decrease in sagebrush and open parks. 11-10, Hoop Lake Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in all woody plant species including conifers, aspen, sagebrush Drainage #4 Photo Point and willows since 1978. - Little to no change from 2004 and 2005 analysis. 11-12, Hoop Lake Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays good vegetation production and ground cover. Road #1 Photo Point - 1999 and 2009 photos display a decrease in shrub cover when compared to the 1978 photos. This is a result of the controlled burn that took place here in the mid 1980s. 11-13, Willow Ocular Plant - Ground cover, conifers and sagebrush has increased since 2003 and 1978 monitoring. Park #2 Composition, Rangeland - Old vertical cut banks have eroded back and revegetated allowing for a more stabilized Health Evaluation, Photo drainage. Point - 99% ground cover found on site. Used for subalpine meadow - Ground cover range at potential – Silver Sagebrush 89-96 (85% = 76-82 (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - 90% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 11-14, Willow Apparent Trend Rating, - 1978 photos show signs of past heavy use. Recent analysis shows old head cuts that Park #3 Photo Point have completely revegetated and willows have increased. 11-14B, Willow 1970 Historic Photo - Site displays and increase in willows and conifers since 1970. Park #4 Retake 11-14C, West 1870 Historic Photo - Little to no change evident. Side of Beaver Retake - Conifers on the top of Beaver Mtn. have increased in density. Mtn. - Conifers in the foreground have probably been burned over and have re-grown since 1870. 11-15A, Beaver Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays a good mix of grasses and forbs and ground cover has increased since Mtn.#1 Photo Point 1972. 11-15B, Beaver Line Intercept, Ocular - Bare ground has decreased and aspen suckers have increased along tree line. Mtn.#2 Plant Composition, - Line intercept records display a 4.9% increase in total shrub cover on site since 2003. Ground Cover (point - Ground cover has increased 13% to 88% ground cover since 1996. Ground cover range method), Rangeland at potential – Few-flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) Health Evaluation, Photo - 99% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate Point erosion control potentials. 11-17, Willow 1951, Historic Photo - 1951 vertical cut banks have eroded back and revegetated allowing for a more stabilized Park #1 Retake drainage. - Site displays an increase in conifers and sagebrush since 1951. 11-19, Upper Photo Point - 2003 photo showing trail impacts from recreation stock. Trail Middle Beaver Creek
52
11-20B, Meadow Apparent Trend Rating, - Ground cover has increased resulting in complete revegetation of old road through South West of Photo Point meadow. Hoop Lake 11-25, Timber Apparent Trend Rating, - 2004 photo comparison illustrates an increase in aspen and conifers in sale area. Sale Area Photo Point 12-3A, Hoop Ocular Plant - Site displays an increase in conifers and sagebrush after the mid 1970s roto-beat Lake #1 Composition, Ground treatment. Cover (point method), - Ground cover has increased 15% to 96% ground cover since 2003. Ground cover range Rangeland Health at potential – Few-flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) Evaluation, Photo Point - 94% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 12-3B, Hoop Apparent Trend Rating, - Site illustrates little change from 2004 photos. However site does display an increase in Lake #2 Photo Point aspen and conifers from 1972. Sagebrush has decreased from 1972 due to 1986 prescribed burn. 12-3C, South Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays little change from 2004 photos; however recent photo displays an increase in Timber Hollow, Photo Point dead lodgepole from recent Mtn. Pine Beatle epidemic. General View 12-4A, Hoop Ocular Plant - Site displays an increase in conifers, aspen and sagebrush after the mid 1970s roto-beat Lake #3 Composition, Ground treatment. Cover (point method), - Ground cover has increased 7% to 94% ground cover since 1978. Ground cover range at Rangeland Health potential – Few-flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) Evaluation, Photo Point - 87% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 12-4B, Hoop Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in aspen suckers compared to 2004 photo. Lake #4 Photo Point - As compared to 1972 the site displays an increase in conifers and a decrease in sagebrush due to 1986 controlled burn. 12-4C, Hoop 1930 Historic Photo - As compared to the 1930s photo, site displays an increase in woody species along hillside Lake #5 Retake in background and an increase in grasses and forbs along the shoreline in the foreground. - Ground cover has also increased since 2005. 12-5A, Hoop Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in conifers and aspen from 1978 photo as well as a reduction in Lake Drainage #1 Photo Point shrubs along hillside in background. This reduction is a result of the mid 1980s controlled burn. 12-5B, Hoop Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays good vegetative production and an increase in conifers and aspen along tree Lake Drainage #2 Photo Point line, as compared to the 1972 photo. 12-5C, Hoop Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays a decrease in pocket gopher activity from 2005 analysis, with nearly 100% Lake Drainage #3 Photo Point ground cover. 12-6, South Line Intercept, Ocular - Site displays an increase in ground cover and aspen suckers from 2003 and a decrease Timber Hollow Plant Composition, in sagebrush from the mid 1970s roto-beat treatment (compared to 1972 photo). Site Ground Cover (point also displays an increase in pine. method), Rangeland - Line intercept records display a 15% increase in mountain big sagebrush since 2003
53
Health Evaluation, Photo (However only one belt was read in 2009). Point - Ground cover has increased 3% to 87% ground cover since 2003. Ground cover range at potential – Few-flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - 92% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 12-6B, South Line Intercept, Photo - Analysis shows a slight decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany from 2005; however Timber Hollow Point only one belt was read in 2009 and records indicate very little change from 2005 analysis. 12-7, Gregory Apparent Trend Rating, - Ground cover is uniform and appears to have increased from 1972 photo. Basin near Photo Point - Soil cover is continuous and intact with no detectable soil movement. Cattleguard 12-8, Gregory Ocular Plant - Evaluations conducted in 1977 indicated low ground cover and poor conditions. 2001 Basin #1 Composition, Rangeland evaluations reported <80% ground cover and 2009 monitoring recorded 90% ground Health Evaluation, Photo cover. These evaluations indicate an upward trend in ground cover. Ground cover range Point at potential – Few-flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - 1977 photo comparison shows an increase in vegetative cover along old road and ditch in photos. - Site contains a broad range of plant species with some pedestaling present on mature plants due to presents of slope. - 96% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 12-9, Telephone Apparent Trend Rating, - Photo comparison from 1977 displays an increase in pines along hillside. Hollow Photo Point - Nearly 100% ground cover observed on site. 12-10, Telephone Apparent Trend Rating, - Photo comparison from 1977 displays an increase in conifers and sagebrush while Hollow #2 Photo Point grasses, forbs and birchleaf mountain mahogany appear static. - Nearly 100% ground cover observed on site. 12-11, Telephone Photo Point - Site displays an increase in Pines since 1977 photo. Other vegetative conditions appear Hollow, F.S. static. Boundary 12-12, Burnt Flat Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an encroachment of pines into the sagebrush flat as compared to the 1972 #1 Photo Point photo, and the affects of the mid 1970s sagebrush treatment can be seen in the 1977 photo. - Ground cover appears to have increased since 1972, 1977 and 2001. 12-13, Burnt Flat Apparent Trend Rating, - As compared to the 1972 photo, there is an increase in pines and a decrease in #2 Photo Point sagebrush from the mid 1970s sagebrush treatment. - Ground cover has improved since 1972. 12-14, Burnt Flat - Site displays improved grass seedling establishment from 1977 photo with very little #3 change from 1972 photo. 12-15, Timber Line Intercept, Ocular - Site possesses high species diversity with 43 different plant species found. Hollow #1 Plant Composition, - Young aspen suckers are increasing and encroaching into the open park. Ground Cover (point - Line intercept monitoring recorded a 6.3% decrease in mountain big sagebrush since
54
method), Rangeland 2003. This decrease is most likely attributed to the past drought. Health Evaluation, Photo - Ground cover has increased 3% to 88% ground cover since 2003. Ground cover range at Point potential – Few-flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - 96% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 12-15B, Timber Photo Point - Site was not re-evaluated in 2009 as it is located very close to site 12-15. 2003 analysis Hollow #2 does not display any major differences from 1977 photo. 12-16, Cow Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in aspen suckers adjacent to livestock pond and an increase in Hollow, 2nd pond Photo Point ground cover compared to the 2002 and 1977 photos. 12-17, Cow Apparent Trend Rating, - Grasses, forbs and ground cover appear to have remained static as compared to 1977 Hollow Open Photo Point photo with many early seral species present. Park, near 2nd - Conifers and aspen have increased since 1977. pond 12-18, Cow Apparent Trend Rating, - Grasses and forbs appear to have remained static as compared to 1977 photo with many Hollow, 1st pond Photo Point early seral species present. - Old head cuts that could be seen in 1977 have revegetated and aspen suckers have increased. 12-19, Lower Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays increased ground cover since 2002 and less sagebrush since 1977, in area Burnt Fork Photo Point near stock tank. 12-20B, Bull Park Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays the revegetation that has occurred on an old head cut and salt ground, as Photo Point compared to the 1977 photos. Bare ground has decreased and shrubs have increased in stature. 12-21, Bottom of Ocular Plant - Mountain Sagebrush vegetative cover has increased and young aspen suckers are Cow Hollow Composition, Rangeland encroaching into open park, compared to 1977 photos. Health Evaluation, Photo - 93% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable native vegetation with high to moderate Point erosion control potentials. - 96% ground cover recorded on site. Ground cover range at potential – Few-flowered Sagebrush 81-96 (85% = 69-82) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) 12-22A, Line Intercept, Rangeland - Site is located along a high, dry, south facing steep hillside which receives little use by Telephone Health Evaluation, Pellet livestock. Pellet group counts indicate that the bulk of the use occurs from elk, primarily Hollow, Hillside Group Count, Apparent during the late fall, winter and early spring. Trend Rating, Photo Point - Line intercept records were recorded on this site in 1965, 1980, 1993, 2001 and 2009. These records show a 14% decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany from 1965 to 1993 and then a 7% increase from 1993 to 2009. Monitoring was conducted once during the year and varied between the months of June, July, August and September. This recent increase may be attributed to a difference in sampling methods, as the photos do not illustrate this trend. Wildlife winter use has impacted these shrubs. - 1965 photo comparison display a large decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany size and stature. 12-23A, Gregory Line Intercept, Rangeland - Site displays good grass and forb cover and composition with high shrub diversity;
55
Basin Exclosure Health Evaluation, Photo however, shrubs are being used heavily by wildlife during the winter. Point - Birchleaf mountain mahogany stem leader growth remained between 6-12 inches throughout the grazing season with only light to moderate use, mostly occurring from wildlife. - Line intercept records were recorded on this site in 1994 and 2009. These records show a 4% decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany and a 2% decrease in black sagebrush. 12-25, Clear Cut Production study of - Scarified seeded areas vs. non-scarified seeded areas production analysis study near Thompson seeded areas, Photo determined that scarified areas (1248 lb. per acre) produced more than non-scarified Creek Point areas (480 lbs. per acre) within a clear cut (1997 study). 12-26A, West of Line Intercept, Photo - Line intercept records were recorded on this site in 1994, 2003 and 2009. These records Widdop Mtn. Point show a 3% decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany from 1994 to 2003 and then a 4% increase from 2003 to 2009. Monitoring was conducted once during the year and varied between the months of May and June. This recent increase may be attributed to a difference in sampling methods, as the photos do not illustrate this trend. Wildlife winter use has impacted these shrubs. 12-27, Beaver Photo Point - 1999 photo shows an abundance of lodgepole pine regeneration after clear cut harvest. Meadow East 12-28, Upper Line Intercept, Ground - Site is located along a high, dry, south facing steep hillside which receives little use by Timber Hollow Cover (point method), livestock. The bulk of the use that occurs is from elk, primarily during the late fall, winter Photo Point and early spring. - Birchleaf mountain mahogany stem leader growth remained between 6-12 inches throughout the grazing season with only light to moderate use, occurring from wildlife. - Line intercept records were recorded on this site in 1996, 2003 and 2009. These records show a 4% decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany from 1996 to 2003 and then a 6% increase from 2003 to 2009. Monitoring was conducted once during the year and varied between the months of May and June. This recent increase may be attributed to a difference in sampling methods, as the photos do not illustrate this trend. Wildlife winter use has impacted these shrubs. - Ground cover has increased 21% to 88% ground cover since 2003. However, this increase may be lower as the 2003 monitoring was conducted in early May prior to spring green-up. Ground cover range at potential – Birchleaf Mt Mahogany 86-95 (85% = 73-81) (Forest Plan, page VII-1) 12-30, Lost Creek 1947 Historic Photo - Site displays an increase in woody vegetation, including conifer, aspen and willow from Park Retake 1947 photo. Site also displays an increase in ground cover and a decrease in pocket gopher activity from 2004 photos. 12-30B, Lower Ocular Plant - Site possesses a high amount of early seral plants, which is an indication of prolonged Lost Creek Park Composition, Rangeland grazing use. Wild ungulates begin grazing this area in early spring and then livestock Health Evaluation, Photo continue to graze the area throughout the summer, leaving very little chance for plant Point development.
56
- 91% ground cover found on site. Used for subalpine meadow - Ground cover range at potential – Silver Sagebrush 89-96 (85% = 76-82 (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - 68% of the vegetative cover consists of desirable vegetation with high to moderate erosion control potentials. 12-30D, Lost Photo Point - Photo displays a fenceline contrast between the inside and outside of the Lost Creek Park Creek Park exclosure. Photos do not illustrate any discernable differences between either side of the Exclosure fence. 12-31, Gregory Apparent Trend Rating, - Site displays an increase in vegetative production compared to 2001 photos. This Basin #2 Photo Point increase in vegetative production is mostly likely due to a wet spring in 2009. 12-32, Hoop Lake 1948 Historic Photo - Site displays an increase in conifers and sagebrush along hillside and foreground. Historic Retake 14-53A, McCoy Line Intercept, Photo - Line intercept measurements averaged 32.2% for Salix planifolia. Park #1 Point - 95-98% ground cover was observed on site. Used for subalpine meadow - Ground cover range at potential – Silver Sagebrush 89-96 (85% = 76-82 (Forest Plan, page VII-1) - Heavy browse use, by wildlife, was noted on Salix planifolia, with minimal use by livestock. W22-17, McCoy Photo Point - Site shows an increase in conifers. Conifers are encroaching into open meadow and Park #2 beginning to replace meadow vegetation. W22-18, McCoy Photo Point - Photos indicate light use by livestock. Park #3 - Continuous ground cover observed on site. W22-19, McCoy Photo Point - This site displays very little use by livestock. Park #4 - Rocks embedded in the sod have lichens that extend to the ground level. This indicates stable soil conditions have existed here for quite some time. W22-20, McCoy Photo Point - Photos show little to no use by livestock in this upland meadow. Park #5 W22-21, McCoy Photo Point - Moderate use was note by livestock in this wet meadow. Park #6 - New willows were beginning to establish along the margins of the ephemeral pond.
57
Livestock Grazing In recorded history, domestic livestock have grazed the analysis area for more than 90 years. Past grazing use was considerably higher than today. Livestock grazing in the analysis area was unregulated prior to the establishment of the National Forests beginning in 1906. Livestock grazing has been permitted on the National Forests since shortly after establishment and has occurred continuously since that time. Beginning with the establishment of the National Forests, the first steps to control livestock grazing were initiated. These early efforts focused on controlling livestock numbers and season of use. Allotment boundaries, livestock numbers, livestock kind, seasons of use and grazing management practices have been adjusted many times since domestic livestock grazing has been authorized. The regulation of grazing has increased over time.
As allotment boundaries, livestock numbers, livestock kind, seasons of use and management have been adjusted many times within the analysis area, it has become increasingly difficult to compare past and present day stocking. However, as the following table indicates, historic grazing use was considerably higher than it is today.
58
Table 11. Historic Livestock Numbers within the Analysis Area Burnt Fork C&H Allotment Year Description Animal Unit Allotment Boundary Months (AUM’s) Prior to 1917 While it is recognized that livestock were Unknown No boundary records could be found for the Burnt Fork grazing the allotment prior to the allotment before the 1930s, However, records do indicate that establishment of the National Forests, exact the allotment was smaller during this time period as the numbers and season of use are unknown. boundary was moved west in 1930. Prior to 1917, Forest records only indicate that livestock were grazing the analysis area. 1917 Records indicate that approximately 350 Approx. 2,100 No boundary records. cow/calf pairs grazed the Burnt Fork allotment AUM’s through an old on-off permit, with 70% of the time on the N.F. The permitted season was from 4/10 to 10/31. Trespass livestock were frequent during this time period. 1920s The old on-off permits were cancelled and the Approx. 1,800 No boundary records. grazing season was set at 350 cow/calf pairs AUM’s from 6/16 to 10/15. Trespass livestock were also frequent during this time period. 1930s The allotment boundary was moved west in Approx. 3,200 1930 and the area was grazed with 550 AUM’s cow/calf pairs from 6/16 to 10/15, 500 ewe/lamb pairs from 7/1 to 8/15 and 325 ewe/lamb pairs for one month. The areas grazed by sheep are shown in purple on the map. These areas were also used by cattle during this same time. The 1930s allotment boundary is shown in red and the current allotment boundary is shown in black.
1940s Numbers were reduced during this time Approx. 1,900 Allotment boundaries were the same as shown above. period. However cattle and sheep still both AUM’s grazed portions of the allotment in common. The area was grazed with 317 cow/calf pairs from 6/16 to 10/15, 500 ewe/lamb pairs from 7/1 to 8/15 and 325 ewe/lamb pairs for one
59
month. 1950s and Many reductions were made during this time Approx. 850 Allotment boundaries were the same as they were in the 1960s period including canceling the sheep permits AUM’s 1930s and 40’s. It wasn’t until 1968 that the allotment and reducing the cattle permit to 179 cow/calf boundaries changed to one in use today. pairs from 6/26 to 10/15 1970s and Not much change during this time period. Approx. 850 1980s Permitted numbers remained at 179 cow/calf AUM’s pairs from 6/26 to 10/15
1996 to Final reductions were implemented in 1996. 750 AUM’s Allotment boundaries are the same as shown above. Present The Burnt Fork allotment is now permitted for 82 cow/calf pairs from 6/26 to 9/25 and 100 cow/calf pairs from 6/26 to 9/30. Beaver Creek C&H Allotment Year Description Animal Unit Allotment Boundary Months (AUM’s) Prior to 1923 While it is recognized that livestock were Unknown No boundary records could be found for the Beaver Creek grazing the allotment prior to the allotment before the 1930s, However, records do indicate that establishment of the National Forests, exact the allotment was smaller during this time period as the numbers and season of use are unknown. boundary was moved west in 1930. Prior to 1923, Forest records only indicate that livestock were grazing the analysis area. 1923 Records indicate that approximately 650 Approx. 2,800 No boundary records. cow/calf pairs grazed the Beaver Creek AUM’s allotment through an old on-off permit, with 60% of the time on the N.F. The permitted season was from 5/15 to 10/31. 1927 The old on-off permits were cancelled and the Approx. 3,400 No boundary records. grazing season was set at 650 cow/calf pairs AUM’s from 6/16 to 10/15.
60
1930s The allotment boundary was moved west in Approx. 3,400 1930 and permitted season and numbers AUM’s remained the same. The 1930s allotment boundary is shown in red and the current allotment boundary is shown in black.
1940s Reductions were made during this time period Approx. 2,500 Allotment boundaries are the same as shown above. and sheep were added to the allotment. The AUM’s allotment was now grazed with 360 cow/calf pairs from 6/16 to 10/15 and 830 ewe/lamb pairs from 7/1 to 9/15. 1948 Permitted use was reduced to 288 cow/calf Approx. 1,900 Allotment boundaries are the same as shown above. pairs from 6/16 to 10/15 and 1000 ewe/lamb AUM’s pairs from 7/21 to 8/30. 1950s, Major reductions were implemented during Approx. 533 60s, 70s, this time period. Sheep permits were canceled AUM’s 80s and and in 1968 the allotment boundary changed 90s to the one in use today. By 1991, 125 cow/calf pairs were grazing the allotment from 7/1 to 10/05.
2002 to Final reductions were implemented in 2002. 370 AUM’s Allotment boundaries are the same as shown above. Present The Beaver Creek allotment is now permitted for 125 cow/calf pairs from 7/5 to 9/10. Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Year Description Animal Unit Allotment Boundary Months (AUM’s) Prior to 1940s Exact numbers and season of use are not Unknown No boundary records could be found for the Hickerson park known prior to 1940. However records Allotment before the 1940s. This includes the U-W-C portion
61
indicate use on the allotment has occurred of the allotment. since at least the National Forest was established and that use was likely heavier than the 1940s due to tress pass and drift of cattle onto the allotment before range readiness. 1940-1959 Increased management is implemented 4,462 AUMs (312 Multiple allotments make up the present day Hickerson Park through the 1941 and 1944 Allotment AUMs for the U-W- Allotment. These include the Upper Sheep Creek C & H, Management Plans. C N.F. portion of North Fork C&H, and Lodgepole-Long Park S&G allotments. the Hickerson Park Total area of these allotments was approximately 25% larger allotment) than the area of the present day Hickerson Park Allotment. The majority of this land is now located in the Sheep Creek Park Allotment. No information is given relating to use on the U-W-C portion of the now present Hickerson Park Allotment. 1960-1976 Major reductions were implemented in 1960 1,820 AUMs (127 Multiple allotments continue to make up the present day through the 1960 Action Plan with permitted AUMs for the U-W- Hickerson Park Allotment. These allotments experience numbers and/or grazing seasons being C N.F. portion of boundary changes and/or name changes during this time shortened. Portions of the allotment were the Hickerson Park period. Towards the latter end of this time period it becomes converted from sheep to cattle. allotment) clear the Sheep Creek-Long Park Allotment contains the present day Carter Dugway and Lodgepole units; the North Fork Allotment contains the present day Round park unit including McCoy park; and the Upper Sheep Creek Allotment contains the Hickerson Park Allotment and other areas. Total area still appears to be approximately 25% larger than the area of the present day Hickerson Park Allotment. No information is given relating to use on the U-W-C portion of the now present Hickerson Park Allotment. 1977-1983 Season of use varies some but is more or less 1,130 AUMs (79 Carter Dugway and Lodgepole units transferred from the from the middle of June to the middle of AUMs for the U-W- Sheep Creek-Long Park Allotment to the Hickerson-North September. Numbers are 283 c/c to 300 c/c. C N.F. portion of Fork Allotment in 1977. Boundaries of Hickerson-North Fork the Hickerson Park Allotment now more or less match boundaries of the present allotment) day Hickerson Park Allotment. No specific information is given relating to use on the U-W-C portion of the now present Hickerson Park Allotment.
62
1984-1993 A rest-rotation grazing system is documented. 1,130 Boundaries remain more or less the same. The Allotment Rest occurs once every five years AUMs (79 AUMs consists of five units (Lodgepole, Carter Dugway, Hickerson for the U-W-C N.F. Park, Thornberg, and Round Park units including McCoy portion of the Park). Use within the Round Park and Thornberg units the Hickerson Park McCoyPark area is 533 AUMs. Approximately 79-82 AUMs allotment) permitted on the U-W-C National Forest. AUMs were estimated by multiplying the % of the unit located on the U-W- C National Forest (app. 15.3%) by the permitted AUMs for the unit. 1994-present A deferred-rotation grazing system is 1,130 AUMs (66 Boundaries remain more or less the same. The Allotment implemented in 1994. AUMs for the U-W- consists of four units with the Thornberg and Round Park units C N.F. portion of including McCoy Park becoming one unit. Use within the the Hickerson Park Round Park unit is 429 AUMs annually. 66 AUMs permitted allotment) on the U-W-C National Forest. AUMs were estimated by multiplying the % of the unit located on the U-W-C National Forest (app. 15.3%) by the permitted AUMs for the unit.
63
The changes in allotment boundaries makes in particularly difficult to compare the level of stocking between the allotments overtime. Approximately half of the current permitted area is found in the old 1930s permitted area. By comparing only half of the permitted AUM’s from the 1930s to the current AUM’s permitted today we would see a 66% average reduction for the entire analysis area, from the past to the present.
In addition to this reduction in AUM’s, livestock management has also changed over time. Early 1900s livestock management consisted of various herds of livestock grazing different and overlapping portions of the allotments. Livestock were often turned out in the spring and gathered in the fall, with little thought as to where and how they grazed the allotments. Trespass livestock by non-permittees and excess livestock use by permittees turning out double the amount of stock permitted, was also reported to be common during this time period. This type of overuse combined with poor grazing management would have resulted in over-grazing of preferred sites (typically valley bottoms), with minimal use on uplands or non-preferred sites. As the knowledge of the interactions between the environment and herbivores has increased, so has the management. Significant changes were made by the 1970s. Pasture rotations were developed; range improvement projects were implemented and reductions in seasons of use and livestock numbers were made. These first steps significantly improved depleted resource conditions and provided the foundation for future management.
Currently, grazing management varies between allotments within the analysis area. All allotments use a rotational grazing strategy that alters the time of year a particular area is grazed. However, the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments currently use a minimal number of pastures which allows for multiple defoliations of preferred sites until utilization levels are reached. The Hickerson Park C&H allotment uses a multi- pasture rotational grazing strategy that already incorporates design features described in the proposed action. This type of management on the allotments has resulted in: 1) smaller numbers of consolidated livestock, 2) shortened season of use and 3) improved distribution, compared to past management.
The proposed action would continue to move management forward by incorporating plant development and/or recovery into the grazing plans. This is accomplished by using several strategies such as changing the time of year that an area is grazed, allowing long recovery periods, limiting grazing use to moderate levels and improving distribution through management. Consequently, these strategies allow plants to regrow and recover from grazing before they are grazed again, or grow to full development before they are grazed. This is accomplished through management techniques designed to allow plants the ability to grow before grazing and/or regrow after grazing.
The allotments within the analysis area provide essential summer, and early fall forage for a total of 607 cow/calf pairs. The analysis area is located in Summit County, Utah. However, this area is separated from most of Summit County by the Uinta Mountains. The permittees and ranches tied to this allotment function as part of southwestern Wyoming economy in Uinta County. Agriculture has been the traditional mainstay of the economy in Uinta County, accounting for 4.7% of the overall job market (Economic Profile System, 2009). Cattle are the major agricultural production commodity in Wyoming. In 2008, cattle and calves accounted for 77% of all cash receipts received by Wyoming livestock producers (Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2009). In addition to economic contributions, private lands below the National Forest owned by the permittees associated with the allotments, provide open space and important winter range habitat
64
for wildlife. In 2002 the University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with Uinta County, conducted a survey of residents in and around Uinta County. This survey was conducted in order to determine resident and landowner preferences for rural land use. Of those individuals surveyed, 84% felt that undeveloped open space in Uinta County was an important characteristic to conserve (Mcleod et al. 2002). The following table lists the ranching families permitted on the allotment along with the livestock, period of use, and AUMs:
Table 12. Allotment, Permittee, Period of Use, Livestock Numbers, Kind and Class Period of Livestock Use Permittee Allotment Permit Number Kind Class From To AUMs Doug Beck Burnt Fork Term 33 Cattle Cow/Calf 6/26 9/25 132 C&H Milt Beck Burnt Fork Term 49 Cattle Cow/Calf 6/26 9/25 196 C&H George Burnt Fork Term 100 Cattle Cow/Calf 6/26 9/30 422 Gamble C&H Taylor Beaver Creek Term 125 Cattle Cow/Calf 7/05 9/10 370 Ranches C&H Jon & RaNae U-W-C portion Term 150 Cattle Cow/Calf *Generally 33 Wilde of Hickerson falls between Park C&H 7/1 and 9/6 Quarter Circle U-W-C portion Term 100 Cattle Cow/Calf for a 22 Three Bar of Hickerson maximum of Ranch Park C&H 33 days. Allen & Nancy U-W-C portion Term 50 Cattle Cow/Calf 11 Young of Hickerson Park C&H Total Estimated AUM’s 1,186 *The U-W-C portion of Hickerson Park C&H allotment is included in the Round Park pasture on the Hickerson Park C&H allotment. This pasture is grazed for a maximum of 33 days during the grazing season. The U-W-C portion of this pasture is approximately 15% of the Round Park pasture; therefore AUM’s are estimated based on this proportion.
Rangeland Vegetation Rangeland health, productivity and plant dispersion on the allotment is directly related to topography, geology, climate, domestic livestock grazing practices, wildlife, human activities and plant species interactions. Specifically, some of these influences include: slope, aspect, elevation, stability, deposition or accumulation of snow, substrate type, soil type, fertility of soil, water holding capacity of soil, amount of precipitation, type of precipitation (snow vs. rain), area of precipitation, timing of precipitation, temperature, wind, duration and depth of snow, solar availability, freeze-thaw cycles, wildlife species, wildlife populations, areas and plants used by wildlife, amount of time and time of year an area is used by wildlife, amount of use by wildlife, type of livestock, numbers of livestock, areas and plants used by livestock, amount of time and time of year an area is used by livestock, amount of use by livestock, management activities associated with livestock, recreational activities, road construction, energy development, fire, timber harvests, facilities construction, landscaping, re-seeding projects, and the physical and chemical competition between plants for available space and nutrients. Slight differences caused by any of these factors can alter the numerous microhabitats found on the allotment and change the overall cover and species composition found on each site.
65
Plant communities are always changing at rates that vary depending on disturbance or climatic events (Brown 2006).
Figure 7 demonstrates the percentages of the six distinct vegetation/cover types that exist on the allotment. Each vegetation type is categorized by the dominant vegetative or physical feature found on within the analysis area and is made of many diverse microhabitats.
Figure 7. Vegetation / Cover Types
Sagebrush / Grasslands The sagebrush / grasslands vegetation type represents the low lying open parks and sage covered areas found scattered throughout the analysis area ranging from 8,000 to 9,300 feet elevation. This vegetation type consists of approximately 4,360 acres or 12% of the total analysis area. Dominate shrubs for this vegetation type include, Artemisia tridentate, Symphoricarpos oreophilus, Artemisia nova and Artemisia cana. Common grass species include Festuca saximontana, bromus anomalus, Leucopoa kingii, Achnatherum lettermanii and Poa secunda. Common forb species include Phlox multiflora, Arnica cordifolia and Arenaria congesta. Precipitation for the lower portion of this vegetation type averages between 15 to 25 inches per year.
Mountain Shrublands (Mtn. Mahogany) This vegetation type is dominated by birchleaf mountain mahogany. Within the analysis area, birchleaf mountain mahogany is typically found on steep (greater than 45% slope) south facing hillsides between 8,500 and 9,500 feet elevation. Due to this steepness in slope, much of this vegetation type is considered unsuitable to livestock grazing. This vegetation type consists of approximately 1,782 acres or 5% of the total analysis area. Dominate shrubs for this vegetation type include Cercocarpus montanus, Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, Amelanchier alnifolia, Symphoricarpos oreophilus and Artemisia nova. Common grass species include Elymus trachycaulus and Koeleria macrantha. Common forb species include Arnica cordifolia, Antennaria media and Artemisa franserioides. Precipitation for this vegetation type is between 15 to 25 inches per year.
Broadleaf Deciduous Trees (Aspen / Cottonwood) This vegetation type is located in the middle to lower elevations throughout the analysis area. Much of the aspen community type contains a mixture of aspen and lodgepole
66
pine. Aspen found in these areas produce lower amounts of understory vegetation than aspen located in draws and along open parks. The cottonwood community type is typically found along the lower sections of creeks and drainages, such as the lower portion of Burnt Fork. Tree and willow/shrub species commonly found within this vegetation type are Populus angustifolia, Populus tremuloides, Salix drummondii, Salix planifolia, Artemisia tridentate, Dasiphora fruticosa and Salix bothii. Common grass/sedge species include Elymus trachycaulus, Carex aquatilis, Elymus repens and Poa secunda. Common forb species include Lupinus albifrons, Aquilegia coerulea and Campanula rotundifolia. This vegetation type covers approximately 1,815 acres and accounts for 5% of the analysis area. Elevation for this type ranges from 8,300 to 9,800 feet. Precipitation varies from 15 to 25 inches annually, depending on elevation.
Willow / Wet Meadow The Willow / Wet Meadow vegetation type represents the wet open parks and riparian stingers that are found scattered throughout the analysis area ranging from 8,000 to 10,800 feet elevation. Carex aquatilis, Calamagrostis Canadensis, Elymus trachycaulus, and Poa pratensis are the common grasses/sedges found in this vegetation type. Forb species commonly found in this type are Achillea millefolium, Thalictrum fendleri and Antennaria media. Willows and shrubs commonly found in this type are Salix drummondii, Dasiphora fruticosa, Salix exigua, Salix planifolia and Salix bothii. Many different community types are found within this vegetation type. Species composition, as well as precipitation, will vary tremendously depending on the elevation of each site. Precipitation will vary annually from 15 inches in low elevations to 35 inches in high elevations. This vegetation type consists of approximately 1,195 acres or 3% of the total analysis area.
Conifer Coniferous vegetation includes Pinus contorta, Pinus flexilis and Picea engelmannii. Pinus contorta is typically found in the lower portion of the allotment, below 9,500 feet elevation. Picea engelmannii can be found scattered throughout the allotment in drainage bottoms and along steep hillsides. Pinus flexilis stands are generally found in the lower elevations in the analysis area, below 9,300 feet elevation. This type comprises 26,260 acres or 73% of the analysis area. Very few grasses, forbs, and shrubs are found in the understory of this vegetation type which limits livestock grazing. However, some less densely stocked stands, located in wetter areas along riparian stingers and valley bottoms do produce 200 pounds of forage per acre or more. In these areas, common willow species include Salix geyeriana and Salix planifolia. Common grass/sedge species include Carex aquatilis, Carex rossii, Phleum alpinum and Calamagrostis Canadensis. Galium boreale, Penstemon whippleanus and Geranium richardsonii are some of the common forbs. Precipitation in the conifer forests varies from 15 to 35 inches annually.
Barren Areas There are 397 acres or 1% classified as barren in the analysis area. These areas are primarily found in the upper elevations on mountain tops and steep side slopes. These areas are typically void of vegetation. However, areas of sparsely populated vegetation can be found scattered across this cover type.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Rangeland Health
67
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects: Implementing the Proposed Action would maintain and/or provide for improvement in rangeland health and productivity. The implementation of a grazing plan with short grazing periods and alternating the time of use would allow most forage plants to complete their growth cycle every other year and/or recover from the effects of grazing. Forage plants would improve in vigor, resulting in greater amounts of litter and decaying organic matter, providing for long-term soil maintenance and soil stability. The amount of bare soil would remain static and/or decrease, except in areas inhabited by pocket gophers. Species composition would remain unchanged and/or improve as longer periods of rest would allow desirable native plant species the opportunity to complete their growth cycle and produce seeed. Plant nutrients would be recycled through livestock grazing and fecal deposition. Soil crusting would be limited and plant seedlings would be able to become established. This improvement should continue for the planning period. Currently, Forest Plan standards and guidelines for vegetative resources are being met within the analysis area. It is expected that those standards and guidelines would continue to be met and resource conditions would be maintained and/or improved, through implementation of the Proposed Action.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects area is defined as those lands found within the boundaries of the analysis area, the remaining portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment located outside the analysis area on the Ashley N.F. and private lands owned by the permittees associated with the allotments that lie below the National Forest boundary. The Hickerson Park C&H allotment is currently implementing management techniques described in the Proposed Action and recent monitoring has indicated that overall vegetative and ground cover conditions are satisfactory and are meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines, throughout the allotment (Goodrich and R.A. Zobell, 2009). As a result it is reasonable to conclude that satisfactory conditions would continue to be maintained or improved throughout the entire Hickerson Park C&H allotment. As the permittees would be able to sustain their current level of operations, it can reasonable be concluded that conditions would be maintained on those private lands below the Forest boundary. Overall satisfactory conditions would be maintained or improve on the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments.
Alternative 2 - No Grazing
Direct and Indirect Effects: The elimination of livestock grazing in the analysis area would benefit forage plants on most areas for a period of time. The elimination of livestock grazing would allow all forage plants to complete their growth cycle. This would allow forage plants to improve in vigor, resulting in greater amounts of litter and decaying organic matter. The amount of bare soil would remain static and/or decrease, except in those areas inhabited by pocket gophers. Depending on wild ungulate selectivity, prolonged periods of non-use would result in an accumulation of littler which can cover up the growing points of certain plants and delay plant development in the spring. Prolonged periods of non-use can also reduce forage palatability. Studies have found that the forage quality of Carex aquatilus, a common and highly palatable forage plant in the analysis area, increases with grazing use (R.L. Phillips et. al. 1999). In addition to increasing the crude protein content and digestibility of grasses and forbs, grazing also reduces litter, allowing for earlier spring growth (Rhodes and Sharrow 1990). Over all the analysis area would see a 5-10 year improvement in vegetative conditions. After that condition would level out and the availability of quality forage
68
would decline.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects area is defined as those lands found within the boundaries of the analysis area, the remaining portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment located outside the analysis area on the Ashley N.F. and private lands owned by the permittees associated with the allotments that lie below the National Forest boundary. If livestock grazing were excluded on the U-W-C N.F. portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment it would result in additional grazing pressure placed on the Ashley National Forest portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment. This could result in areas of over-use and depleted conditions on the Ashley National Forest portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment. It is also likely that additional grazing pressure would be placed on those private lands owned by the permittees, as those permittees would need to utilize all resources available to them to sustain their operation. This would result in depleted resource conditions on private lands associated with the allotments and negatively impact wildlife winter range. The analysis area would see an improvement in rangeland health and productivity in five to 10 years. After that conditions would level out and the availability of quality forage would decline.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) Direct and Indirect Effects: Currently, Forest Plan standards and guidelines for vegetative resources are being met within the analysis area. It is expected that those standards and guidelines, for most of the analysis area, would continue to be met and resource conditions maintained, with the possible exception of those areas where livestock tend to concentrate. Areas where livestock tend to congregate would remain static or possibly decline in condition. Grazing use of forage plants in these areas would be at risk of exceeding allowable use levels. This would either result in declining conditions or early removal of livestock. Site specific resource objectives would not be implemented to provide for improved resource conditions. There would be no adaptive changes to current seasons of use, grazing rotation systems, livestock number, or class. Range improvements would be maintained by term grazing permit holders as specified in the term grazing permit. No new range improvements would be constructed to implement better management and improve distribution. A minimal amount of monitoring and inventory data would be collected. Changes to grazing management would be administrative only.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects area is defined as those lands found within the boundaries of the analysis area, the remaining portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment located outside the analysis area on the Ashley National Forest and private lands owned by the permittees associated with the allotments that lie below the National Forest boundary. There would be no effect on the Hickerson Park C&H allotment as current management incorporates techniques described in the Proposed Action and recent monitoring has indicated that overall vegetative and ground cover conditions are satisfactory and are meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines, throughout the allotment (Goodrich and R.A. Zobell, 2009). As the permittees would be able to sustain their current level of operations, it can reasonable be concluded that conditions would be maintained on those private lands below the Forest boundary. Rangeland health on the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments would be maintained and/or possibly decline in areas where livestock tend to concentrate.
Applicable Revised Wasatch Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines
69
Utilization standards were evaluated to determine compliance with applicable standards and guidelines defined in the Revised Forest Plan. Results of this analysis are as follows:
(S24) As a tool to achieve desired conditions of the land, maximum forage utilization standards for vegetation types in satisfactory condition using traditional grazing systems (rest rotation, deferred rotation, season long) are as follows (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-51):
Forest Plan, Table S24: Percent utilization of key grass or grass like vegetation, by vegetation type, for rangelands in satisfactory condition. Percent Utilization Key Grass Vegetation Type Condition or Grass like Upland and Aspen Satisfactory 50 Crested Wheatgrass Satisfactory 60 Riparian* Class I Satisfactory 50 Riparian* Class II & III Satisfactory 60 *Riparian, away from greenline
Past use records, photo point monitoring, paired plot clippings and individual site evaluations were used to determine the overall standard level of use received in a particular grazing area. 2009 utilization evaluations found grazing use to be highly variable, ranging between 0 – 60%, depending on the area surveyed. The U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Regions, Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide contains the following herbaceous utilization classes; (0-5% No use, 6-20% Slight use, 21-40% Light use, 41-60% Moderate use, 61-80% Heavy use and 81-100% Severe use). Base on this interpretation, the overall standard level of use would be classified as light to moderate. Forest Plan Standard S24 - met.
(S25) As a tool to achieve desired conditions of riparian areas, maximum forage utilization standards (stubble height) for low to mid elevation greenline species in Class I, II, and III (see Forest Plan Appendix VII) riparian areas in satisfactory condition are as follows: (Key species being grazed include water sedge, Nebraska sedge, and and/or wooly sedge.) ( Forest Service 2003, page 4-51)
Forest Plan, Table S25. Greenline stubble height at the end of the growing season, by riparian class, for rangeland satisfactory condition- Riparian Class Condition Greenline Stubble Height at End of Growing Season Riparian Class I Satisfactory No Less Than 5” Riparian Class II Satisfactory No Less Than 4” Riparian Class III Satisfactory No Less Than 3”
Past use records, photo point monitoring, paired plot clippings and individual site evaluations were used to determine the overall standard level of use received in a particular grazing area. 2009 utilization evaluations found riparian stubble heights to be highly variable, with no use recorded on some sites and between 5 – 12 inches with regrowth, on other sites. Forest Plan Standard S25 - met.
(S26) For all rangelands, including big game winter range and riparian areas, permit no more than 50% of the current year’s growth on woody vegetation to be browsed during
70
one growth cycle (i.e., when use has reached 50% allow no additional livestock use). (Forest Service 2003, page 4-52)
In 2009 eight line-intercept monitoring points we reread across the analysis area, primarily looking at birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush. Sites 12-6 and 11-15B recorded an increase in mountain big sagebrush. Sites 12-15, 12-6B and 12-23A recorded a decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush. These decreases were attributed to past drought, inconsistency in monitoring methods and wildlife winter use. Sites 12-22A, 12- 26A and 12-28 recorded a decrease in birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush between the mid 1960s and the late 1990s and then an increase between the 1990s and 2009. This increase may be attributed to a difference in sampling methods, as the photos do not illustrate this trend. Pellet group counts indicate that the bulk of the use occurs from elk, primarily during late fall, winter and early spring. Utilization monitoring photos taken on sites 12-23A and 12-28, at the end of the grazing season showed that stem leader growth on birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush remained between 6-12 inches throughout the grazing season with little use by herbivores. This indicates that the bulk of the grazing use on birchleaf mountain mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, and black sagebrush is taking place during the winter when livestock are off the forest. The majority of these studies indicate that winter browsing use by wild ungulates has impacted mountain mahogany and sagebrush within the analysis area. Conversely, 44 long-term monitoring sites displayed a notable increase in conifers, aspen and/or willows. These results are displayed in Table 10 of this analysis.
Past use records, photo point monitoring and individual site evaluations have not recorded any areas where utilization during the permitted grazing season has exceeded 50% of the current year’s growth on woody vegetation. Overall, domestic livestock grazing use on woody vegetation is classified as “light” throughout the allotment. This evaluation has concluded that Forest Plan utilization standard S26 is being met.
Rangeland health is defined in Region 4 as either functioning, functioning-at-risk, or not functioning. As described in the 2005 Region 4 Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Management Handbook, FSH 2209.21,22, Sec.20.05, rangelands are functioning when they are meeting a desired condition identified in long-term specified management objectives, standards, and/or guidelines; and have the capability across the landscape for renewal, for recovery from a wide range of disturbances, and for retention of its ecological resilience (Forest Service 2005). Trend is defined as, “The direction of change in an attribute as observed over time.” (SRM 1998, Glossary of terms used in Range Management) Trend on the allotment was derived by the use of both apparent and measured trend. Region 4 requires that trend be expressed in terms of “meeting”, “moving toward”, or “not meeting” desired conditions. Long-term monitoring has indicated that the following desired conditions described in the Revised Wasatch Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being achieved within the analysis area:
(S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for each vegetation cover type. (See Forest Plan Appendix VII for potential ground cover values by cover type.) (Forest Service 2003, page 4-37)
Results for Forest Plan standard S7 are displayed in Table 10 of this analysis. Forest Plan Standard S7 - met.
71
(G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide( Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. (Forest Service 2003, page 4-37)
Results for Forest Plan guideline G7 are displayed in Table 10 of this analysis. Forest Plan Guideline G7 - met.
Applicable Ashley Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines
- Rangelands in unsatisfactory condition and which will not or cannot be improved will not be allocated to livestock grazing (IV-32).
Range analysis conducted throughout the analysis area has found that all rangelands that are currently meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines, thus it can be reasonably concluded that all rangelands are in satisfactory condition. Therefore, suitable rangelands will be allocated to livestock grazing.
- Locate range fences to allow for movement of people and to exclude livestock from areas of concentrated recreational use (FP-IV-32).
There are no new range fences proposed on the Ashley National Forest portion of the analysis area.
- Limit forage utilization by livestock of key browse species on big game winter range to 20% (FP page IV-33).
Past use records, photo point monitoring and individual site evaluations have not recorded any areas where utilization, during the permitted grazing season, has exceeded 20% of the current year’s growth of key browse species on Ashley National Forest lands identified as big game winter range. Overall, domestic livestock grazing use on woody vegetation is classified as “light” throughout the allotment.
- Improve rangeland classified as unsatisfactory where cost effective (IV-32).
Rangeland within the analysis area is classified as satisfactory, therefore this guideline would not apply.
- Transitory range may be allocated to livestock (Management Areas b – Moderate Timber Production, d – High Forage Production, k – Maximum Water Yield Recreation, n – Range of Resource Uses & Outputs; IV-32).
Rangelands considered suitable for livestock grazing within the analysis area are those lands that produced at least 200 pounds of forage, have a slope less than 45% and are within one mile of surface water. The management areas on the Ashley National Forest that are classified as transitory range and are suitable for livestock grazing consist of approximately 574 acres of b-Moderate Timber.
72
- Revise range allotment plans to be consistent with the Forest Plan (IV-32).
Revised AMP’s will be derived from the selected alternative. All alternatives are designed to be consistent with Forest Plan direction.
- Priority for new range structural improvements will be to develop water sources where there are no available sources within one mile. Design for development will allow for use by game animals and birds (IV-33).
The Cow Hollow Middle Pond (#005146) is the only range development schedule to be improved on the Ashley National Forest. This is an existing water development that is located one mile from any other water source. Reconstructing and improving this water source will allow for improved livestock grazing distribution. This water development will be built to Forest Service specifications and contain design features such as wildlife escape ramps and exclosure barriers that will allow wildlife to utilize the development without becoming injured.
- Give priority to restoring needed existing structural improvements before constructing new ones (IV-33).
The Cow Hollow Middle Pond (#005146) is an existing water development on the Ashley National Forest that has been identified as a priority to be reconstructed and restored.
- Protect springs and seeps from grazing livestock where resource damage is occurring (page IV-33).
Recent analysis has not found any areas where resource damage is occurring on existing springs and seeps.
- Control all group I noxious weeds and all group II noxious weeds as defined by Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200 (page IV-33).
All known populations of noxious weeds are currently being treated within the analysis area.
- Manage vegetation in riparian areas to be in good or excellent ecological condition (DFC), with a stable or upward trend (FP page IV-46).
Riparian monitoring evaluations on Table 10 show that riparian areas are currently in good or excellent ecological condition. The Ashley National Forest portion of the analysis area does not contain major stream channels.
- Allow a maximum of 50% use of current year’s growth on browse species in riparian areas (IV-46).
Past use records, photo point monitoring and individual site evaluations have not recorded any areas where utilization, during the permitted grazing season, has exceeded 50% of the current year’s growth on woody vegetation. Overall, domestic livestock grazing use on woody vegetation is classified as “light” throughout the allotment.
73
- Identify vacant niches and mitigate conflicts with other resources (IV-31).
Conflicts with other uses have been mitigated when and if they have arisen. This practice will be continued and is identified in the Proposed Action under the Annual Meeting section.
- Manage grazing in aspen stands to ensure sprouting and sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long term viability of aspen clones.
The following grazing management guidelines and management prescriptions described in the Wasatch Forest Plan may also be used when applicable to help manage livestock grazing on the U-W-C National Forest portion of the analysis area:
(G71) As a tool to achieve rehabilitation of upland, aspen, and riparian communities away from the greenline that are not meeting or moving toward objectives (i.e., in unsatisfactory condition), maximum allowed forage utilization will be 30 to 40 percent. (Forest Service 2003, page 4-52)
(G72) Modify grazing practices that prevent attainment of desired future conditions for vegetation and/or aquatic resources. ( Forest Service 2003, page 4-52)
(G73) Delay livestock use in post-fire and post-harvest created forest openings until successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components occurs (aspen trees reach an average height of 6 feet). (Forest Service 2003, page 4-52)
(G74) Stock driveways and trailing routes will be located outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas unless terrain and/or vegetation are prohibitive. When driveways and trailing routes must pass through Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, they will be located and livestock moved through them in such a way to minimize the extent and/or severity of potential damage caused by trailing. (Forest Service 2003, page 4-52)
(G75) Annual operating instructions (and/or Allotment Management Plans) should be evaluated and additional site-specific objectives defined if needed for any or all of the following five parameters: . stubble height on selected key species on the greenline, . stubble height on selected key species and/or the amount of bare ground within the riparian zone but away from the greenline, . riparian woody browse utilization (trees and shrubs), . stream bank trampling on key reaches, and . stubble height and/or incidence of use on key species in the uplands. (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-52)
In addition the following grazing management guidelines and management prescriptions described in the Ashley Forest Plan may also be used when applicable to help manage livestock grazing on the Ashley National Forest portion of the analysis area:
- Place additional responsibility and accountability on the permittees for livestock management and obtain at least 50 percent permittee participation in all range improvement construction costs (p. IV-33).
74
- Adjust allotment boundaries to reduce operating and management costs where possible (p. IV-33).
- Riparian area dependant resources will be given preferential consideration in cases of unresolvable conflicts (p. IV-45).
- Where it is determined through the landscape assessment process that ungulate grazing is contributing to an indentified functioning-at-risk condition relative to habitat needed to support goshawk and its prey, modify grazing practices to maintain or restore the desired seed, mast, and foliage production defined in the landscape assessment process. Review success of the modifications annually. If modifications are not providing for the desired progression toward production objectives defined in the landscape assessment, modify practices through the next annual operating plan. (Northern Goshawk Forest Plan Amendment, Guideline X)
- Riparian areas are given high priority for rehabilitation in range improvement, fish and wildlife improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance, and KV programs (p. IV-46) Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species
There are no threatened or endangered plant species known within the project area. The following plant species are known on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains or adjacent to this area.
Sensitive Plant Species: Least moonwort (Botrychium simplex) This plant was added to the sensitive list in a letter (30 March 2010) by the Regional Forester, Region 4. No specimens have been identified within the allotments. The dynamics of moonwort populations includes below ground structures (gemmae, gametophytes, juvenile plants, and spores) that typically greatly exceed above ground populations. Propagules can persist belowground for years, creating a secure reservoir from which aboveground plants can be reestablished. The propagule bank serves as a buffer against extinction. The long-term impact of environmental perturbations on populations is buffered by a large bank of belowground structures (Johnson-Groh et at. 2002). Dynamics of moonwort populations indicates resistance to ungulate grazing.
Tower mustard (Arabis glabrata var. furcatipilis) (proposed sensitive) This plant has not been identified within the allotments.
Alpine cinquefoil (Potentilla pensylvanica var. paucijuga) Range in elevation of the allotments extends from about 8,000 to 10,500 feet. This range of elevation excludes alpine and near alpine plants.
Spruce wormwood (Recommended Sensitive) There is low potential for this species on these allotments. This plant is known only from upper elevations (above 10,500 ft) of the spruce belt and adjacent alpine areas of the main axis of the Uinta Mountains from Henrys Fork and to the west. Area of these allotments is away from the main axis of the Uinta Mountains and well removed from
75
known populations of this plant. Spruce wormwood is reasonably expected to be lacking on these allotments.
Clustered lady’s slipper (Sensitive) Since this plant is found in coniferous forests, there appears to be potential habitat for on these allotments. However, no plants of the species have been found on these allotments. This plant has persisted in relative high abundance concurrent with permitted livestock grazing in the Little Brush Creek and Cart Creek drainages of the Uinta Mountains. These factors indicate no impact.
Habitat is not found on the allotments for the following plants: Starvling milkvetch (sensitive), Uinta greenthread (sensitive), Arctic poppy (sensitive), Rockcress draba (sensitive).Echo spring-parsley (recommended sensitive), and Utah Ivesia (recommended sensitive).
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Plant Species None of the taxa listed on the sensitive list by the Regional Forester in March 2010 are known to occur on the Mountain View/Evanston District. Based on this information, a determination of "no impact" is made for Sensitive plants. This determination is applicable to all alternatives considered in the proposed action. No direct effects are anticipated, therefore, no cumulative effects from any of the action alternatives are anticipated.
Effects to Permittee Workload (Issue 4)
Livestock management activities, such as riding, salting, herding and maintain range improvement structures can have an effect on the workload placed on the permittee. The frequency in which the permittee moves livestock, where and how salt is distributed and the number, size and location of the range improvements that must be maintained are all factors that affect the amount of work that is placed on the permittee. Currently there are approximately 6 miles of interior unit/boundary fences, 11 miles of Forest/private land boundary fences and 3 water developments that require maintenance by the permittees in the analysis area. Riding, salting and herding requirements currently vary between the allotments depending on livestock needs, location and management.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Permittee Workload
Alternative 1 -Proposed Action
Of the 4 water developments proposed under this alternative, 1 would be located in the same location as an existing water development. The proposal for this development would incorporate additional materials that would require more maintenance, but would be located in the same area as the existing development. This leaves a net total of 3 additional water developments to be maintained in new locations. These 3 water developments are stock ponds that would require periodic cleaning every 15-20 years. The initial cost for materials and construction of these developments would be shared between the Forest Service and the permittee. These new water developments would
76
require additional maintenance in addition to what has been performed in the past. However, due to the relatively low frequency of the maintenance and benefit of better livestock distribution and forage utilization as a result of these improvements, impacts on the permittees are considered to be minor. In addition to these water developments 6 fencing project are also proposed under this alternative. One of these projects involves relocating the same amount of fence to a slightly different location which would result in no additional maintenance needs. Another fencing project involves removing ½ mile of fence and replacing it with a 1/16 mile section of fence, which would reduce maintenance needs. The 6 fencing projects proposed total less than 1 mile. These fences are designed to help control livestock and improve grazing distribution and use. If they are not in place, the permittees would need to spend more time on the allotment making sure that livestock are in the correct location and that utilization levels are not exceeded. The labor required to maintain the additional net total of 1/16 of a mile of fence would be relatively equal to the additional herding time needed if the fences were not in place. Therefore, the proposed fencing projects are anticipated to have little effect on the permittees. The initial cost for materials and construction of these developments would be shared between the Forest Service and the permittee. The initial construction of all projects would increase the workload placed on the permittees during construction.
The proposed action utilizes a multi-pasture rotational grazing system that incorporates additional pastures into the grazing schedule. This would require the permittees to spend additional time herding their livestock between the different pastures on the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H allotments. The Hickerson Park portion of U-W-C National Forest would be unaffected as no additional grazing units would be added to this area. Riding and salting requirements would be relatively unaffected across the analysis area, because permittees are already placing salt in areas underutilized by livestock and checking for sick and injured livestock would still need to be performed.
Based on this analysis it can be concluded that the proposed action would place a slightly higher workload on the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H permittees. As the Hickerson Park C&H portion of the U-W-C National Forest is currently implementing management techniques described in the Proposed Action and no additional pastures or range improvement projects are proposed in this area, it can be concluded that there would be no additional workload placed on these permittees.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area is defined as those lands found within the boundaries of the analysis area, the remaining portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment which is located outside the analysis area on the Ashley National Forest and private lands owned by the permittees associated with the allotments that lie below the National Forest boundary. As the Hickerson Park C&H allotment is currently implementing management techniques described in the Proposed Action and no additional pastures or range improvement projects are proposed on this allotment, then it can be concluded that there would be no effect to the workload placed on the permittees that would affect the Hickerson Park C&H allotment or private lands owned by these permittees. For the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H permittees it has been determined that the workload may increase slightly in the analysis area. However the workload to the permittees on their private land would not be affected.
Alternative 2 -No Grazing
77
Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H permittees’ workload would decrease in the analysis area as they would no longer be required to maintain interior range improvements. They would however, still be required to maintain Forest/private land boundary fences where their private land borders the National Forest. This would decrease but not eliminate the workload placed on the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H permittees. The Hickerson Park C&H permittees would most likely see an increase in fence maintenance and subsequent workload, as a new fence would need to be constructed that would restrict livestock from utilizing the U-W-C National Forest portion of the Hickerson Park C&H allotment. This new fence would need to be approximately ½ mile long.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area is the same as in Alternative 1. The work load placed on all permittees on their private lands would not be affected. The workload placed on the Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H permittees would be decreased in the analysis area. The workload placed on the Hickerson Park C&H permittees would increase as a result of the new boundary fenced used to keep livestock from entering the U-W-C National Forest.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP)
As the level of management and number of range improvements would remain the same, there would be no additional workload placed on the permittees in the analysis area.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area is the same as in Alternative 1. The workload placed on the permittees in the analysis area, remaining portion of the Hickerson park C&H allotment and the permittees’ associated private land would not change, thus would not be affected. Noxious Weeds
Noxious weeds are indicators of unsatisfactory range condition and are often associated with disturbed sites. Once established, noxious weeds often out-compete native plant species, thus reducing the productivity and sustainability of rangeland vegetation. There are six identified sites that containing noxious weeds in the analysis area. All of these sites contain Canada thistle (Cirsium canadensis), with the site near Hoop Lake Campground also containing Whitetop (Cardaria draba) and Black Henbane (Hyoscyamus niger). Combined, these sites consist of .62 acres out of the total 36,095 acres found in the analysis area. All of these sites are located along roadside, old timber sale roads or in designated campsite. This trend suggests a close association with vehicle traffic and human activity. Currently, there are no known noxious weed infestations inside the wilderness boundary within the analysis area. All known infestations in the analysis area are being treated by chemical and/or mechanical methods, in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Noxious Weeds
Common to All Alternatives 78
As cattle are not currently found to be a major contributing factor in the spread of noxious weeds, it is anticipated that weed treatments would remain relatively unchanged. All known noxious weed sites would be treated by chemical and/or mechanical methods in accordance with State and Federal regulations.
Cumulative Effects There are no anticipated direct or indirect effects, therefore no cumulative effects under any of the alternatives.
Water Resources
Precipitation Patterns In Utah most precipitation occurs from winter snowfall and summer thunderstorm activities. Thunderstorms generally occur as a cloudburst that may drop heavy precipitation along a narrow path. Average annual precipitation in the Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork allotments is 20 to 30 inches. The months of highest water accumulation are March and April mostly in the form of snow (Ashcroft et al. 1992). The precipitation for a storm with a 30 minute period with a 2 year average recurrence interval is 0.45 inches (NOAA 2010).
Drainage Patterns and Water Features The Beaver Creek allotment is located in portions of four subwatersheds. From west to east, these subwatersheds are West Fork Beaver Creek (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060304), (Henrys Fork-Beaver Creek subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060307), Gregory Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060306), and Burnt Fork (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060307). The Burnt Fork allotment is located in portions of three subwatersheds. From west to east, these subwatersheds are Gregory Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060306), Burnt Fork (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060307), and Birch Creek-Upper Henrys Fork (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060309). These streams flow north into the Henrys Fork that flows into the Blacks Fork which flows into the Green River near Manila, Utah.
The main streams within the Beaver Creek allotment are West Fork Beaver Creek, Middle Fork Beaver Creek, and East Fork Beaver Creek. The main streams within the Burnt Fork allotment are Thompson Creek, Kabell Creek and Burnt Fork. Kabell Creek and Burnt Fork are tributaries of Thompson Creek. There are many small perennial and ephemeral channels that are tributary to these named streams. The main streams within the lower part of the allotments are about 30 feet wide and have varying gradients from steep to almost level. The stream channels are stable because of the large cobble and boulder streambeds and stream banks.
Two reservoirs and many small ponds are located in the allotment area. The two reservoirs are Hoop Lake and Beaver Dam Reservoir. Most of the ponds are located between the West Fork and Middle Fork of Beaver Creek. Livestock rarely use these ponds for watering because they are located in the conifers that have less forage than other areas and have down timber that makes access difficult.
Stream Channel and Riparian Conditions
79
Field reviews of the allotment where stream and riparian conditions took place on July 21-23, 2009 and July 27-30, 2009. Almost all of the stream channels are stable as indicated by the lack of stream bank erosion mostly due to the large cobble and boulder streambeds and stream banks and the dense, deep-rooted vegetation such as willows and sedges. The riparian areas and wet meadows have dense, deep-rooted vegetation and small areas where very little short-term trampling of vegetation and very little bare soil was observed. In most stream and riparian areas, there are no signs of accelerated erosion or bare soil conditions. During the field reviews, the only areas where some cattle trampling were observed are on the Burnt Fork allotment below Beaver Dam Reservoir at a point where six trails go in several directions and have caused 54 square feet of bare soil (3’ by 3’ by 6 trails). There is a gully headcut in Lost Creek that was caused by illegal ATV use.
Beaver are another major influence on the streams in the allotment. Beaver dams are blown-out every so often because of the steep gradients and high water flows. This is a dynamic and natural process. Ecological changes can occur because of beaver activity. In some areas, beaver influence may help move the site to a higher ecological stage, while in other areas; they may cause the site to move to a lower stage. Beaver activity keeps the water table high, allowing willows and sedges to thrive. Beaver can also provide summer and over-wintering pool habitat for trout. However, beaver may also remove willows and aspen for dam construction. When the dams are blown-out during high run-off of spring snow melt, little vegetation remains. The willows and aspen may be entirely removed, the herbaceous vegetation often dies out due to the flooding by the pond, and stream banks may be left raw and vertical. These types of conditions provide an opportunity for noxious weeds to become established. Beaver are discussed in detail in the Terrestrial Wildlife, Management Indicator Species section.
Stream surveys were conducted to determine the channel morphology and stream stability of the main streams in the allotments. As shown in Table 13, most of the streams in the Beaver Creek allotment are moderately confined boulder and cobble bed channels (B2, B3). The rest of the streams are highly confined boulder and cobble bed channels (A2, A3, AA3) with some unconfined cobble channels (E3) and beaver complexes. In the Burnt Fork allotment, streams are highly confined channels having boulder and cobble stream beds (A2, A3 stream types). The remainder of the stream that were surveyed are moderately confined boulder, cobble and gravel/silt stream bed channels (B2, B3, B4/5); unconfined, gravel bed stream channels (C4); and beaver complexes (Condrat 2010).
Table 13. Length in miles of stream channel by Rosgen stream class Stream Type Beaver Creek allotment Burnt Fork allotment A2 3.3 4.4 A3 3.3 4.3 AA3 0.2 0 B2 6.5 1.1 B3 10.4 0.5 B4/5 0 0.5 C4 0 0.1 E3 0.3 0 Beaver Complex 0.2 0.5 No Class Identified 0.3 0 Total 24.6 11.3 Note: Less than one mile of ephemeral/intermittent stream is within the Hickerson allotment. 80
Most of the stream channels are stable as indicated by most of the channels having large rock, dense vegetation, and bank cutting and deposition of sediment in some of the reaches. On several stream reaches of the allotments, the potential for debris jams are high due to snags and conifers that grow very close to the channel. On the Burnt Fork allotment, one highly confined stream reach had mass wasting occurring on the upper banks. The lack of aquatic vegetation and moderate amounts of channel bed scouring and deposition indicates that the channel bed moves during high flows.
Upland Soil and Ground Cover Conditions Upland soil was observed during the field trips to the allotment and indicators of soil movement were looked for to determine if accelerated erosion was occurring. Several indicators of soil movement on range watersheds are listed in Anderson (1974) and include rills, gullies, trampling displacement, soil remnants, erosion pavement, lichen lines, wind-scoured depressions, aeolian deposits, and alluvial deposits. Most of the upland soils have very good ground cover and almost no accelerated erosion was seen as indicated by the lack of the indicators of accelerated erosion on most of the allotment. Many areas of the allotment were not used, particularly under the conifer stands where down timber makes it difficult for livestock to walk through.
Water Quality The State of Utah has designated the streams draining the watersheds above the National Forest boundary as Antidegradation Segments. This indicates that the existing water quality is better than the established standards for the designated beneficial uses. Water quality is required by state regulation to be maintained at this level. The beneficial uses of streams within these watersheds, as designated by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, are: • Class 2B – protected for recreation • Class 3A – protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic species • Class 4 – protected for agricultural uses. The numeric water quality standards can be found in Section R317-2, Utah Administrative Code, Standards of Quality of Waters of the State (Utah, State of. 2009).
Since 1993, water quality samples have been collected on the Beaver Creek allotment on East Fork Beaver Creek above Hole in the Rock Spring at USGS Gage (USEPA STORET # 4939280), on Middle Fork Beaver Creek at Forest Road 058 crossing (USEPA STORET # 4939320), on West Fork Beaver Creek at Forest Road 058 crossing (USEPA STORET # 4939340), and on the Burnt Fork allotment at the mouth of Burnt Fork at North Slope Road crossing (USEPA STORET # 4939250), as part of a cooperative effort between the US Forest Service and the State of Utah for the purpose of assessing the water quality of this area. The State of Utah has used this information in their reports to U.S. Congress regarding the quality of waters of the State of Utah. Water samples have been analyzed for chemical, nutrient, and metals parameters on a quarterly annual basis up to July 2002 and on a monthly basis since July 2002. Since the start of the cooperative effort, the State of Utah has determined that the waters draining these watersheds fully meet the beneficial uses for which they are classified and are currently fully supporting its beneficial uses. Utah, State of. 2006b). Due to overall support of its beneficial uses, the above listed streams are not included on the
81
2006 Utah Integrated 303(d) and 305(b) Listing of Impaired Waters.(See the specialist report Condrat 2010 available in the project record for more information).
Bacteria data was collected at several streams along the North Slope Road and the results are shown in Table 14. The State of Utah numerical criteria for E. Coli. for beneficial use class 2B (secondary contact recreation) is 608 (#/100 ml. of water). The results in Table 14 indicate that bacteria in these streams are well below the criteria value.
Table 14. Bacteria analysis results Site Most Probable Number for E. Coli. (#/100ml) Middle Beaver (Beaver Creek allotment) 2 East Fork Beaver (Beaver Creek allotment) 9 Thompson Creek (Burnt Fork allotment) 4 Burnt Fork (Burnt Fork allotment) 50
Wetlands An estimated 1,586 acres of wetlands occur within the allotments. Wetlands were delineated in a geographic information system using 2006 NAIP imagery and on the ground experience for identifying wetlands. An estimate of the amount of wetlands by wetland type in these allotments is shown in Table 15. Almost all wetlands that were seen during the field reviews in 2008 appear to be in excellent condition with very little sign of trampling by livestock. The only areas where some trampling was observed behind some blown-out beaver dams in the West Fork Beaver Creek drainage and the tracks that were seen were by elk or deer.
Table 15. Wetland types and estimated amounts for Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork allotments Wetland Type Beaver Creek Allotment Burnt Fork Allotment (acres) (acres) Sedge (PEM1) 273 243 Willow (PSS1) 141 331 Upland Pond (PUB3) 222 41 Upland pond with beaver (PUB3b) 295 0 Total Wetland Area 931 615
Note: There is an additional 40 acres of unclassified wetlands in the Hickerson Allotment
A conclusion from the allotment field reviews in 2009 is that current livestock grazing has very little effect on the wetlands of the allotments because no impacts to wetland areas from livestock grazing were seen.
Floodplains Floodplains are defined by Executive Order 11988 as “lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters”. Floodplains have also been defined in various ways but for this analysis, these areas are defined as flat areas adjacent to streams that are composed of unconsolidated depositional material derived from sediments transported by the related stream, based on definitions contained in (Fairbridge 1968). Most of the main large streams in the area have floodplains or very small areas adjacent to the stream where sediment may become deposited during high flows. These
82
floodplains are about 20 to 40 feet wide and have dense deep-rooted vegetation on them and are functioning properly. Many trees have fallen in the riparian area along the stream channels that makes it difficult for livestock to graze. There are no indications that livestock grazing are affecting the function of the floodplains.
Municipal Watersheds Water originating from the Beaver and Burnt Fork allotments flows into the Henrys Fork drainage and eventually into Flaming Gorge. There are no municipalities that take water from these streams. Water samples on USFS lands taken from the East, West and Middle forks of Beaver Creek and form Burnt Fork indicate that the water leaving the allotment meets Utah drinking water standards.
Water Rights The U.S. Forest Service holds water rights for watering livestock on these allotments.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Water Resources
Alternative 1, Proposed Action The effects to water resources from the proposed action would be the continuance of grazing management that results in very little impact to stream banks, wetlands, water quality, and floodplains.
In a short period of time, range improvements are expected to improve watershed conditions. By using additional fences and places to water livestock, the direct effects of this alternative is better distribution of livestock on the allotment that is expected to result in lighter use of plants and improved ground cover. Also, healthier plants are expected because plants will be able to grow before grazing or regrow after grazing occurs. The indirect effect of better ground cover is less sediment reaching streams during storms.
The direct effects to soil resources from the construction of the range improvements is expected to be a very small amount of ground disturbance for pounding fence posts into the ground and from the movement of soil for the construction of three ponds. No indirect effects to water resources from fence construction, from cleaning an existing pond, or from the construction of three new ponds is expected since these range improvements are distributed around the allotment and each individual range improvement has a very small area of soil disturbance, very little erosion is expected from the construction area and no sedimentation of streams are expected. The construction of permanent fences will occur if the temporary electric fences do not manage livestock adequately. If permanent fences are required, most of the fence will be made of t-posts that are driven into the ground with a post pounder and no digging of the soil is required. The amount of ground disturbance is expected to be less than three square feet, assuming that each fence post is 1 inch square and 361 fence posts are installed every 16 feet along 1.1 miles of fence (total length based on the lengths of fence in Table 3). The amount of ground disturbance for the three new ponds is expected to be about 1,200 square feet assuming each of the three ponds that are constructed is 20 feet by 20 feet.
In the long-term, future adjustments to grazing management as a result of monitoring are expected to continue to improve watershed soil and water conditions of the allotments. It
83
is expected that standards and guidelines for soil and water resources will continue to be met.
Alternative 2, No Action (No Grazing) It is expected that vegetation in non-forested areas would grow much longer since livestock would not be eating plants in these areas. Around a few small springs, the effects of trampling such as compaction of soils and reduction of vegetation would not occur. It is expected that very little change would occur to wetlands since very little impact is occurring currently. It is expected that very little improvement to water quality would occur because there is very little indication that erosion and sedimentation is occurring from current livestock grazing. It is expected that characteristics of floodplains and municipal watersheds will not change due to the removal of livestock.
Alternative 3 Under this alternative, livestock grazing would continue to be permitted under current management (as described in each allotments AMP). It is expected that existing conditions would continue to occur. The direct and indirect effects of this alternative would be similar to existing conditions where some areas of the allotment have more grazing effects than others because of the distribution of livestock around the allotment is not optimal. Currently, there is little evidence of sediment reaching streams from livestock grazing, very little impact on wetlands by livestock, and no indication that floodplains are affected by livestock. These conditions are expected to continue under this alternative.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area the Beaver Creek allotment is the subwatersheds: West Fork Beaver Creek (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060304), (Henrys Fork-Beaver Creek subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060307), Gregory Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060306), and Burnt Fork (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060307). The cumulative effects area the Burnt Fork allotment is the subwatersheds Gregory Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060306), Burnt Fork (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060307), and Birch Creek-Upper Henrys Fork (Hydrologic Unit Code 140401060309). The cumulative effects area was chosen because it represents the area where effects of other activities may be seen in the water draining the allotment. Several other past, present, and future activities may have the potential to effect erosion and resultant sedimentation in streams within the cumulative effects analysis area. Past activities include timber harvest, livestock grazing, and hiking and camping. Livestock numbers peaked in the 1930s and have been reduced by about 66% from that time to the present. Present activities in the cumulative effects area are recreation use such as hiking and camping and releases of water from Hoop Lake for irrigation purposes. These activities are expected to occur in a similar manner as they are presently. Future activities in the cumulative effects area include hiking, camping, releases of water from Hoop Lake for irrigation purposes, and a proposal for fuels treatment using prescribed fire and mechanical treatment near Hoop Lake.
Within the cumulative effects area occur, hiking and camping activities mainly on trails and within dispersed campsites and designated campgrounds at Hoop Lake. These areas do not appear to be show signs of sediment moving into stream channels or other water features. Water releases from Hoop Lake causes short-term increases in sediment in East Fork Beaver Creek due to increased flows in the channel. In the future, the fuels treatment that is proposed near Hoop Lake is expected to not cause adverse effects to
84
water resources because the treatment is mostly located a long distance from water features and the treatment is expected to occur when soils are moist resulting in a relatively quick recovery of the vegetation.
In summary, in the cumulative effects area, very little cumulative effect to water resources is expected from the proposed action and other activities occurring and expected to occur in the future. There currently is very little effect of grazing on erosion and sedimentation, water quality, and wetlands on these allotments. Water quality sampling indicates that State water quality standards are fully meeting their beneficial uses. Cumulatively, there is very little erosion and sedimentation resulting very little effect to water quality as indicated by State water quality standards being met. Cumulatively, very little effect to wetlands is occurring and is expected to occur from all activities in these drainages. Aquatic and Fisheries Species/Habitat (Issue 2)
General Drainage Patterns and Water Features. Stream flows in the project area are primarily influenced by snowmelt. Peak flows generally occur from mid-May to early June and gradually recede to base flows in mid to late August. Base flows continue from this time until April, when temperatures begin to warm. Rainfall from summer storms are generally localized and result in peaks that can exceed snowmelt peaks. The analysis area is located in the Beaver Creek, Burnt Fork and western portion of Birch Creek drainages. Two drainages with perennial flows occur in the analysis area. In the Burnt Fork Drainage, 39.1 miles of stream occurs on the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest including 15.8 miles of perennial stream and 23.3 miles of intermittent/ephemeral stream. Colorado River cutthroat trout are found in approximately 16 miles of stream within the Burnt Fork allotment. In the Beaver Creek Drainage 49.4 miles of stream occurs on the Forest this includes 29.1 miles of perennial stream and 20.3 miles of intermittent/ephemeral stream. In addition, 214 ponds/lakes occur in the Beaver Creek Drainage covering approximately 307 acres. Colorado River cutthroat trout occur in 18.9 miles of stream in this drainage on Forest. A total of 63 lakes/ponds occur in the Burnt Fork Drainage covering approximately 123 acres. A small portion of the Ashley National Forest is also contained in this allotment/drainage and includes 6 miles of intermittent/ephemeral stream and approximately 0.1 acres of pond/lake. Colorado River cutthroat trout are not found in the Ashley portion of this allotment.
Within the Hickerson Park Allotment, 1 mile of stream (North Fork Sheep Creek) occurs in the UWCNF all of which is occupied by CRCT. In addition, 10 ponds/lakes occur in the UWCNF portion of this allotment covering 40 acres.
Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Aquatic Species – Within the project area there are no threatened or endangered aquatic species on either the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache or Ashley national forests. Downstream of the project area there are bonytail chub, humpback chub, Colorado pike minnow and the razorback sucker which are all endangered. Because there will be no new water withdrawals there will be no effects on these species and they will not be discussed further. There are no other aquatic threatened or endangered species listed for the forests that may be affected by the proposed project.
85
There are two Forest Service sensitive species within the drainages that the allotments are in. These are the Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) and the boreal toad (Bufo boreas). There are no other aquatic Forest Service sensitive species listed for the forests that may be impacted by the proposed project.
Fish Monitoring - The Burnt Fork Drainage supports a large population of Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT), while the Beaver Creek Drainage supports a smaller population. These populations include seven streams within the Proposed Project Area. These populations were last monitored in 2007. Sample sites are listed in the fisheries specialist report – Chase 2010 – in the project record.
Beaver Creek Drainage
West Fork Beaver Creek West Fork Beaver Creek was surveyed at three locations on the UWCNF in Summit County, Utah (Table 16). Each of the sites had been sampled previously by the UDWR, the upper two in 1996, and the lower site in 2004, although sampling of the lower site in 2004 was limited to spot electrofishing to obtain a tissue sample for genetic analysis. The results of a 2003 survey conducted near the Utah-Wyoming border are included in Table 16 for comparison with 2007 data.
Lower At the lower site, located immediately downstream of the Forest Road 082 crossing, 1 cutthroat trout and 20 brook trout were collected on August 1, 2007 (Table 16). The water temperature was 12°C and the stream width and depth averaged 7.0 m and 0.39 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 13/km ± 0. The brook trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 302/km ± 60. Sculpin were abundant.
Middle At the middle site, located immediately downstream of the Forest Trail 105 crossing, 34 brook trout were collected on August 8, 2007 (Table 16). The water temperature was 11°C and the stream width and depth averaged 4.7 m and 0.27 m, respectively. The brook trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 300/km ± 48. Sculpin were common. There were no cutthroat trout sampled at this site.
Upper At the upper site, located at the Forest Trail 119 crossing approximately 2.2 km downstream of Gilbert Lake, 3 cutthroat trout and 66 brook trout were collected on August 8, 2007 (Table 16). The water temperature was 9°C and the stream width and depth averaged 3.6 m and 0.27 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 18/km ± 0. The brook trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 569/km ± 48. No other species were sampled at this site.
Table 16. Population statistics for species sampled in West Fork Beaver Creek 1996, 2003, 2004, and 2007 Year Species Number #/km1 kg/ha1 TL2 (mm) WT 3(g) Mean 1, 4 sampled (#/mile) (lb/acre) Mean Range Mean Range K Lower site
86
2007 CT 1 13 (20) 3 (2) 250 156 1.00 BK 20 302 (486) 14 (12) 151 95-229 39 8-112 0.96 SC 16 common 2004 CT sparse BK abundant SC abundant 20035 BK 24 98 (158) 12 (10) 117 65-215 24 2-86 0.99 SC 71 abundant Middle site 2007 BK 34 300 (482) 27 (24) 164 65-245 36 1-164 0.95 SC 13 common 1996 BK 40 381 (613) 33 (30) 165 85-267 52 4-150 1.05 SC 6 sparse Upper site 2007 CT 3 18 (30) 2 (2) 130 92-171 22 5-43 0.88 BK 66 569 (916) 89 (80) 167 55-237 53 2-133 0.95 1996 CT 9 120 (193) 20 (18) 195 162-234 74 50-115 0.99 BK 71 701 (1128) 144 (129) 183 90-245 69 10-140 1.05 BK=brook trout, CT=cutthroat trout, SC=sculpin 1 Calculated for fish ≥ 100 mm. 2 Total Length 3 Total Weight 4 K = Condition Index. K=W/L3 * 100,000. K = 1 means that the fish is considered to be in good health. A K factor of less than 1 means a fish in poorer condition/health. For additional information please refer to Forest Service 2010 – Management Indicator Species Monitoring for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area, 2010. 5 The 2003 survey station was near the UT-WY border, approximately 5 km downstream of the 2007 site.
Middle Fork Beaver Creek Middle Fork Beaver Creek was surveyed at two locations on the WCNF in Summit County, Utah (Table 17). Each of the sites had been sampled previously by the UDWR in 1997.
Lower At the lower site, adjacent to the picnic area near Georges Park Trailhead, 2 cutthroat trout and 25 brook trout were collected on August 1, 2007 (Table 17). The water temperature was 14°C and the stream width and depth averaged 7.3 m and 0.49 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population could not be estimated because one fish was captured during each of the electrofishing passes. However, by combining both passes together into a single pass results in a cutthroat trout population estimate of 22/km ± 0. The brook trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 220/km ± 30. Sculpin were common.
Upper At the upper site, located near Beaver Parks approximately 1.2 km downstream of Hidden Lake, 36 brook trout were collected on August 15, 2007 (Table 17). The water temperature was 12°C and the stream width and depth averaged 6.1 m and 0.42 m, respectively. The brook trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 376/km ± 55. Sculpin were common.
87
Table 17. Population statistics for species sampled in Middle Fork Beaver Creek, 1997 and 2007 Year Species Number #/km1 kg/ha1 TL (mm) WT (g) Mean 1 sampled (#/mile) (lb/acre) Mean Range Mean Range K Lower site 2007 CT 2 222 (352) 2 (2) 194 176-212 64 50-77 0.86 BK 25 220 (354) 14 (12) 148 91-215 39 5-103 0.98 SC 32 common 1997 CT 3 40 (64) 3 (3) 209 204-217 84 79-91 0.92 BK 29 303 (487) 15 (13) 161 90-212 44 7-88 0.99 SC 24 common Upper site 2007 BK 36 376 (604) 36 (32) 178 54-228 60 1-132 0.99 SC 25 common 1997 BK 34 373 (600) 22 (20) 168 70-211 44 2-82 0.85 SC 9 sparse BK=brook trout, CT=cutthroat trout, SC=sculpin 1 Calculated for fish ≥ 100 mm. 2 This estimate was derived by combining both electrofishing passes into a single pass.
East Fork Beaver Creek East Fork Beaver Creek was surveyed at one location on the UWCNF in Summit County, Utah (Table 18). The site was sampled previously by the UDWR in 1998.
At this site, located approximately 1.3 km upstream of the USGS Gaging Station near Hole in the Rock, 2 brook trout were collected on August 1, 2007 (Table 18). The water temperature was 15°C and the stream width and depth averaged 2.1 m and 0.08 m, respectively. The brook trout population could not be estimated and would not be meaningful because all fish were less than 100mm. Additionally, one fish was captured during each of the first two electrofishing passes. A total of three passes were completed, but no fish were captured on the third pass. No other species were sampled.
Table 18. Population statistics for species sampled in East Fork Beaver Creek, 1998 and 2007 Year Species Number #/km1 kg/ha1 TL (mm) WT (g) Mean 1 sampled (#/mile) (lb/acre) Mean Range Mean Range K 2007 BK 2 All <100mm 43 40-46 1 1998 BK 46 389 (626) 51 (46) 132 55-230 30 1-139 1.10 RT 1 9 (14) 0 (0) 219 124 1.18 BK=brook trout, RT=rainbow trout 1 Calculated for fish ≥ 100 mm.
Burnt Fork Drainage Thompson Creek Thompson Creek was surveyed at one location on the WCNF in Summit County, Utah (Table 19).
88
At this site, located approximately 1.6 km upstream of the Forest Road 086 crossing, 27 cutthroat trout were collected on August 14, 2007 (Table 19). The water temperature was 10°C and the stream width and depth averaged 4.05 m and 0.19 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 119/km ± 19. Sculpin were also collected at this site. This stream had not been previously sampled so there are no comparison data.
Table 19. Population statistics for species sampled in Thompson Creek, 2007 Year Species Number #/km1 kg/ha1 TL (mm) WT (g) Mean 1 sampled (#/mile) (lb/acre) Mean Range Mean Range K 2007 CT 27 119 (191) 14 (12) 112 67-215 21 2-100 0.95 SC 39 common CT=cutthroat trout, SC=sculpin 1 Calculated for fish ≥ 100 mm.
Kabell Creek Kabell Creek was surveyed at one location on the UWCNF in Summit County, Utah (Table 20).
At this site, located halfway up Kabell Meadows, 111 cutthroat trout were collected on August 14, 2007 (Table 20). The water temperature was 10°C and the stream width and depth averaged 1.73 m and 0.13 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 909/km ± 0. No other species were sampled at this site. This stream had not been previously sampled so there are no comparison data
Table 20. Population statistics for species sampled in Kabell Creek, 2007 Year Species Number #/km1 kg/ha1 TL (mm) WT (g) Mean 1 sampled (#/mile) (lb/acre) Mean Range Mean Range K 2007 CT 111 909 (1463) 171 (153) 131 30-279 27 1-142 0.89 CT=cutthroat trout 1 Calculated for fish ≥ 100 mm.
Burnt Fork Burnt Fork was surveyed at two locations on the UWCNF in Summit County, Utah (Table 21).
Lower At the lower site, located at the Gauging Station, 35 cutthroat trout were collected on August 13, 2007 (Table 21). The water temperature was 17.5°C and the stream width and depth averaged 8.34 m and 0.18 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 486/km ± 72. Sculpin were abundant. This is the first full sample at this site. Previous fish samples for disease work have been collected at the site but no population estimate calculated.
Upper At the upper site, located approximately 1.9 km upstream of the wilderness boundary, 52 cutthroat trout were collected on August 15, 2007 (Table 21). The water temperature was 10°C and the stream width and depth averaged 5.24 m and 0.23 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 404/km ± 46. Sculpin were common in the survey reach.
89
Table 21. Population statistics for species sampled in Burnt Fork, 2007 Year Species Number #/km1 kg/ha1 TL (mm) WT (g) Mean 1 sampled (#/mile) (lb/acre) Mean Range Mean Range K Lower site 2007 CT 35 486 (782) 14 (13) 136 38-210 31 1-101 1.01 SC abundant Upper site 2007 CT 52 404 (650) 55 (49) 161 73-256 58 3-192 1.03 SC common CT=cutthroat trout, SC=sculpin 1 Calculated for fish ≥ 100 mm.
Beaver Meadow Reservoir Tributary Beaver Meadow Reservoir Tributary was surveyed at one location on the UWCNF in Summit County, Utah (Table 22). This stream enters the reservoir from the southeast. At this site, located a short distance upstream of the reservoir near the point at which the conifers begin to line the stream, 37 cutthroat trout were collected on August 15, 2007 (Table 22). The water temperature was 13°C and the stream width and depth averaged 2.23 m and 0.05 m, respectively. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 80/km ± 0. No other species were sampled at this site.
Cutthroat trout were collected in a sample just below this site on September 16, 1994 (Cowley 1995). The reservoir had inundated the previous sample site and had significantly altered the habitat conditions so the sample site was moved above the reservoir high water level to avoid problems in the future. When sampled previously, 31 cutthroat trout were collected. The cutthroat trout population, fish ≥ 100 mm, was estimated at 95/km ± 27. No other species were sampled.
Table 22. Population statistics for species sampled in the tributary to Beaver Meadow Reservoir, 1994 and 2007 Year Species Number #/km kg/ha TL (mm) WT (g) Mean 1 sampled (#/mile) (lb/acre) Mean Range Mean Range K 2007 CT 37 80 (129) 18 (16) 96 53-169 11 1-45 0.90 1994 CT 31 95 (153) 12 (11) 94 66-157 9 2-41 0.92 CT=cutthroat trout 1 Calculated for fish ≥ 100 mm.
North Fork Sheep Creek (Hickerson Park) North Fork Sheep Creek is the main fishery located within this allotment. A physical habitat survey using the R1/R4 methodology was conducted on this stream in 1997. That survey revealed that percent surface fines for the two reaches surveyed were 14.3% and 5.7%. Streambanks were very stable at 98.1% and 89.2 %. Low gradient (<3%) riffles were the dominate habitat type with pool habitats making up 16.8% and 20.3% for the respective reaches. Overall instream and riparian habitat during fisheries surveys has been documented as being stable with a diversity of habitats available for resident fishes. Consistent with these findings are healthy population of cutthroat trout. In summary, these various long-term studies demonstrate that riparian conditions are healthy (Abeyta 2008).
90
Figure 8. Stream surveys and trout distribution in the Henrys Fork, Beaver Creek, and Burnt Fork drainages, 2007
91
Amphibians Amphibian surveys were conducted on the Evanston – Mt. View Ranger District during the summers of 2004 through 2009 and monitoring of known boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) locations occur annually. Boreal toad, tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), and boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculate) were all found on this District (Thompson and Chase 2009). Boreal toads were identified by the Ashley National Forest at one location in the Burnt Fork Drainage above the allotment in 2009. Other locations may occur but are unknown at this time. Both tiger salamanders and boreal chorus frog are common throughout suitable habitat in Utah. Boreal toads are a State of Utah sensitive species and were recently added to Region 4 of the Forest Service’s Sensitive Species list for Forests in Utah. Habitat conditions at most springs/ponds/lakes and reservoirs were good. Due to the large amount of good quality habitat available, surveying for and locating boreal toad on the North Slope of the Uintas is difficult but continuing.
Management Indicator Species - Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout were the two aquatic species identified as management indicator species (MIS) in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan. Only the Colorado River cutthroat trout are present in the Proposed Project Area (See Fish Monitoring Section). Current Aquatic MIS trends for the Forest can be found in the annual report, Management Indicator Species of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (Forest Service 2008).
The document, Assessment of Management Indicator Species Capability and Suitability on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest with the Management and Restoration Direction (Forest Service 2007) documents how the 2003 Wasatch-Cache Forests Plan identifies and restores Management Indicator Species habitat with regard to grazing.
Table 23 displays aquatic management indicator species; terrestrial MIS are discussed in the Terrestrial wildlife section.
Table 23. Aquatic Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species Forest Plan Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Wasatch-Cache* (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Wasatch-Cache and Ashley (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) National Forest Macroinvertebrates Ashley *MIS for the Wasatch-Cache Planning Area of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. For additional information please refer to Forest Service 2010 – Management Indicator Species Monitoring for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area, 2010.
Hickman and Raleigh (1982) and Binns (1982) provide a good description of optimal cutthroat trout riverine habitat. They state, “Optimal cutthroat trout riverine habitat is characterized by clear, cold water; a silt free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas; an approximately 1:1 pool-riffle ratio with areas of slow, deep water; well vegetated stream banks; and abundant instream cover; and relatively stable water flow, temperature regimes, and stream banks.”
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) The range of the Colorado River cutthroat trout is bounded by the Missouri, Snake, and Bonneville drainages and then the temperature gradient of the Colorado River. Historically Colorado River cutthroat trout occupied all accessible cool waters of the Upper Colorado River Drainage, including the Green, Yampa, Gunnison, Dolores, San Juan, Duchesne, and Dirty Devil Rivers (Young et al. 1996). Estimates of their current distribution have varied, but the most recent estimates suggest that CRCT now occupy about 14% of their historic native range (Hirsch et al. 2006).
92
The distribution and abundance of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout has declined significantly. Remaining populations occur mostly in headwater streams and lakes. It was determined that most lotic populations were in isolated, headwater streams with average annual flows less than 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Young 1995).
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) The Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (BCT) is a unique subspecies of the cutthroat trout complex native to the Bonneville Basin. During the Pleistocene, Lake Bonneville and its drainage system covered parts of Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. Historically, BCT occurred throughout this basin. With the final desiccation of ancient Lake Bonneville, the four major drainages to Lake Bonneville became isolated from each other, and BCT became restricted to the streams and lakes with suitable trout habitat. This range is defined by the Snake River Drainage on the north, the Colorado River on the east and south and the Nevada desert lands and drainages on the west. Historically, BCT occupied an estimated 6,258 miles of stream in the Bonneville Basin.
As European settlers expanded into the West, human activities such as water development, agricultural activities, energy development, mining, timber harvesting, grazing, unregulated fishing, and the introduction of non-indigenous species directly impacted BCT populations and altered the Bonneville Basin ecosystem. Because of the tenuous status of some BCT populations and habitat, BCT conservation efforts have been directed through federal, state and local agencies.
One hundred sixty-five conservation populations of BCT are currently known to occur, occupying about 2,062 miles of stream. In addition, 73 core populations have been identified occupying about another 478 miles of stream. These populations, as well as numerous additional BCT populations, are continuing to be analyzed for purity. Because of ongoing BCT conservation and sportfishing management, the future of this subspecies is much more secure than it was in the 1970s. Bonneville cutthroat trout are not found in the proposed project area and will not be discussed further.
Macroinvertebrates (Ashley NF MIS only – applicable to the 2,745 acres of the Burnt Fork Allotment located on the ANF)
Aquatic macroinvertebrates are used by the Ashley National Forest as a management indicator species to monitor aquatic habitat conditions, primarily water quality. Macroinvertebrates were chosen as MIS for the following reasons:
1. The wide range of conditions they monitor. 2. Their relatively large size which facilitates identification. 3. Their limited mobility restricts them to a particular environment. 4. They have a lifespan of months or years which allows for response to impacts over time.
The Forest has been collecting macroinvertebrate data on most major streams since 1987. Therefore baseline as well as trend information is available. Macroinvertebrates are not displayed at the various management levels. They are used to monitor changes in the habitat by comparing to the baseline data. The development of species/habitat relationships of fish and wildlife is identified as an objective in the Forest Plan with the associated guideline to maintain all streams for a biotic condition index (BCI) of 75 or above. The BCI is a score based on the biological diversity of the streams macroinvertebrate community. The following table provides a relative scale of values. Essentially, the higher the BCI score is the more diverse macroinvertebrate communities present which in turn relates to overall good stream health and water quality.
93
Table 24. Biological Index Condition Rating Biological Integrity Range of Values Low 0-69 Medium 70-84 High 85-100
Monitoring data indicate that forest-wide macroinvertebrate populations have been steady and on average have met and typically exceeded the Forest Plan requirement of maintaining a BCI of 75 or above. See Table 25 below for a summary of the macroinvertebrate sampling effort.
Table 25. Summary of Macroinvertebrate Repeated Sampling Efforts Stream Years Sampled Average BCI Rock Creek 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 08 84 Brownie Creek 87, 89, 90, 08 105 Cart Creek 87, 89, 08 83 Carter Creek 87, 89, 02, 08 82 N. Fork Dry Fork 87, 89, 90, 08 95 N. Fork Duchesne 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 08 87 Sheep Creek 87, 89, 02, 08 79 Timber Creek 87, 89, 92, 93, 97, 08 80 Uinta River 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 08 83 Yellowstone Creek 87, 90, 92, 93, 97, 02, 03, 04, 08 90 Whiterocks River 88, 89, 08 85 Manns Creek 02, 03, 04, 08 79 N. Fork Sheep 99, 02, 08 78 Avg. = 84
20 out 22 (91%) streams sampled in 2008 had a Biotic Condition Index > 75 with an average for all streams of 96.
In addition to this forest wide repeated sampling effort the Forest has quantitative data on another 41 additional streams in which 87% percent of these streams exhibited a BCI greater than 75. Therefore, based on the available data it appears that the water quality of the streams on the Forest support healthy macroinvertebrate communities.
Clean water taxa are typically groups of insects such as caddisflies, mayflies, and stoneflies. When water quality becomes degraded for multiple seasons, such as from high sediment loads, a shift typically occurs in the macroinverterbrate community to more sediment tolerant species, such as midges or true flies.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Aquatic and Fisheries Species/Habitat
General Effects
Livestock are attracted to riparian areas because of drinking water, shade, relatively gentle topography, and vegetation that remains green long after upland areas (Roath and Krueger 1982, Platts 1991, Armour et al. 1994, Fleischner 1994, Belsky et al. 1999). Livestock grazing in these riparian areas can have numerous direct and indirect effects on aquatic species including: reductions in abundance, habitat, and diversity (Platts 1991, Belsky et al. 1999, Rinne 1999).
94
The following discussion of the potential effects of grazing on fisheries resources is drawn primarily from the cited literature. This discussion describes the range of impacts, not the degree of impact measured within the allotments. As discussed later in the text, the degree of impact is highly variable and influenced by factors such as grazing frequency, herd size, distribution, grazing strategy, and habitat type (meadow versus forested).
Direct effects of grazing on stream habitat can occur when livestock feed on riparian vegetation along the bank, enter a stream to drink, or cross the stream. Livestock entering fish-bearing streams after fish have spawned can result in trampling of redds, which can destroy or dislodge eggs, and embryos (Gregory and Gammet 2009). Within the Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork allotments, CRCT eggs and embryos would be vulnerable from the time cattle enter the allotment (end of June) until embryos have left the gravel around the end of July in pastures that are being grazed. Additional direct effects can occur through the destruction of habitat when undercut banks are broken down under the weight of cattle, thereby destroying habitat.
Indirect effects of grazing that occur later in time can include continued loss of undercut banks, sedimentation from increased bank erosion, increased stream temperature (from less shading and higher stream width to depth ratios, and general habitat degradation). Banks that become destabilized and do not immediately erode into the stream channel during grazing can become dislodged later in the year. Upland soils disturbed during grazing are prone to erosion during rain or snowmelt events that can result in additional sediment reaching the stream channel.
Generally speaking, when livestock graze within riparian corridors, water quality, stream channel morphology, hydrology, riparian soils, vegetation, and fish and invertebrate diversity, abundance, and distribution will be altered. However, the degree of impact is highly variable depending on historic land uses (timber harvest, grazing, mining, road building, etc.), existing habitat conditions, watershed characteristics (stream gradient, meadow versus forest, hydrologic regime [volume, source, timing, etc.], and geologic composition/history), and current livestock practices (number of cattle, grazing strategy, duration, etc.). It is important to note that the degree of impact is also highly variable both spatially and temporarily. Furthermore, most of these impacts are intertwined. For example, trampling of banks resulting in increased erosion can result in numerous impacts to fish including loss of juvenile and adult refugia, loss of pool habitat, reduction in spawning gravel quality due to increased fines, and increased temperature.
Alternative 1, Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action alternative would improve existing conditions along some stream reaches, including lower Burnt Fork, and Beaver Meadow Reservoir. Some trampling and grazing of stream banks would continue to occur, however, only approximately one quarter of the allotments would be grazed at any time allowing less impacts to occur and more time for recovery. Additional discussion regarding streambanks is in the water resources reports in the project record (Condrat 2010) and the Water Resources section of this document. In other areas, little to no livestock grazing occurs and impacts are very limited. In these locations, habitat conditions will continue to be good. The proposed action would result in improvements to grazing management that lead to improving aquatic resources through more vegetative cover, increased bank stability, less sedimentation, and an overall improvement to aquatic species. Due to the limited amount of grazing impacts identified to perennial streams within the proposed project area, monitoring requirements should be localized at these sites which will improve effectiveness. Impacts like those currently observed around lower Burnt Fork, and Beaver Meadow Reservoir can be addressed by implementing the adaptive management strategy. Baseline conditions currently functioning appropriately would likely continue to function appropriately.
With this alternative, 11 range improvements will be implemented. These include pond cleaning/tank installation, fence construction, pond construction, and exclosure construction (see proposed action).
95
Under this alternative, all aquatic related standards and guidelines in the Revised Forest Plan would be met. However, impacts to fisheries would continue at some level at least as long as grazing occurred and as such would constitute a long-term (>10 years) impact to fishery resources.
Overall, if the decision is made to continue grazing utilizing an adaptive management strategy, this project would have the effect of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for Colorado River cutthroat trout. The Burnt Fork Drainage would continue to support a viable meta-population of Bonneville cutthroat trout, while the Beaver Creek Drainage would continue to support a small and decreasing population of Colorado River cutthroat trout due to an expanding population of brook trout.
There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species within the project area. Downstream there are bonytail chub, humpback chum, Colorado pike minnow, and the razorback sucker (all endangered). Because there will be no new water withdrawals, there will be no effects on these species. The June sucker is also listed for the Wasatch-Cache planning areas but is not found in the Colorado River drainage where the allotments are found. There will be “no effect” for this species.
Strong populations of tiger salamanders and boreal chorus frog were identified at a number of water features within the Proposed Project Area. For these species it appears cattle grazing have had little effect. Boreal toads have not been found within the proposed project area, but are likely present. In 2009, a boreal toad was located in the Burnt Fork drainage outside the allotment. Recent studies have documented different responses by amphibians due to cattle grazing (Burton et al. 2009). Cattle may negatively impact amphibians by affecting aquatic and terrestrial environments. However, it appears toads (Bufo sp.) may be impacted less by environmental changes associated with cattle grazing. Allowing controlled cattle access in wetlands may even have a positive effect on Bufo sp. (Burton et al. 2009). Almost all water features within these allotments are in very good condition, and this Alternative would maintain/improve them if the decision is made to continue grazing utilizing an adaptive management strategy. This alternative would have the effect of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for boreal toad.
There is no Bonneville cutthroat trout habitat in these drainages; therefore, there would be no impact to their suitable habitat.
On the UWC, there are 1,200 miles of perennial streams (Forest Service 2003a). There are approximately 300 miles of stream occupied by Colorado Cutthroat trout on the UWC (Forest Service 2010b). Within the Beaver Creek, Burnt Fork, and western portion of Birch Creek drainages, there are 35 miles of perennial stream with Colorado Cutthroat trout occurring in 25 miles of these streams (12%). Of these 25 miles, approximately 23 miles are potentially grazed (13% of suitable habitat).
There are no fishbearing streams within this allotment/drainage on the ANF, therefore, this project would not affect the suitable habitat of Colordo Cutthroat trout on the ANF.
On the Ashley National Forest, there are 687 miles of perennial stream, and 50,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs (Forest Service 1986). In additional there are ephemeral streams, ponds, and riparian/wetland areas that also provide macroinvertebrate habitat. There are 6.3 miles of intermittent/ephemeral streams and 0.1 acres of pond/lake within the ANF portion of the Burnt Fork allotment. All of these areas are considered suitable for livestock grazing; this could impact approximately less than 1 percent of the macroinvertebrate habitat.
96
The improvement of aquatic conditions will continue to maintain the aquatic habitat; therefore, no negative effects to the suitable habitat for the aquatic MIS species.
Alternative 2 -No Grazing The implementation of Alternative 2 would result in cattle grazing being phased out over a 2-year period after notice of cancellation. As a result, impacts associated with grazing would be temporary (0-3 years). Direct and indirect effects and cumulative effects associated with Alternative 2 are similar across allotments. Therefore, these effects are summarized and have not been segmented by allotment.
It is expected that improvements would occur quickly to wetlands and streams in areas showing impacts from grazing (lower Burnt Fork, Beaver Meadow Reservoir). Fish populations in the Burnt Fork Drainage would continue to persist in the long-term with natural population fluctuations occurring. Colorado River cutthroat trout are likely to continue to persist in the Beaver Creek drainage, however, the population is likely to continue to decrease due to an expanding brook trout population.
If the decision is made to discontinue grazing under this Alternative, this project would have the effect of “no impact” for Colorado River cutthroat trout and boreal toad. There would be “no effect” to any threatened or endangered aquatic species.
There would be no livestock grazing on any MIS suitable acres after the cessation of the permit. ;
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMPs) Implementation of the current management alternative would result in static to slowly improving conditions along streams, springs, and ponds (in areas impacted by grazing). Trampling of some stream banks and wetlands would continue to occur. The effects to aquatic resources from the current management alternative would be the continuance of grazing management that results in isolated impacts to stream banks, and aquatic species. Impacts like those observed around Lower Burnt Fork, and Beaver Meadow Reservoir can be addressed in the AOI. Additional monitoring and improved cattle movement would be required to improve conditions. Baseline conditions currently functioning appropriately will likely continue to function appropriately. Areas in unsatisfactory condition would recover slowly or not at all.
Continued livestock grazing would have the effect of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for Colorado River cutthroat trout. The Burnt Fork Drainage would continue to support a viable meta-population of CRCT, while the Beaver Creek Drainage would continue to support a small and decreasing population of CRCT due to an expanding population of brook trout.
Strong populations of tiger salamanders and boreal chorus frog were identified at a number of water features within the Proposed Project Area. For these species it appears cattle grazing have had little effect. Boreal toads have not been found within the proposed project area, but are likely present. In 2009, a boreal toad was located in the Burnt Fork drainage outside the allotment. Recent studies have documented different responses by amphibians due to cattle grazing (Burton et al. 2009). Cattle may negatively impact amphibians by affecting aquatic and terrestrial environments. However, it appears toads (Bufo sp) may be impacted less by environmental changes associated with cattle grazing. Allowing controlled cattle access in wetlands may even have a positive effect on Bufo sp. (Burton et al. 2009). Most ponds, springs and lakes within these allotments are in very good condition and have minimal grazing impacts.
Overall, if the decision is made to continue grazing under current management, this project would have the effect of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss
97
of viability” for boreal toad. There would be “no effect” to any threatened or endangered aquatic species for the same reasons as listed under Alternative 1.
Affects to suitable MIS habitat would be the same as disclosed under Alternative 1.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effects area for this analysis is the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, and North Fork Sheep Creek drainages. Several other activities occur within this analysis area have the potential to effect aquatic resources mainly by decreasing streambank stability and increasing sedimentation. Given the nature of these activities, the primary cumulative impacts to CRCT can be summarized into the following categories that were also discussed under Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions:
Increasing Recreational Use on the Allotments - Recreational activities of various kinds span the allotments, and recreational use is increasing as the visitor populations grow. The assessment of cumulative effects on recreational resources notes that this high level of recreational use is generating notable impacts on natural resources as well as on recreation itself. These include impacts on riparian areas due to establishment of dispersed camp sites and user-developed ghost roads accessing these sites, legal and illegal ATV use, and general foot, horse, and vehicle traffic. This use intersects and contributes cumulatively to similar impacts due to grazing.
Livestock Grazing - Heavy grazing across these allotments in the early 1900’s likely resulted in a loss of topsoil and reduced site productivity, which would have had an effect on the stream channel due to higher extended peak flows and sediment delivery. Hoof shear and trampling likely caused excessive bank erosion. In addition, livestock grazing occurs in most areas surrounding these allotments including privately owned lands. Most areas on Forest managed lands are managed well and have little effect on erosion and sedimentation.
Vegetative Management - A vegetation management project is planned around Hoop Lake. This project would burn sagebrush, aspen and conifer to improve age diversity and plant composition.
Roads and Trails -Numerous roads occur in the lower portions of these allotments. However, most roads are located away from streams and/or have adequate buffers to prevent sediment input. A fish passage at road crossings assessment was conducted in 2006 on most Forest culverts including the eight found on these allotments. Of these eight, four culverts were identified as a barrier to fish passage blocking approximately 21 miles of stream (Chase et al. 2006). In 2009, two of these culverts were replaced to allowing fish passage to13.2 miles of stream. The largest barrier remaining is on Thompson Creek in the Burnt Fork Drainage. Whirling disease is present below the barrier but not above, so this barrier will be left in place for now. In addition, a number of non-motorized trail occur throughout these drainages. As with the roads, most of these are located away from streams and include adequate buffers.
In addition to these activities, past introductions of brook trout are continuing to have impacts to CRCT in the Beaver Creek Drainage. Brook trout are well established in the drainage and likely influence CRCT populations through predation and competition. This population of brook trout will likely continue to expand and likely represents the greatest threat to CRCT in the Beaver Creek Drainage.
98
Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat (Issue 3)
Big Game
The Burnt Fork (Includes portion on the Ashley NF), Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments fall within Hunt Unit 8 for deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus canadensis), moose (Alces alces). Rocky Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are in Hunt Unit 8. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) are in Management Unit 8 and bighorn sheep habitat within Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments is currently occupied. Population objectives and population estimates are displayed in the table below. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources determines population objectives and hunting units for big game.
Table 26. Population objectives and estimates in Hunt Unit 8 Population Population Population Estimate Estimate Estimate Population Post season Post season Post season Species Objective 2006 2007 2008 Deer 6,200 4,500 4,400 4,700 Elk* (Summit) 300 120 270 270 Elk* (West Daggett) 1,300 1,400 950 1,000 Elk* (Total Summit and West 1,600 1,520 1,220 1,270 Daggett) Mountain Goats 3,000 Not available Not available 579 * Elk Hunt Unit 8 is divided into three areas – Summit County portion, West Daggett County portion, and the 3 Corners portion. Animals in the 3 Corners portion, East of Flaming Gorge Reservoir, mix very little with the Summit and West Daggett units. In Summit and West Daggett there is mixing with some animals summering on one portion while wintering on the other. Post season counts are winter counts so with the mixing, the total of the two areas is more indicative of the total population than would be realized by separating them.
Deer and Elk
Mule deer are the most abundant big game animal in Utah and are of high interest to sportsmen and non-consumptive users. The mule deer population in Utah has been in a state of decline for over thirty years. There are many factors contributing to this decline, but the loss and degradation of habitat have likely had the most significant impact on mule deer numbers.
The Rocky Mountain elk, Utah’s state animal, is the second most abundant big game species in Utah. The state’s elk herd has increased substantially in the last 30 years. Elk populations have become more stable since about 1995. The most important issues in elk management are also habitat related.
The lowest elevations on the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek Allotments are approximately 8,200 feet. In general as a guideline, big game winter range is considered to be below 7,000 feet in elevation so the entire allotment would be considered in transition and summer range for big game. But the Widdop Mountain area to the north does have critical winter range habitat on the slopes covered with birch-leaf mountain mahogany. During the winter the elk, moose and deer will utilize this habitat component as a stable nutritional browse in their diet. Table 27 shows the total area of the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments in comparison to the entire North Slope Hunt Unit on National Forest System lands. Table 28 shows the total area of the allotment in comparison to all land ownerships on the Hunt Unit.
Table 27. Total area of Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments in comparison to the entire North Slope Hunt Unit on National Forest System lands* Yearlong Range Winter Range Summer Range Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and (on NF) (on NF) (on NF) Hickerson Park Allotments 99
Area % Area % Area % Area % of Summer % of total (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Range Hunt Unit Elk 8,926 2 93,008 17 456,996 81 ~36,100 8 6 Deer 0 0 17,277 5 317,491 95 ~36,100 11 11 * Elk and deer acres from UDWR, 2008 and UDWR 2006 respectively.
Table 28. Total area of Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments in comparison to the entire North Slope Hunt Unit on all land ownerships Yearlong Range Winter Range Summer Range Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and (all land (all land (all land Hickerson Park ownerships) ownerships) ownerships) Allotments % of % of total Area Summer Hunt Area (acres) Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) Range Unit Elk 11,421 188,691 526,500 ~36,100 7 5 Deer 3,925 184,585 568,054 ~36,100 6 5 * Elk and deer acres from UDWR, 2008 and UDWR 2006 respectively.
With the number of big game animals listed in Table 26 and the percentage of the summer range on the allotment compared to the entire hunt unit, as shown in Table 27 and Table 28, big game animals are spread out to the point where competition with domestic livestock for forage would not be a factor. Elk and deer tend to spend their time during the day in heavy timber and will forage at dusk and dawn.
Implementing the Proposed Action would maintain or improve rangeland health and productivity. Continued grazing by domestic livestock will prevent forage from becoming stagnant and losing nutritional value for big game. As livestock remove coarse less palatable forage it allows plants to produce more palatable and nutritious forage in the form of regrowth. Rotational grazing can also prolong the availability of this palatable forage by continually providing new areas of regrowth and more palatable forage throughout the growing season, which would be preferred by big game species (Rhodes and Sharrow, 1990).
Deer are predominantly browsers and have very little overlap with domestic livestock, but elk do have significant overlap and can compete for available forage along forest edges, meadows and riparian areas where domestic livestock grazing would most likely occur. As current utilization levels are meeting Revised Forest Plan standards and since livestock only utilize a small portion of the allotment during the grazing season, it is apparent that the current levels of livestock grazing on this allotment has little or no effect on elk. Similarly, as current utilization levels are meeting Revised Forest Plan Standards and since deer and livestock forage requirements minimally overlap, it is reasonable to conclude that continued livestock grazing will have no adverse effect on deer.
Moose The moose (Alces alces) is the largest member of the deer family. Four subspecies of moose are recognized in North America (Franzmann 1978). The Shiras or Wyoming moose (Alces alces shirasi) is found in Utah and is the smallest of the four subspecies. Mature Shiras moose bulls weigh considerably less than other moose but can still reach 800 pounds. Cows usually give birth to one or two young. Calves grow rapidly and achieve sufficient size by five months of age to endure deep snow and cold weather conditions.
Historical records indicate moose were not present in Utah prior to the early 1900's. Moose immigrated into Utah from Idaho and Wyoming on their own. The first recorded sighting of a moose in Utah was in 1906 or 1907 at the head of Spanish Fork Canyon. The next reported sighting was in 1918 in the Bear River Drainage of the Uinta Mountains. Sparse reports over the next few decades were mainly from the north slope of the Uintas where a population was 100
gradually establishing itself. It was not until 1947 that it was determined a resident herd existed on the North Slope (UDWR, 2000).
On the North Slope Hunt Unit the estimated moose population in 2008 was 284 animals with a population goal of 400. Moose are consistently seen within the Burnt Fork / Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments, especially around popular recreation sites near riparian areas with willow such as on the road up to Hoop Lake. Aspen, willows and a variety of aquatic emergent and submergent vegetation are preferred forage species for moose. Wet meadows and riparian habitat are important for cow moose and calves during the summer. Domestic livestock utilization monitoring in riparian habitats has documented light to moderate use within the analysis area, allowing ample vegetation for moose (McConkey, 2010). Therefore, as overlap forage utilization is minimal and domestic livestock utilization is meeting Revised Forest Plan Standards, implementation of the Proposed Action would not negatively impact moose.
Rocky Mountain Goats Mountain goats were introduced on Bald Mountain back in 1987. The current estimated population on Bald Mountain is 30+ animals and increasing (UDWR 2005). Mountain goats are managed on the entire Uinta Mountain Range comprising the Kamas Hunt Unit #7, North Slope Hunt Unit #8 and South Slope Hunt Unit #9. Hunting Units are comprised of four sub units that run north to south covering portions of all three units. This was done by UDWR so that hunters can be given permits to specific areas when populations need to be controlled. (UDWR 2005a) The Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments are located on the North Slope Hunt Unit.
The effect of mountain goat utilization on available forage resources must be closely monitored. This is especially important given the fragile nature of alpine habitats frequented by goats. Currently, numbers of mountain goat in the High Uintas Wilderness are low but increasing and it does not appear that their presence is causing any resource issues. Rocky mountain goats are located in the High Uinta Wilderness and few if any have been documented on the North Slope east of Henry’s Fork. Because of mountain goat utilization of the most rugged terrain, there is no interaction or competition with domestic livestock and therefore continued livestock grazing will not affect mountain goats.
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are present in the Uinta Mountains and the Hoop Lake herd winters in the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek C&H Allotments and summers in the High Uintas. There is a small acreage of bighorn sheep summer range in the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment. These bighorns come from three winter range sub populations at Hoop Lake, Carter Creek, and Sheep Creek (the latter two on the Ashley National Forest) where they have been reintroduced. Based on recent telemetry data the approximate bighorn sheep winter range in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek C&H Allotments, which consists of 1,760 acres within the Beaver Creek Allotment and 78 acres in the Burnt Fork Allotment, as shown in Figure 9. In addition, there are approximately 645 acres of bighorn sheep summer range habitat within the Hickerson Park C&H allotment.
Figure 9. Bighorn Summer/Winter Habitat in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments
101
During the summer, the best habitat for bighorn sheep, is located in the High Uintas Wilderness where steep rugged cliffs and open meadows and mountain shrublands exist for sheep to forage in close proximity to steep rocky escape cover. During the winter, the bighorn sheep population within the planning area resides along the ridge near Hole-in-the-Rock and at Hoop Lake. Ewes and lambs are consistently seen near both of these areas and will winter down in the lower elevations. With the exception of some acreage along the northern boundary of the Burnt Fork Allotment, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources considers Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments as occupied habitat for bighorn sheep. For this analysis, the bighorn sheep habitat has been narrowed down to high elevation summer range and low elevation winter range where they spend the most of their time depending on the season (Figure 11).
The nearest resident herd is the small Hoop Lake bighorn sheep herd consisting of approximately 20-25 animals. It has remained stable, but stagnant, since their release back in 1989. Twenty- three bighorn sheep from Whiskey Basin, Wyoming were released at hole in the rock near Hoop Lake. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources biologists monitor the herd and suspect the herd has remained small due to predation by mountain lions and disease within the herd in the form of lung worm resulting in high lamb mortality (C.Greenwood, pers comm.,2009). During the winter, these bighorns interact with the Carter Creek and Sheep Creek sub-populations on the Ashley NF. Bighorn are susceptible to Pasteurella which is a respiratory disease that is usually lethal to wild sheep (WAFWA 2007). Pasteurella has not been shown to pass between cattle and wild bighorn sheep.
Since cattle are permitted to graze the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments, there is no concern of potential disease transmission between domestic livestock and the wild bighorn sheep population. Bighorn sheep spend most of the summer in the High Uinta Wilderness during the months that grazing is occurring within the Allotments and there are no domestic livestock present when the sheep travel down to lower elevations to winter. The Hickerson Park allotment has a small portion of summer range habitat on the south end of the allotment. But this area is steep and rocky and livestock grazing is minimal to non-existent in this area and does not pose any competition between bighorn sheep and livestock for forage.
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep movements will continue to be monitored by the UDWR and the Forest Service. As the Hoop Lake herd has remained stable but stagnant for the past 20 years it is reasonable to conclude that additional expansion in the near future is not anticipated.
Direct and Indirect Effects to Big Game
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action within the analysis area would benefit big game by incorporating a grazing plan with short grazing periods and alternating the time of use allowing most forage plants to complete their growth cycle every other year and/or recover from the effects of grazing. In addition, forage plants would improve in vigor. Deer are mostly browsers, but elk being grazers would benefit from those areas that would improve forage plant vigor and receive lighter utilization resulting from better distribution of domestic livestock. Moose utilize willows, aspen and a variety of aquatic emergent and submergent vegetation as preferred forage species and are not grazers like elk, therefore overlap of forage utilization is minimal with domestic livestock and implementation of the Proposed Action would not negatively impact moose. There would be no negative impacts to bighorn sheep by implementation of the Proposed Action and there are no concerns over potential transmission of disease from domestic livestock. Mountain goats are located in the High Uinta Wilderness and do not inhabit areas where livestock grazing would occur. For bighorn sheep, mountain goats and moose, there is enough disparity in site selection, seasonal use and forage preference, that overlap and competition for forage is not an issue.
102
Out of the 4 proposed water developments in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments analysis area, 3 are located near Widdop Mountain close to big game winter range (Mtn. Mahogany) sites. These ponds would be located in areas where they have the highest probability to collecting runoff from snow melt and where the addition of a watering source would improve livestock distribution and overall utilization during the growing season. Utilization monitoring photos taken on sites 12-23A and 12-28 near the proposed pond locations, indicate that stem leader growth on the birch-leaf mountain mahogany remained between 6-12 inches throughout the grazing season with little use by herbivores (Garcia de la Cadena 2010; Table 10; McConkey 2010). Past site evaluations have shown that previous years litter growth is removed by early spring prior to livestock grazing. This indicates that the bulk of the grazing use on birch- leaf mountain mahogany is taking place during the winter when livestock are off the forest. Studies in this area indicate that winter browsing use by wild ungulates has impacted mountain mahogany and sagebrush. Pellet group counts also indicate that the bulk of the use occurs from elk, primarily during late fall, winter and early spring. The proposed ponds would not increase winter use of mountain mahogany by wildlife as water availability is not limited because snow is readily available to wildlife during this time of the year. In addition these proposed water developments would be frozen. The addition of water sources during the growing season may slightly increase incidental grazing use on mountain mahogany in this area, by both wildlife and livestock. However, monitoring has shown that during the growing season herbivores utilize grasses and forbs more because they are the most palatable forage available during the growing season. Additionally, as this area is classified as winter range for wildlife the majority of big game species would be foraging in higher elevations at a time when these ponds would have water available for domestic livestock use.
Alternative 2 – No Grazing The No Grazing Alternative in the short term would be beneficial to elk, which are grazers that compete for available forage with domestic livestock. Because grazing pressure varies greatly by big game versus livestock, areas of large openings that would normally be grazed more evenly, such as meadows, would not occur with big game. Many of these areas would begin to lose nutritional value and forage palatability through the increased decadence in the grass and forb species over time. Heavier use by elk in these areas would be restricted to the edges of drainages and open meadows near escape cover in heavy timber where big game feels secure. The No Grazing Alternative would not impact bighorn sheep, mountain goats or moose since there is enough disparity in site selection, seasonal use and forage preference that overlap and competition for forage was not an issue with livestock grazing.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) Continuation of grazing on the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments, as it has been conducted in the past, would have no effects on big game animals that have not already been realized. Continued grazing by domestic livestock would help forage in these areas from becoming stagnant and losing their nutritional value to big game. Currently it does not appear that elk populations have increased enough to be a potential detriment to the available forage component within these Allotments. Alternative 3 would not impact bighorn sheep, mountain goats or moose, since there is enough disparity in site selection, seasonal use and forage preference, that overlap and competition for forage is not an issue. Therefore, with the exception of including proposed range improvements, which would provide additional water sources, and fencing resulting in lighter utilization of areas and better distribution of domestic livestock, impacts to big game species and their habitat would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Small Mammals/Small Game Impacts to these species were not identified as an issue and none of the alternatives were determined to have an effect on these species. Further discussion is in the wildlife specialist report – Garcia de la Cadena 2010 – in the project record.
103
Neotropical Birds The Utah Partners in Flight (PIF)2 Utah Avian Conservation Strategy Ver. 2.0 was evaluated to determine which species occurred within the project area. The ecological tenet underlying this process, that conservation actions focused on priority species would benefit other avian species (as well as other forms of wildlife), extends the benefits to most birds in Utah.
A U.S. Geologic Survey - Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) begins at the Bear River Guard Station on Highway 150, turns onto the North Slope Road and ends east of the East Fork of Black’s Fork drainage approximately 20 miles west of the allotments. Since the survey was begun in 1988, 61 species of birds have been identified during surveys.
Table 29 shows species listed on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and the State of Utah’s Partner’s in Flight Priority Species (PIF). The species are listed for the Utah Mountains and Wyoming Basin. Only species that are known to occur on the allotment or that are possible or probable inhabitants are carried into the discussion following the table.
Table 29. Birds of Conservation Concern and Partners in Flight and PIF species listed for Utah Mountains and Wyoming Basin FWS BCC and PIF Present in Priority Utah Wyoming Primary Secondary Winter Project Species Mountains Basin Breeding Breeding Habitat Area American Wetland Playa Migrant No X avocet* American white Water Wetland Migrant No X Pelican** Black rosy- Alpine Alpine Grassland Possible X finch** Wilderness Black swift** Lowland Cliff Migrant No X Riparian Black-throated Pinyon- Mountain Migrant No X gray warbler* juniper shrub Brewer’s Shrubsteppe High desert Migrant Present X X sparrow** shrub Broad-tailed Lowland Mountain Migrant Present X hummingbird** riparian riparian Ferruginous Pinyon Shrubsteppe Grassland No X hawk** Juniper Flammulated Ponderosa Sub-alpine Migrant No X owl*** pine conifer Golden eagle*** Cliff High desert High desert Possible X X scrub scrub Wilderness Grace’s Ponderosa Mixed conifer Migrant No; W-C X warbler*** pine out of range Gray vireo** Pinyon Northern oak Migrant No X Juniper Greater sage Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe No X X grouse** Lewis’ Ponderosa Lowland Northern oak No X X woodpecker** pine riparian
2 PIF lists the project area occurring within the Utah Mountain Physiographic Region. This region occupies 23% of Utah’s land area and is made up primarily of the Wasatch and Uinta mountain ranges and their associated valleys. Elevations range from 1,360m in the Salt Lake Valley at the edge of the ecoregion to 4,090m on King’s Peak. Most of the State’s forested habitats occur within this ecoregion.
104
FWS BCC and PIF Present in Priority Utah Wyoming Primary Secondary Winter Project Species Mountains Basin Breeding Breeding Habitat Area Loggerhead High desert Pinyon Juniper High desert No X X shrike** scrub Scrub Long-billed Grassland Agriculture Migrant No X curlew*** Northern Wet meadow High desert Agriculture No X X harrier** scrub Peregrine Cliff Lowland Wetland No X falcon** riparian Pinyon jay*** Pinyon Ponderosa Pinyon No X X Juniper pine Juniper Prairie falcon*** Cliff High desert Agriculture No X X scrub Pygmy Ponderosa Aspen Ponderosa No X nuthatch*** pine pine Red-naped Aspen Mixed conifer Mountain Present X X sapsucker*** riparian Sage sparrow** Shrubsteppe High desert Low desert No X X scrub scrub Sharp-tailed Shrubsteppe Grassland Grassland No X grouse** Snowy plover*** X Playa Playa Migrant No Swainson’s Agriculture Low elevation Migrant No hawk*** X Aspen & sagebrush Three-toed Sub-alpine Lodgepole Sub-alpine Present X woodpecker** conifer pine conifer Virginia’s Northern oak Pinyon Juniper Migrant No X warbler*** Williamson Sub-alpine Aspen Migrant Present X sapsucker*** conifer Wilson’s Wetland Water Migrant No X phalarope*** Yellow-billed Lowland Agriculture Migrant No X cuckoo*** riparian * On both lists (FWS BCC and State of Utah PIF) ** State of Utah PIF list only *** FWS BCC list only
Black-rosy finch. This species is an altitudinal migrant that nests above treeline in the alpine tundra and winters in low elevation valleys. The black-rosy finch feeds primarily on seeds of alpine plants, with some insects. It nests in cliffs or rock talus slopes. (UDWR 2005b) Wintering flocks of black rosy-finches roost in large communal roosts in caves, mine shafts, on rafters of barns, and in clusters of old cliff swallow nests. Black rosy-finches are among the least studied of North American birds because of the inaccessibility of their alpine habitat generally and their nest sites on cliffs in particular. Because of their high elevation use of alpine habitat, they were not detected on the Wasatch NF BBS.
Brewer’s sparrow. The Brewer’s sparrow is considered a shrub-steppe obligate that breeds throughout Utah in lowland areas nesting in sagebrush. They may breed in large sagebrush openings in pinyon-juniper or coniferous forests. Nests are typically placed between 8-20” high usually on the top half of the shrub. Brewer’s sparrows are primarily insectivorous during the breeding season though their diet consists mostly of grass and weed seeds in winter. Nesting occurs in May. In the Wasatch NF BBS that is located on the North Slope west of the allotments,
105
this species has been detected 11 times between 1988 and 2007 and averaged 3 birds per year surveyed. The high detection was 12 records in the 2006 survey and the low was 1detection in 1990, 1996, and 2001. The species is declining range wide but common and stable in Utah. (UCDC, 2009)
Broad-tailed hummingbird. BBS data indicate a stable population in the Uinta Mountains but state point count data indicate a downward trend throughout the state. From 1988 through 2007 the broad-tailed hummingbird was detected on the Wasatch NF BBS survey in the area in 13 of the years and averaged 12 per year surveyed. The high count was 19 in 1994 and the low count was 8 in 2003. They are dependent on nectar-bearing flowering plants. Broad-tailed hummingbirds feed on floral nectar and small insects, spiders, and occasionally tree sap from woodpecker (sapsucker) drillings. Insects are caught in air as well as by gleaning from foliage. Lack of nectar-bearing plants will cause the female to abandon nesting. (UCDC 2009)
Golden eagles. Golden eagles are winter migrants and known visitors to the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek Allotments. Elevations where nesting habitat may occur are high elevation (most likely 10,000 foot plus in elevation) so nesting would be sporadic at best and associated with the mountain cliffs in the High Uinta Wilderness. Home range varies from 20-33 square kilometers. Golden eagles have not been detected on the Wasatch NF BBS.
Red-naped sapsucker. The red-naped sapsucker uses aspen, mixed conifer, and mountain riparian areas. In the Wasatch NF BBS located on the north slope west of the allotments, this species has been detected 9 years between 1988 and 2007 and averaged 2 birds per year surveyed. The high detection was 5 records in the 2003 survey and the low was 0 detections in 1988, 1990-91, and 1996.
Three-toed woodpecker. The three-toed is found in sub-alpine conifer and lodgepole pine. It is a permanent resident above 8,000 feet and dependent on live and dead trees for foraging and nesting. They require soft wood for excavation because of morphological adaptations associated with three toes on each foot, therefore presence of heartrot in trees is important. Trees with scaly bark remaining on the tree are important to support their foraging technique. American three-toed woodpeckers require trees infested with bark- and wood-boring insects for foraging. It is considered common in Utah (UCDC 2009). In the Wasatch NF BBS, this species was detected once in 2003 and twice in 2004.
Williamson sapsucker. These birds feed on sap, mainly from conifers, but insects are their main food source during the nesting season and they also eat berries outside of the breeding period. Sapsuckers are unique among woodpeckers in drilling neat rows of tiny holes-or sapwells-in the trunks of trees. The sap provides food for the sapsuckers and snags small insects that are eaten by hummingbirds and warblers (Bird Note 2004). Williamson sapsuckers are primary cavity excavators nesting from 8,000 feet to timberline in Utah. The major vegetation types used are sub-alpine conifer and aspen. (UCDC 2009). In the Wasatch NF BBS this species has been detected 3 years between 1988 and 2007 and averaged .3 birds per year surveyed. The high detection was 2 records in the 1988 survey and the low was 0 detection in1990-94, 2001-03 and 2006-07.
Any action, or non-action, that affects habitat on National Forest System lands will adversely affect some species and be beneficial to other species. This is very evident when considering birds whether they are migratory or not. Grazing would have the greatest affect on ground nesting birds, especially those that nest in open meadows, along edges, shrub-lands, and aspen. Of the species listed in Table 29, above.
106
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Neotropical Birds
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action Grazing under the Proposed Action would have affects on ground nesting birds, especially those that nest in open meadows, shrub-lands, and along forested edges. Of the species listed in Table 29, above, the black rosy finch is a ground nester but is in the rocky tundra and cliffs that would not be grazed by domestic livestock and therefore not impacted. The Brewer’s sparrow nests in low shrubs and could be mildly impacted if heavy grazing were to occur in the understory grasses. The red-naped and Williamson’s sapsucker’s habitat could be impacted in the long term if heavy browsing of suckering aspen by domestic livestock were to occur within the allotments. The rest of the species listed nest in trees, tree cavities or on cliffs and would not be affected unless their foraging habits are interrupted or otherwise modified. Range monitoring conducted in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments documents habitat use by domestic livestock at light to moderate levels, and little to no grazing within suckering aspen clones is evident within the allotment. The majority of the browsing in aspen could be attributed to big game and not domestic livestock. In addition, range improvements would not impact neotropical migratory birds within the analysis area. Fencing is utilized to control and distribute livestock grazing, but would not increase the utilization levels and would not impact ground nesters. Proposed water developments will provide an additional water source to neotropical migratory birds nesting in their vicinity. Therefore implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in a significant impact to nesting or foraging neotropical migratory birds within the Analysis Area.
Range improvements would not impact neotropical migratory birds within the analysis area. Fencing is utilized to control and distribute livestock grazing, but would not increase the utilization levels and would not impact ground nesters. Proposed water developments will provide an additional water source to neotropical migratory birds nesting in their vicinity.
Alternative 2 – No Grazing Implementation of Alternative 2 would be beneficial to ground nesting neotropical migrants found nesting and foraging in open meadows, along edges, shrub-lands, and aspen that would have been potentially impacted by grazing from domestic livestock.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) With the exception of including proposed range improvements, which would provide additional water sources, and fencing resulting in lighter utilization of areas through better distribution of domestic livestock, impacts to neotropical migratory birds and their habitats would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Common to All Alternatives It is my determination that none of the alternatives would be detrimental to migratory bird species. The intent for both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 are being met by reducing the negative impacts and incidental take of migratory bird species on the Allotments by meeting guidelines and standards established in the Forest Plan.
Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are species selected because changes in their numbers are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on a range of species. One of the factors considered when selecting MIS is their close tie to the communities they represent. The general guidance and criteria for selecting MIS are contained in 36 CFR 219.19(a) and in Forest Service Manual 2621.1.
107
Table 30 displays the terrestrial wildlife species selected as Wasatch-Cache Planning Area and Ashley National Forest Management Indicator Species and their associated vegetation communities.
Table 30. Terrestrial Management Indicator Species Associated Plant Community (Cover Forest Plan Management Indicator Species Type) Aspen, Conifer, Mixed Conifer Wasatch-Cache* Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) Forest Ashley Snowshoe Hare (Lepus Pole/Sapling Aspen, Conifer, and Mixed Wasatch-Cache americanus) Conifer Beaver (Castor canadensis) Riparian Wasatch-Cache Greater Sagegrouse** Sagebrush Ashley Red-naped sapsucker Aspen Ashley Warbling vireo** Aspen Ashley Lincoln’s sparrow** Ashley Riparian Song sparrow** Golden Eagle** “other” Ashley White-tailed ptarmigan** Mule Deer Rocky Mountain Elk * For more comprehensive and detailed information on Wasatch-Cache MIS refer to Management Indicator Species of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2008 and Management Indicator Species Monitoring for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area, 2010. **Greater sage grouse, warbling vireo, Lincoln’s sparrow, Song sparrow, Golden eagle, and White-tailed ptarmigan do not have suitable habitat within the project area. Therefore proposed activities would not affect the forest-wide habitat for these Ashley NF MIS species.
Northern Goshawk – Aspen, conifer and mixed conifer The range of the northern goshawk is circumpolar. In the West it is found from Alaska through the Rocky Mountains to New Mexico. The goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that uses a wide variety of forest ages, structural conditions, and successional stages. While all forested landscapes are used to some extent, certain forest cover types appear to be occupied by goshawks more than others (Graham et al. 1999). Cover types most often occupied by goshawks, based on sightings and nest locations, are: Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine and quaking aspen, in either single or mixed species forests. The Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments includes approximately 28,075 acres of vegetation cover types that potentially could be used by northern goshawk. In addition to being a Management Indicator Species, the goshawk is also a Forest Service Sensitive species.
Three components of a goshawk's home range have been identified including the nest area (approximately 30 acres; can have 2-6 alternate nests), post fledging-family area (approximately 420 acres), and foraging area (approximately 5,400 acres). Goshawks nest in a wide variety of forest types including aspen, coniferous, and mixed conifer forests. Northern goshawk territories are found throughout the mixed conifer/aspen belt along the North Slope. It typically nests in mature and old forests.
The goshawk preys on large-to-medium-sized birds and mammals, which it captures on the ground, in trees, or in the air. Observations of foraging goshawks show that they hunt in many forest conditions. This opportunism suggests that the choice of foraging habitat by goshawks may be as closely tied to prey availability as to habitat structure and composition. Specific habitat attributes used by these species include snags, downed logs and woody debris, large trees, herbaceous and shrubby understories, and a mixture of various forest vegetation structural stages.
108
It was concluded in the Conservation Strategy and Agreement for the Management of Northern Goshawk Habitat in Utah that goshawk populations in Utah were viable. This conclusion was based on the findings of Graham et al. (1999) that good quality habitat is well distributed and connected throughout the state, the absence of evidence of a population decline on National Forest System lands since 1991, and conclusions of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service in their decision to not list the northern goshawk under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998).
Monitoring Results and Trend for Goshawks Territory occupancy has been monitored consistently on the Wasatch-Cache since 1999 and on the Ashley National Forest since 1992. Additional monitoring information is found in the project record – Garcia de la Cadena 2010.
Table 31 shows territory occupancy from 1999 to 2009 (adjusted to 1999 occupied territories, based on the difference in numbers of territories monitored). The baseline used was the 1999 territory occupancy of 7 known occupied territories. Adjusting to the 1999 occupied territories there has been a high in 2000 of 13.20 occupied territories and a low of 2.24 in 2005. The analysis indicates a decreasing trend in occupancy from 1999 to 2003. We know also that the monitoring effort was greater in the early years due to the smaller territory sample size and that tends to bias the results. The increase over the years in the number of northern goshawk territories within the Planning Area now makes it more difficult to verify occupancy. From 2003 thru 2009 the result is a static trend over those six years. Figure 25 displays information for the Ashley National Forest since 1992.
Table 31. Territory occupancy on the Wasatch-Cache, 1999-2009, adjusted to 1999 occupancy. Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Change in Occupied Territories1 11 13.20 7.50 6.74 3.19 3.58 2.24 2.43 2.37 2.31 2.92
1Sum of each W-C District’s territory occupancy.
Figure 10. Percent of Occupied Goshawk Territories Successful on the Ashley National Forest
109
Grazing can alter both the structure and species composition of the grass, forb and shrub layers of quaking aspen forest, which also modifies goshawk foraging habitat. Riparian areas are the most productive and valuable wildlife habitats wherever they occur. Because goshawks use riparian areas for both nesting and foraging, reductions caused by livestock grazing can negatively affect habitat for goshawk prey and reduce or eliminate foraging habitat for goshawk prey and reduce or eliminate foraging habitat potential (Graham, 1999). Although grazing could impact goshawk foraging habitat in openings, range monitoring points indicate light to moderate use providing ample forage availability to northern goshawk prey base.
There are 511,649 acres of northern goshawk habitat on the Wasatch-Cache planning area; of that amount 126,140 acres of suitable habitat are located within open allotments and grazed on the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Forest (25% of open allotments of which 13% is on sheep allotments). In the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments, there are 28,075 acres of suitable goshawk habitat (~5% of the suitable habitat on the Wasatch-Cache). On the Ashley portion of the project area, there is one know goshawk home range (6,000 acres) that has been historically utilized. However, this area has not been active within past years and the nests have not been located since 2002. Of the 435,000 acres of northern goshawk habitat on the Ashley National Forest, this would be less than .01%. Northern goshawk habitat that is potentially grazed on the Allotments consists of 1076 acres, or approximately 0.2% of the suitable MIS goshawk habitat on the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Forest and 0.002% on the Ashley National Forest. The Forest Plan provides direction to maintain lands in satisfactory condition for MIS and or to restore lands that are in less than satisfactory condition because of grazing (Forest Service 2007).
There are two northern goshawk territories within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments. One is located near Kabell Creek southeast of Hoop Lake and the other is located southwest of Georges Park. The Kabell Creek northern goshawk territory has not been active since1999, but the Georges Park territory has been active and the pair nested in 2003 thru 2005, 2007 and 2009.
Alternative 1- Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action would not adversely impact the northern goshawk as an MIS. Nesting habitat will not be affected in conifer or mixed conifer vegetation types because very little grazing occurs in dense forested steep slopes where goshawk nesting areas are located. Better distribution of domestic livestock through partial fencing, grazing will maintain or increase forage for prey base with minimal loss of cover for small mammals in meadow and forest openings. Overall range monitoring has shown satisfactory conditions throughout the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments. Monitoring has indicated that the current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve Forest Plan management direction. The majority of the monitoring points indicate light to moderate use providing ample forage availability to northern goshawk prey base and other wildlife exhibiting a dietary overlap with domestic livestock (McConkey 2010; Garcia de la Cadena 2010; Table 10). Range improvements such as proposed fencing would not impede goshawk hunting for prey and will result in better distribution of domestic livestock. The proposed livestock impoundments will provide goshawk and prey base species with alternate water sources where they occur. Because the northern goshawk does not rely on a specific prey base and has a guild of species available to choose from that utilize many different habitats and may or may not be influenced by grazing, implementation of the Proposed Action will not negatively impact their ability to forage successfully. Since the majority of the suitable habitat used by goshawks is in conifer and aspen stands usually associated with steep terrain, grazing by domestic livestock will be minimal. In addition, monitoring has shown that habitats grazed in the allotments are light to moderate resulting in minimal impacts to prey base, therefore implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to result in a change in the population numbers or trend within the analysis area or result in a significant change in overall habitat quality and population numbers or trend of northern
110
goshawks forest-wide. The Forest Plan provides direction to maintain lands in satisfactory condition for MIS and or to restore lands that are in less than satisfactory condition because of grazing (Forest Service 2007).
Alternative 2 – No Grazing Implementation of Alternative 2 would be beneficial to the northern goshawk prey base especially those species with dietary overlap for available forage with domestic livestock. Over time, many of the areas once grazed by livestock would begin to lose their palatability and nutritional value through the increased decadence of the grass and forb species, although an increase in hiding cover would be beneficial to northern goshawk small mammal prey base species such as rabbits and ground squirrels.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) With the exception of including proposed range improvements which would provide additional water sources, and fencing resulting in lighter utilization of areas through better distribution of domestic livestock, impacts to prey base, nesting and foraging by northern goshawks would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Snowshoe Hare - Pole/sapling aspen, conifer and mixed conifer The snowshoe hare is a valuable prey species to the lynx, goshawk, and other predators. Hares mainly use coniferous forests in the higher mountainous areas. They are predominately associated with forests that have a well-developed understory that provides protection from predation and supplies them with food. Such habitat structure is common in early seral stages but may also occur in coniferous forests with mature but relatively open overstories (Ruggiero 1999). Potential habitat for snowshoe hare within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments, based on primary and secondary lynx habitat, is approximately 26,658 acres. In summer, snowshoe hares eat forbs, grasses, leaves of shrubs, and some woody browse, while the winter diet is restricted to smaller-diameter twigs and some bark of shrubs and trees. In Alaska, for example, use of woody browse ranged from a high of 82% in winter, to 56% in spring, and 25% in summer (Wolff 1978).
On the Wasatch-Cache Planning Unit there are two populations of snowshoe hare. They are the Bear River/Wasatch Range population and the Uinta Mountains population. These two populations were identified because of the large habitat gap between these mountain ranges that essentially block genetic mixing. The Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments are in a portion of the Uinta Mountains population.
Monitoring Results and Trend for Snowshoe Hare Uinta Mountains Population: Bunnell (2004) has estimated 0.05 to 0.9 hares/hectare based on methods developed by Krebs et al. (2001). Bunnell’s work on the Uinta Mountains from 2001 through 2003 shows an average of 0.33 hares per hectare over the three-year period within mature vegetation types. Bunnell’s studies are the best indication that snowshoe hare were stable across the North Slope from fall 2000 thru summer 2003. In 2003, 61 transects (610 plots) were established across a variety of habitat types and age classes across the North Slope. A portion of Bunnell’s transects were incorporated as part of the Forest MIS monitoring effort. Monitoring results are in the wildlife specialist report – Garcia de la Cadena 2010 – in the project record.
Results and analysis of Bunnell’s study and comparison to data collected in 2004 can be found in the MIS report (Forest Service 2008). Snowshoe hare population was stable or displayed very little change from the fall of 2000 to the summer of 2003 for the North Slope sub-population. From the summer/fall of 2003 to the summer of 2005, the data suggests an increase in snowshoe hare numbers for the North Slope population, with decreases in 2006 and 2007.
111
There are 556,800 acres of snowshoe hare MIS habitat on the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Forest. Of this amount at least 126,140 acres are located within open allotments and grazed on the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Forest (~23% of open allotments). Utilizing lynx primary and secondary habitat to represent snowshoe hare habitat, there are 26,568 acres of snowshoe hare habitat within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments and approximately 3,276 of these suitable acres are potentially grazed by domestic livestock (or ~0.6% of the snowshoe hare habitat on the Wasatch-Cache portion of the Forest).
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action Snowshoe hare habitat will not be affected in conifer or mixed conifer vegetation types because very little grazing occurs in conifer where the majority of this habitat is located on steep slopes. Monitoring points show domestic livestock grazing within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments as being light to moderate and well within the utilization guidelines established in the Forest Plan (McConkey 2010; Garcia de la Cadena 2010; Table 10). The Proposed Action will continue to maintain or improve upland and riparian conditions and thus maintain habitat for snowshoe hare on the allotments. These effects are not expected to result in a change in the population numbers or trend within the analysis area or result in a significant change in overall habitat quality and population numbers or trend of snowshoe hares forest-wide.
Alternative 2 – No Grazing Alternative 2 would be beneficial to snowshoe hare in areas where overlap exists with domestic livestock in summer when snowshoe hares forage on grasses and forbs. Although many of the areas once grazed by livestock would begin to lose nutritional value over time with the increased decadence of the grass and forb species, albeit an increase in hiding cover as a result of no grazing would be beneficial to snowshoe hare.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) With the exception of including proposed range improvements which would provide additional water sources, and fencing resulting in lighter utilization of areas through better distribution of domestic livestock, impacts to snowshoe hare would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Beaver – Riparian Beaver occur in permanent slow moving streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs. They play an important role in maintaining and enhancing riparian and aquatic ecosystems (Olsen and Hubert 1994) and are important for the creation of habitat for several species of fish, big game, waterfowl, and neo-tropical birds.
In favorable habitat the density of beaver colonies ranges from 0.4 to 0.8 per km2 (.2 to .3 per/mi2). Home range is greatly affected by the water system in which the colony lives with colonies in the best habitat occurring as close as 300 meters (328 yards) apart (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Resources Inventory Branch for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resources Inventory Committee 1998).
A beaver colony is typically about 5 to 6 beavers and consists of an adult pair, the young of the year, and young of the previous year. There are two types of colonies: isolated, which occurs on small tributaries and seepages and possess a defined periphery of beaver activities, and multi- colony, in which generations of beavers have occupied an area and no clear boundaries exist.
Monitoring Results and Trend for Uinta Mountain Beaver Population The baseline monitoring protocol is based upon sampling (as opposed to a complete census) to estimate beaver population at the spatial scale of the Forest. To achieve an unbiased, well- distributed sample, sample units are systematically selected sections (1 section = 1 m2 = 640 acres). With a 10% sampling intensity, every 10th section is sampled (the first section sampled was selected randomly, and then every 10th section was systematically selected). Only complete
112
sections of National Forest System lands are sampled. The number of active beaver colonies is determined within each sampled section, allowing estimated beaver population abundance to be expressed as Number of Active Beaver Colonies/mile2. The number of colonies can then be converted into the number of beaver as described above. By counting the number of active dams and determining the number of colonies with the number of beaver per colony all aspects of the Forest Plan are met. Additional beaver monitoring information is in the project record – Garcia de la Cadena 2010.
As indicated in Table 32, a beaver colony often has more than one dam. Hilfiker (1991) indicates that at least one secondary dam is built downstream to relieve pressure on the main dam and reduce water loss from the pond through seepage. He states, “that when a family of beaver live in an area for a number of years, it is not unusual for three quarters of a mile or more to be terraced with dams, ponds, and water impoundments.”
Table 32. Beaver population estimates Estimated # Active of Population dams # of colonies Individuals beavers/mi2 Wasatch/Bear River 19 8 40 0.63* Uinta Mountains / North 16 7 35 0.95 Slope *Because not all of the sections have been surveyed the initial determination may not represent a true estimate.
Currently there are not enough years of Forest Service monitoring population data on beaver to indicate a trend. However, there are three source documents provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources that currently indicate a trend: the1979-80 publication no. 80-12 (Provan 1980), the 1998-1999 Furbearer Harvest Reports publication no. 02-06 (Wolfe 2002), the 1971- 1982 Beaver Distribution, and the Habitat and Population Survey (Blackwell 1993). The 1979-80 harvest and 1971-82 survey reports display beaver population estimations by units while the 1998-1999 Harvest report (Wolfe 1999) considers regions (Great Basin, Rocky Mtn., Uintah Basin, and Colorado Plateau). The 1993 survey merely restates the trend stated in the 1979-80 reports.
For State beaver units that include National Forest System lands administered under the Wasatch-Cache planning area, the state has made the determination of status as displayed in Table 33.
Table 33. UDWR Units occurring, at least partially, on NFS Lands Status of beaver Unit Unit Location population Wasatch/Bear River Population 2 North ½ Cache County Static 3 Rich County Static 5 South ½ Cache County Static 6 West Weber County Static 7 East Weber County Static 8 Davis County Static 9 Morgan County Static 10 Northern ¾ Summit County Static 11 Southern ¼ Summit County Increasing 14 Southwest Salt Lake County Static 15 Southeast Salt Lake County Increasing Uinta Mountains Population 10 Northern 3/4 Summit County Static 11 Southern ¼ Summit County Increasing Source: UDWR 1971-1982 Beaver Distribution, Habitat and Population 113
Survey (Published 1993)
With the exception of a few specific locations, Forest Service management of suitable beaver habitat within National Forest boundaries has not changed significantly from 1980 to the present. Therefore, until Forest Service monitoring yields data for population trends, it is assumed that the determinations made in the State of Utah Survey Report remain valid for both populations on the Forest.
In the High Uinta Wilderness, willows are the main dam construction material available since aspen is essentially lacking. Beaver habitat is limited to low willow communities. Beaver dams are short lived in these habitats. The small diameter and short stems of the low willow do not provide material of sufficient quality to withstand the high spring flows. In the Forest monitoring protocol for beaver, monitoring is not done above 9,500 feet because of the factors listed above.
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action could impact beaver habitat within the riparian systems grazed throughout the allotments. Grazing could impact the future stands of aspen and willow components that are important forage and building materials utilized by beaver within the allotments. Depending on intensity and duration, grazing of aspen suckers and willow carr regeneration would impact their age class distribution throughout the allotment over time. However, monitoring has indicated that the current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve Forest Plan management direction to maintain lands in satisfactory condition for MIS and or to restore lands that are in less than satisfactory condition because of grazing (Forest Service 2007). The majority of the riparian monitoring points indicate light to moderate use with improvement in the willow component, providing ample forage availability to beaver and other wildlife exhibiting a dietary overlap with domestic livestock (Garcia de la Cadena 2010; McConkey, 2010; Table 10). The proposed range improvements would provide additional water sources, and fencing would result in lighter utilization of areas through better distribution of domestic livestock. Therefore the Proposed Action will continue to maintain or improve upland and riparian conditions and thus maintain habitat for beaver on the allotment. These effects are not expected to result in a change in the population numbers or trend within the analysis area or result in a significant change in overall habitat quality and population numbers for beaver forest-wide.
Alternative 2 – No Grazing Implementation of Alternative 2 would be beneficial to beaver and their habitat within riparian systems grazed throughout the allotments. But browsing of aspen and willow components that are important forage and building materials utilized by beaver would still occur by wild herbivores such as moose, deer and elk. It is assumed that less impact to riparian would occur without the incidental grazing by domestic livestock, but it is important to note that monitoring has shown that domestic livestock grazing had a minimal impact if any on the riparian systems grazed throughout the allotments (Garcia de la Cadena 2010).
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) With the exception of including proposed range improvements, which would provide additional water sources, and fencing resulting in lighter utilization of areas through better distribution of domestic livestock, impacts to beaver would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Rocky Mountain Elk Rocky Mountain elk has been analyzed in the big game section of this document. Suitable elk habitat occurs in nearly all of the 1,384,132 acres of the ANF; of this 2,585 acres of the 2,745 acres of the Burnt fork Allotment administered by the ANF provides suitable habitat, potentially effecting less than 0.002% of the suitable elk habitat. This habitat consists mostly of summer and fall habitats, with some winter habitat. The Forest provides a limited amount of this critical winter
114
habitat, which is located at the lower elevations on the periphery of the Forest. Since there is a minimal amount of winter habitat on the Forest, most elk migrate to adjacent non-Forest Service lands that provide a greater amount of winter habitat. With the exception of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata wyomingensis), the mountain brush (mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), bitterbrush (Persia tridentata), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.) and sagebrush communities (black sagebrush and Mountain big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata vaseyana) on the Forest appear to be in good condition with no long-term losses (USFS 2006a). Due to drought conditions, there was a die-off of Wyoming big sagebrush communities on the Forest in 2002, and the duration of recovery is uncertain (USFS 2006a). Except for some areas of the Forest with conifer invasion, aspen stands appear to be in good condition and regeneration is occurring (USFS 2006a).
Mule Deer Rocky Mountain elk has been analyzed in the big game section of this document. Suitable mule deer habitat occurs in nearly all of the 1,384,132 acres of the Ashley National Forest, of this nearly all 2,745 acres within the Burnt Fork Allotment administered by the ANF are suitable, potentially effecting less than 0.002% of the suitable deer habitat. This habitat consists mostly of summer and fall habitats, with some winter habitat. The Forest provides a limited amount of this critical winter habitat, which is located at the lower elevations on the periphery of the Forest. Since there is a minimal amount of winter habitat on the Forest, most mule deer migrate to adjacent non-Forest Service lands that provide a greater amount of winter habitat. With the exception of Wyoming big sagebrush, the mountain brush (mahogany, bitterbrush, and serviceberry) and sagebrush communities (black sagebrush and Mountain big sagebrush) on the Forest appear to be in good condition with no long term losses (Forest Service 2006a). Due to drought conditions, there was a die-off of Wyoming big sagebrush communities on the Forest in 2002, and the duration of recovery is uncertain (Forest Service 2006a).
Red-naped Sapsucker On the Ashley NF, this species serves as an indicator for deciduous woodlands. The sapsucker is also considered a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Red-naped Sapsucker habitat occurs within 356 acres out of the 2,745 acres of the Burnt Fork Allotment administered by the ANF, potentially effecting a negligible amount of the suitable habitat. Effecst to Red-naped sapsucker are discussed in the neotripical birds section of this document.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Management Indicator Species
As detailed by species above, there is limited direct or indirect impacts to the MIS Species based on limited impacts to their habitat. Therefore, there are no anticipated cumulative effects.
Species of Concern
Federally Listed
A Biological Assessment for USFW Service concurrence will be prepared for the Burnt Fork (Including portion on Ashley NF), Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments and will become part of the Project Record. Federally listed species that are found on or have habitat in Summit County on the Wasatch-Cache Planning Unit were acquired from the USFWS website and their relationship to the proposed project are shown in Table 34.
Table 34. Federally Listed Species Summit County, Utah
115
Habitat Present in in Project Project Species Rank Area Area Comments Black-footed Listed as historical in Utah. Prairie dog habitat is not ferret present within the project area. No Effect to this species, E No No Mustela no habitat present, therefore no further discussion will nigripes follow. Canada lynx LAUs #29 & 30. Considered dispersers and no evidence Lynx T Yes Unknown of lynx reproducing in Utah. Canadensis Yellow-billed Elevations on allotment are > 8,000 feet. Yellow-billed cuckoo cuckoo nests in lowland riparian hardwoods (nest 2500- Coccyzus C No No 6000’ elevation) not present within the project area. No americanus Effect to this species or its nesting habitat, therefore no occidentalis further discussion will follow. E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate Source: Forest Service 2007
Canada lynx. Canada lynx are federally listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Historically lynx (Lynx canadensis) have occurred on the Wasatch-Cache Planning Unit throughout the spruce-fir habitats. They most often occur in relatively remote, undisturbed areas suggesting that they may be sensitive to human disturbance. Lynx prefer large continuous stands of conifer that provide denning and foraging habitat. Home ranges of lynx are generally 6- 8 square miles, but range up to 94 square miles. Lynx are tied closely with snowshoe hare, their primary food source throughout the year. In years of low hare populations, lynx will turn to alternate prey sources such as red squirrels and blue or ruffed grouse.
On July 3, 2003 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule (USDI 2003). As for the status of lynx in Utah the Rule reads:
“Utah – There are only 10 verified records of lynx in Utah since 1916 (McKay 1991; McKelvey et al. 2000b). Nearly all of the reliable lynx reports are from the Uinta Mountain Range along the Wyoming border (McKay 1991). Four of the records correlate to the cyclic highs of the 1960s and 1970s. Recent DNA results documented the presence of a lynx in Utah (McKelvey in lit. 2003). There is no evidence of lynx reproduction in Utah. We conclude that lynx that occur in the state are dispersers rather than residents, because most of the few existing records correspond to cyclic population highs, there is no evidence of reproduction, and boreal forest habitat in Utah is remote and far from source lynx populations.”
Although there is no evidence of reproducing lynx in Utah (see Wildlife Resource Report for more information),from time to time when lynx dispersed into Utah, there may have been some reproduction and the animals could have been considered resident until they left the state or died. There have been no confirmed sightings in recent years. There is documentation that several radio-collared lynx from the Colorado reintroduction have at least passed through Utah and spent time in the Whitney area of the Uintas recently. There was a recent potential sighting of a lynx near Hoop Lake, which falls within the analysis area. The animal was apparently seen by a hunter in December of 2009 possibly feeding on an elk carcass (pers. comm., UDWR).
The Uinta Mountains (both north and south slope) are the only place in Utah that has designated Lynx Analysis Units (LAU). LAUs are established to represent the approximate home ranges of a lynx. A working group comprised of biologists from the Ashley, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National Forests, US Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 116
established them. Lynx habitat was then classified as primary, secondary and non-habitat (Table 35).
Table 35. Lynx habitat (acres) in LAU #29 and 30 within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments Lynx Analysis Units Primary Habitat Secondary Habitat Non Habitat Total Acres 10,062 3,968 3,947 17,977 LAU 29 10,250 2,288 2,598 15,136 LAU 30 20,312 6,256 6,545 33,113 TOTAL Conifer/Aspen Aspen/Conifer Water Lynx Conifer Aspen Agriculture Habitat Classification Spruce-Fir Bottomland Hardwood Alpine Willow Douglas-fir Barren Wet Meadow Limber Pine Island Mixed Conifer Lodgepole Pine Mahogany Bigtooth Maple Pinyon-Juniper Ponderosa Pine Gamble Oak Sagebrush-Grass Tall Forb Tall Shrub/Mt. Brush
Threats. There are no major threats to lynx habitat components associated with grazing livestock. Potential threats to the Canada lynx from grazing in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments are associated with the lynx prey base, the snowshoe hare. The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) or LCAS discusses the following threats to lynx prey base associated with grazing at the project level:
• Decline in aspen seral species due to loss of regeneration to livestock grazing of suckers, an important winter snowshoe hare habitat component. • Competition for available forage between snowshoe hare and livestock. • Grazing of high elevation willow riparian willow communities, important cover and forage for lynx prey base.
As Table 35 above indicates and based on Forest corporate GIS database info, there are 20,312 acres of Primary lynx habitat on the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments, of which 2,245 acres or 11% overlaps capable domestic livestock habitat but receives light to moderate use therefore presenting a minimal threat to lynx. There are 6,256 acres of secondary lynx habitat on the allotments. Of which 1,031 acres or 17%, overlaps capable domestic livestock habitat but also receives light to moderate use (McConkey 2010). Only12% of the combined (primary and secondary habitat) acreage. There are 6,139 acres of lynx non-habitat, of which 53% overlaps capable domestic livestock acres.
Analysis. Field observations and monitoring photo points of existing aspen clones illustrate that domestic livestock are not browsing the aspen component within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments and therefore will not impact aspen succession and regeneration within the project area. Many of the existing aspen clones show regeneration along the edges with new suckering evident. If heavy grazing were occurring in aspen regeneration, it would be evidenced by loss of suckering and absence of regeneration taking place along the edges of these existing clones (McConkey 2010; Garci de la Cadena 2010; Table 10).
117
In summer, snowshoe hares eat forbs, grasses, leaves of shrubs, and some woody browse, while the winter diet is restricted to smaller-diameter twigs and some bark of shrubs and trees (Ruediger et al., 2000). At present, the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments are stocked at 5.9 suitable acres/AUM. This translates to a lighter stocking rate than the average 4.78 Forest grazing allotment. Current management combined with this lighter stocking rate provides healthy rangeland conditions and overall range monitoring has shown satisfactory conditions throughout the allotments. Monitoring has indicated that the current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve Forest Plan management direction. The majority of the monitoring points indicate low to moderate utilization providing ample forage availability to snowshoe hares and other wildlife exhibiting a dietary overlap with domestic livestock (McConkey 2010). Of the acreages identified as lynx habitat within the allotments, domestic livestock will potentially graze only 12% of the combined primary and secondary lynx habitat. These areas will receive light to moderate utilization usually in gradual terrain along the exterior edges of the habitat and will not result in a significant impact to snowshoe hare, the lynx preferred prey base (See Table 36).
The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy-LCAS (Ruediger et al. 2000) recognizes studies have not been done to determine specific conflicts between show shoe hares and livestock grazing. Studies have been done on other leporids though, in a recent publication Intensity of livestock grazing in relation to habitat use by brown hares (Lepus europaeus), Karmiris and Nastis (2006) found that brown hares seem to prefer moderately grazed pastures with a sparse herb layer in relation to ungrazed ones, where a denser plant structure occurs. This could be explained as predator avoidance behavior because a dense high stand of plants can be considered a disadvantage for hares to locate visually approaching predators. And moderate to light grazing intensities are usually more preferable to no grazing at all for sustainable forage production, because new plant growth is promoted and the growing season is prolonged, and plant diversity may also be increased, thus strengthening and stabilizing range ecosystems function.
Although snowshoe hares are not associated with open habitat like brown hares in Karmiris & Nastis’ study, they will use small clearcuts for travel or feeding if forested stands are nearby (Ellsworth 2006). But it would still stand to reason that light to moderate grazing in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments would not have a negative impact on snowshoe hare survival and forage availability where use overlaps with domestic livestock.
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) was reviewed for biological and technical information on this species. Domestic and/or wild ungulate grazing can affect the structure and composition of native plant communities, thus changing their ability to support lynx and their prey (Ruediger et al. 2000). However, lynx denning and winter foraging habitat for the most part is not accessible to domestic livestock, therefore changes to vegetation due to livestock grazing will not occur in these areas. In areas where livestock grazing does occur, the management of livestock grazing using time-controlled principles has provided for light to moderate utilization and vegetative conditions that meet Revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Vegetation monitoring has also documented an increase in aspen suckers and young willows within the allotments concurrent with livestock grazing (McConkey 2010; Table 10). These smaller-diameter twigs provide additional winter forage for snowshoe hares. Grazing is expected to result in dietary overlap and reduce some hiding cover for the snowshoe hare, but since range monitoring points show light to moderate utilization, overall grazing will maintain forage availability and quality. Of the acreages identified as lynx habitat within the allotments, only 12% of the combined primary and secondary lynx habitat will potentially be grazed by domestic livestock. These areas will receive light to moderate utilization typically in gradual terrain along the exterior edges of the habitat and will not result in a significant impact to snowshoe hare, the lynx preferred prey base. Range improvements will not affect the lynx or its prey base, the
118
proposed fencing would not impede lynx movement and the proposed ponds would provide a supplemental water source for all wildlife including lynx and their prey. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx.
Alternative 2 – No Grazing Alternative 2 would be beneficial to the lynx prey base the snowshoe hare, especially alternate small mammal prey species that are grazers and compete for available forage with domestic livestock. Over time, many of the areas once grazed by livestock would begin to lose palatability and nutritional value thru the increased decadence in the grass and forb species, although an increase in hiding cover would be beneficial to small mammal prey species including the snowshoe hare. No grazing would have no affect on lynx.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) With the exception of including proposed range improvements, which would provide additional water sources, and fencing resulting in lighter utilization of areas through better distribution of domestic livestock, impacts to lynx prey base, denning and foraging habitat would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Forest Service Sensitive Species
Forest Service sensitive species that are found on or have habitat on the Forests and their relationship to the proposed project are shown in Table 36.
Table 36. Sensitive Species Species Habitat Comments in Project Area Spotted Bat Yes No Impact. Spotted bats roost in caves, mines and cliff crevices. (Euderma Since there will be no degradation or disturbance to this habitat maculatum) component, therefore, there will be no impact on the species. No further discussion will follow. Townsend’s Big- Yes No Impact. Townsend’s big-eared bats roost in caves, mines and cliff eared Bat crevices. Since there will be no degradation or disturbance to this (Plecotus townsendii) habitat component, there will be no impact on the species. No further discussion will follow. Pygmy Rabbit No No impact. Project area not in species range. No further discussion (Sylvilagus will follow. idahoensis) Wolverine Yes Habitat present. May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely (Gulo gulo) Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species. Rocky Mountain Yes Habitat present. May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Bighorn Sheep Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of (Ovis canadensis Viability to the Population or Species. (Also see discussion in big Canadensis) game section). Bald eagle No No Impact. Nesting occurs at lower elevations in the state and (Haliaeetus elevation is not conducive to winter foraging by bald eagles. No leucocephalus) further discussion will follow. Boreal Owl Yes Habitat present. May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely (Aegolius funereus) Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species. Flammulated Owl No No impact. Insectivorous lower elevation old forest ponderosa pine (Otus flammeolus) open habitat species. Very rare if present on north slope. No further discussion will follow. Great Gray Owl Yes Habitat present. May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely 119
(Strix nevulosa) Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species. Northern Goshawk Yes Habitat present. May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely (Accipiter gentiles) Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species. Peregrine Falcon NA No impact. Habitat exists in the Uinta High Wilderness, but no (Falco peregrines) peregrines have been documented. Grazing will not impact habitat. No further discussion will follow. Northern Three-toed Yes No Impact. Although habitat is present, grazing does not impact Woodpecker species, nesting or foraging habitat, since conifers provide both (Picoides tridactus) nesting and foraging habitat. No further discussion will follow. (Also see discussion in MIS section) Columbian Sharp- NA No impact. Project area not within species range. No further tailed Grouse discussion will follow. (Tympauchus phasianellus columbianus) Greater Sage Grouse NA No impact. Species does exist at lower elevations on BLM lands (Centrocercus further north and east from the allotments. urophasianus)
Wolverine. The wolverine is the largest terrestrial mustelid and is found in the tundra, taiga, and forest zones of North America. Wolverines are typically associated with remote wilderness areas where minimal contact with humans or developments occurs. As a scavenger it depends largely on mammal carrion provided from kills by wolves and other predators. Wolverine will forage on snowshoe hare and other small mammals. However, because of their size, carrion of ungulate species in the winter is also necessary for their survival. Delayed implantation allows wolverines to give birth during the winter when ungulate carrion is more plentiful. Information on natal den sites in North America is limited to data collected in the tundra region where dens are easily located. This species was probably never common in Utah, but it previously occurred (and still may occur) in the high mountainous areas of the state.
The final report “Forest Carnivores Occurrence, Distribution & Limiting Factors: Canada Lynx and Wolverine Surveys in Utah” (Flinders et al. 2004) reports the possibility of wolverine and/or fisher tracks in the High Uintas Wilderness. Historic records of fisher occurrences on the Wasatch- Cache would indicate the tracks most probably belong to a wolverine. The UDWR Heritage database (2002) records for fisher states “Identification of this species was based on tracks believed to be a fisher seen on two occasions (1938). A photograph of the tracks was examined by Durrant (1952) who agreed with the identification. This record is considered questionable without further documentation.” The tracks found in the Flinders et al. study were southwest of the project area. No surveys have been conducted for this species within the project area due to the species large home range (39 mi2 – 233 mi2) and lack of a recognized protocol.
Analysis and Determination of Effect. Wolverines are considered wanderers and travel great distances over their home range. In fact, estimates generally suggest that it may take an area from 15 mi² to 304 mi² to provide adequate habitat for a single wolverine. Vegetative characteristics appear less important to wolverine than physiographic structure of the habitat. Montane coniferous forests, suitable for winter foraging and summer kit rearing, may only be useful if connected with subalpine cirque habitats required for natal denning, security areas, and summer foraging (Wolverine Foundation 2009). Natal den habitat on talus slopes may exist within the High Uintas Wilderness, but grazing does not occur in these areas, nor does it occur during the winter months when this habitat is potentially utilized by wolverine. Prey base in the summer months will include snowshoe hare and ground squirrels and these species can be affected by livestock grazing, but overall range monitoring has shown satisfactory conditions throughout the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments. Monitoring has indicated that the
120
current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve or exceed Forest Plan management direction. The majority of the monitoring points indicate light to moderate use providing ample forage availability to snowshoe hares and other prey base exhibiting a dietary overlap with domestic livestock (McConkey 2010). Refugia may be most important in providing availability and protection of reproductive denning habitat. Life history requirements of the wolverine are tied to the presence and stability of ecosystems lacking broad scale human influence. Dispersing wolverines in Idaho traveled over 124 miles following routes across isolated subalpine habitat. They are able to move more than 20 miles in a day through rough terrain and deep snow (Wolverine Foundation 2009). Because wolverines have large home ranges, do not tolerate human disturbance and most likely spend most of their time in high elevation wilderness areas, it is not anticipated that grazing of the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments will have any significant impact to wolverine or its habitat.
Natal den habitat on talus slopes may exist within the High Uintas Wilderness, but grazing does not occur in these areas, nor does it occur during the winter months when this habitat is potentially utilized by wolverine. Prey base in the summer months will include snowshoe hare and ground squirrels and livestock grazing can affect these species, but overall range monitoring has shown satisfactory conditions throughout the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments. Monitoring has indicated that the current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve or exceed Revised Forest Plan management direction. The majority of the monitoring points indicate light to moderate use providing ample forage availability to wolverine prey base and other wildlife exhibiting a dietary overlap with domestic livestock. Therefore implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 May Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.No grazing would not have an impact on Wolverines or their habitat.
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. Bighorn are discussed in detail under Big Game. Summer and winter range suitable habitat for bighorn sheep exists within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments. Bighorn sheep summer range is found within the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment, but this habitat is steep and very little to no livestock grazing occurs there. The majority of bighorn winter range habitat is located within the Beaver Creek Allotment and domestic livestock does not graze this allotment when the bighorn sheep are present. In addition, the bighorn will utilize the steeper slopes to live and forage where they feel safe and secure from potential predation. The Hoop Lake Herd, which winters in the Beaver Creek Allotment consists of approximately 20-25 animals and has remained stable since the re-introduction in 1989. In January of 2010 GPS telemetry collars were placed on 1 ram and 3 ewes in order to get detailed information on the herds movements to and from the winter range.
Analysis and Determination of Effect. Because bighorn sheep are known to inhabit the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments and range monitoring has indicated that the current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve Forest Plan management direction and provide ample forage availability to wildlife such as bighorn, therefore implementation of the proposed action or Alternative 3 to continue cattle grazing on the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments, May Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No grazing would not have an impact on bighorn sheep or their habitat.
Boreal owl. The species breeds in North America from Canada to northeastern Minnesota, local breeding populations can be found in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado. Forests ranging from pure deciduous to mixed and pure coniferous composition characterize boreal owl habitat in North America. Suitable habitat on the Evanston District would be old-growth Spruce-fir and high elevation mixed-conifer stands. Boreal owls are cavity dependant and typically use old woodpecker nests. Prey species typically consist of microtine rodents (red-backed vole), which 121
are caught nocturnally. Red-backed voles and other small mammals are important food sources for foraging boreal owls. Habitat requirements for prey species vary from a well-developed understory to clear-cuts or natural openings. Recently there was a confirmed nesting pair on the Uinta Forest National Forest that is the first nesting pair found in Utah. There has been one confirmed Boreal owl on the Evanston District that responded to broadcast surveys and it was within a roadless portion of the West Bear Analysis Area, in the vicinity of Whitney Reservoir.
Analysis and Determination of Effect. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not impact large decadent conifers with cavities used for nesting by boreal owls. The availability of small mammals limits populations of boreal owls in many areas; therefore, factors that influence small mammal abundance and availability will directly influence the abundance of boreal owls. Range monitoring in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments, supports grazing by domestic livestock at light to moderate levels, which would not create a significant impact to the small mammal prey base habitat available to potentially foraging boreal owls (McConkey 2010; Garcia de la Cadena 2010). Boreal owls are interior forest hunters and rarely hunt in open areas. Therefore implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 May Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No grazing would not have an impact on boreal owls or their habitat
Great gray owl. In North America, the great gray owl breeds from the boreal forests of Alaska, east to Ontario, and south to northeastern Minnesota, northwestern Wyoming, western Montana, Idaho, and through the Sierra Nevadas of California and Nevada. All of its range in Utah is considered range of wintering vagrants. Great gray owls use mixed coniferous and hardwood forests usually bordering small openings or meadows. They forage along edges of clearings, semi-open areas where small rodents are abundant. The long-term persistence of great gray owls south of Canada and in Alaska seems likely provided that forests of all successional stages are maintained and well dispersed on a local and regional scale. Persistence on a local geographic scale is less certain. Maintaining persistence will require special attention to the long- term persistence of mature and older forest stands on sites where natural fire is less likely to destroy the old forest and where suitable nesting platforms are abundant. These stands will be necessary to consistently produce nesting structures. Furthermore, mature and older forest likely provide important alternate foraging habitat during periods when crusted snow prevents great gray owls from accessing their preferred rodent prey. Maintaining quality great gray owl foraging habitat should be compatible with forest management for commodity resources if management takes a long-term view. Natural meadow systems must be maintained and restored through fire management. Similarly, temporal continuity of foraging habitat must be maintained through long- term harvest planning (Hayward 2004). The great gray owl is still considered a winter vagrant to the Forest.
The Great Gray Owl's diet consists of almost entirely small rodents. About 90% of their diet consists of pocket gophers and voles. Other small mammals taken by the owl include mice, squirrels, young rabbits, hares, rats, moles, and weasels. Also taken are birds, usually small, although there are records of Sharp-shinned Hawks, ducks, and grouse. Small mammals are usually swallowed whole while larger prey is torn into pieces. The Great Gray can also detect prey under the snow by sound alone and will dive into the snow for hidden prey. Generally they hunt from a perch by listening and watching. Primarily a nocturnal and crepuscular owl but may occasionally hunt by day on dark overcast days during the winter months, and while feeding young.
Analysis and Determination of Effect. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in the loss of large decadent broken top conifers used for nesting by great gray owls, but could have potential impacts to the great grey owl’s small mammal prey base. About 90% of their diet consists of pocket gophers and voles. Availability of nest sites and suitable foraging habitat are considered the most important factors governing habitat use by breeding great gray owls. They
122
forage in relatively open, grassy habitat, including bogs, selective and clear-cut logged areas, natural meadows, and open forests (Hayward and Verner, 1994). But range monitoring conducted in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments supports habitat use by domestic livestock at light to moderate levels, which would not result in a significant decline to the small mammal prey base habitat available to potentially foraging great grey owls (McConkey 2010; Garcia de la Cadena 2010). Therefore implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 May Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No grazing would not have an impact on Great Grey Owls or their habitat
Northern goshawk were analyzed in the MIS section of this document and further information is in the project record – Garcia de la Cadena 2010.
Analysis and Determination of Effect. There are two northern goshawk territories within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments. One is located near Kabell Creek southeast of Hoop Lake and the other is located southwest of Georges Park. The Kabell Creek northern goshawk territory has not been active since1999, but the Georges Park territory has been active and nested in 2003 thru 2005, 2007 and 2009. Goshawks prefer to forage in closed canopy forest with moderate tree densities as compared to young open forests. Goshawks will take prey from openings, although they usually hunt these areas from perches near the edge. Medium to large birds (woodpeckers, robins, grouse, or jays) and mammals (ground & tree squirrels and hares) tend to dominate their breeding season diets (Graham et al. 1999). Because the northern goshawk does not rely on a specific prey base and has a guild of species available to choose from that may or may not be influenced by grazing, implementation of the proposed action will not negatively impact their ability to forage successfully.
Range monitoring has indicated that the current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve Forest Plan management direction. The majority of the monitoring points indicate light to moderate use providing ample forage availability to northern goshawk prey base and other wildlife exhibiting a dietary overlap with domestic livestock (McConkey 2010; Garcia de la Cadena 2010). Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 May Impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No grazing would not have an impact on Northern Goshawk or their habitat
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action Bighorn sheep are known to inhabit the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments and range monitoring has indicated that the current management, utilization and permitted use are at appropriate levels to achieve Forest Plan management direction and provide ample forage availability to wildlife such as bighorn, therefore implementation of the Proposed Action will not result in a significant impact to bighorn sheep. Because wolverines have large home ranges, do not tolerate human disturbance and most likely spend most of their time in high elevation wilderness areas, it is not anticipated that grazing of the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments will have any significant impact to wolverine or its habitat. Prey base in the summer months will include snowshoe hare and ground squirrels and these species can be affected by livestock grazing. But overall range monitoring has shown satisfactory conditions throughout the allotments, with the majority of the monitoring points indicating light to moderate use providing ample forage availability to wolverine prey base and other wildlife exhibiting a dietary overlap with domestic livestock. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not impact large decadent conifers with cavities used for nesting by boreal owls nor would it result in the loss of large decadent broken top conifers used for nesting by great gray owls, but grazing could have potential impacts to the boreal and great gray owl’s small mammal prey base. The availability of small mammals limits populations of boreal owls in many areas. Therefore, factors that influence small mammal abundance and availability will directly influence the abundance of
123
boreal owls. Availability of nest sites and suitable foraging habitat are considered the most important factors governing habitat use by breeding great gray owls. They forage in relatively open, grassy habitat, including bogs, selective and clear-cut logged areas, natural meadows, and open forests (Hayward and Verner 1994). But range monitoring conducted in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments documents habitat use by domestic livestock at light to moderate levels (McConkey 2010; Garcia de la Cadena 2010), which would not create a significant impact to the habitat nor a decline to the small mammal prey base to potentially foraging boreal and great gray owls or any other sensitive species dependant on them.
Alternative 2 – No Grazing Alternative 2 would be beneficial to the sensitive species small mammal prey base, especially those prey species which are grazers with a dietary overlap that compete for available forage with domestic livestock. Over time, many of the areas once grazed by livestock within the allotments would begin to lose palatability and nutritional value through the increased decadence in the grass and forb species, although an increase in hiding cover would be beneficial to small mammal prey species.
Alternative 3 - No Action (management as described in existing AMP) With the exception of including proposed range improvements which would provide additional water sources, and fencing resulting in lighter utilization of areas through better distribution of domestic livestock, impacts to Forest Service Sensitive Species, their habitat and prey base, would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Cumulative effects for wildlife in the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments include roads, vegetation management, wildfires, recreation and oil and gas exploration. For analysis purposes, Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) 29 and 30 will be used to determine cumulative effects to wildlife (See Appendix B). The LAUs are representative of the home range for lynx and will easily include summer and winter range for big game and the home range of small mammals, birds and other wildlife.
Roads. Roads and trails increase fragmentation of habitat across the landscape. Isolated island areas may become unsuitable habitat and effect lynx and other wildlife by increasing forest edge and changing the amount of structural complexity of the forest. There are no new roads planned as a result of implementing the Proposed Action and no increase in the number of roads per square mile, therefore there would be no measurable negative impacts to wildlife. Ruediger et al. (2000) recommends keeping road densities below two-miles/square mile. Thomas (1979) recommends <1.5 miles of road/square mile for maintaining ~ 70 percent habitat effectiveness within ¼- ½ mile of secondary roads. The existing open road densities for Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) in the analysis area are less than one mile/square mile (Table 37). Both of the LAUs are well below the recommendations for open road density to maintain habitat effectiveness adjacent to secondary roads. Current open road densities in the LAUs combined with seasonal grazing of domestic livestock will have minimal cumulative effects to wildlife.
Table 37. Road Density LAU 29 & 30 Open Square Open road density (miles/square LAU Total acres roads miles mile) (miles) 29 38,480 60 18.8 0.3 30 50,148 78 32.9 0.4
Vegetation Management. Vegetation management within LAUs 29 & 30 includes such activities as timber salvage, timber harvest and will include the results of catastrophic wildfire. This decision does not propose any new vegetation treatments in the form of timber harvest or
124
salvage, so there will not be any additional impacts as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. The following table illustrates the current condition for LAUs 29 & 30. Acres of unsuitable habitat include management activities of the past, present and foreseeable future.
Table 38. Lynx Habitat in LAU 29 & 30 Total Acres of Acres Post Fire Percentage of Unsuitable LAU Primary and Unsuitable Acres Habitat Within LAU Secondary Habitat Unsuitable 29 27,005 25 100 0.5 % 30 35,871 575 N/A 1.6 %
In Table 38 above, the vegetation treatments such as timber harvest and salvage within the last 10 years are recorded under the “Acres Unsuitable” and the acres associated with wildfire that are unsuitable in primary and secondary lynx habitat, are represented by the 100 acres under “Post Fire Acres Unsuitable.” Included is acreage for timber harvest regeneration to occur within the next 5 years or the foreseeable future. Both LAUs will have less than 2% change to unsuitable within a ten-year period and this includes foreseeable future vegetation treatments. These activities can change the landscape, increase fragmentation, and determine how wildlife utilizes forested areas within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park Allotments. Lynx foraging habitat can be directly affected by the loss of snowshoe hare foraging and hiding cover for approximately 15-20 years after harvest and regeneration. For big game, the loss of cover is offset by the increase in palatable foraging habitat from suckering aspen and an increase in understory vegetation within the first five years. Implementation of the action alternatives does not propose any new vegetation treatments in the form of timber harvest or salvage, so there will not be any additional cumulative impacts as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.
Recreation. Cumulative impacts associated with recreation activities (e.g., hiking, camping, off- highway vehicle use, fishing, hunting, etc.) within Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments in LAUs 29 & 30, constitute disturbance from noise and human presence during these activities. This disturbance may displace wildlife into other areas within the allotments and LAUs. The majority of the recreational activity is concentrated near FS roads 078, 082, 086 and the adjacent roads, dispersed sites, campgrounds and the wilderness trail system. Because a lot of the disturbance occurs within specified areas, in most instances wildlife in and near these areas have habituated to the level of noise and disturbance that currently exists. So within the areas of disturbance, recreational activities combined with seasonal grazing should have no measurable effects to wildlife.
Forest Plan Direction Common to All Alternatives Wasatch-Cache - Forest Plan Standards (S) and Guidelines (G) Standards: (S8) In Lynx Analysis Units with current habitat at 30% or more in unsuitable condition, allow no vegetation management activities that would result in a further increase of unsuitable conditions. (Forest Service 2003a, Page 4-39)
The current habitat is at 0.5 and 1.6% in unsuitable condition for LAUs 29 &30 respectively and no further increase of unsuitable conditions would result from implementing the action alternatives, therefore Standard-S8 has been met (See Table 4).
(S10) In Lynx Analysis Units allow no net increase in groomed or designated open over-the-snow routes or play areas. (Forest Service 200a, Page 4-39)
There will be no net increase in groomed or designated open snow routes or play areas by implementing any of the action alternatives, therefore Standard-S10 has been met.
125
Guidelines: (G15) In goshawk habitat design all management activities to maintain, restore, or protect desired goshawk and goshawk prey habitat including foraging, nesting and movement. (Forest Service 2003, Page4-42)
In regards to goshawk prey habitat, analysis of monitoring points demonstrates that implementation of the proposed action alternatives would result in light to moderate grazing throughout the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments leaving adequate forage and hiding cover for northern goshawk prey base (McConkey 2010), therefore Guideline- G15 has been met.
(G18) In Lynx Analysis Units design all management activities to maintain, restore, or protect desired lynx and lynx prey habitats including foraging, denning and movement. (Forest Service 2003, Page4-42)
Implementation of the action alternatives would not impact lynx foraging, denning or impede movement. Same as G15, therefore Guideline-G18 has been met. In regards to lynx prey base habitat, analysis of monitoring points demonstrates that implementation of the proposed action alternatives would result in light to moderate grazing throughout the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments leaving adequate forage and hiding cover for lynx prey base (McConkey 2010).
(G21) For projects that may affect Forest Service Sensitive species, develop conservation measures and strategies to maintain, improve and/or minimize impacts to species and their habitats. Short-term deviations may be allowed as long as the action maintains or improves the habitat in the long term. (Forest Service 2003, page4-43)
Implementation of the proposed action alternatives will not significantly impact Forest Service Sensitive Species or their habitats, therefore Guideline-G21 has been met.
Ashley - Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Identify and map elk calving areas, deer and antelope fawning areas, and sage grouse strutting and nesting areas for assessing cumulative impacts (IV-29).
The Ashley National Forest utilizes the mapping data from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department for elk calving areas and deer and antelope fawning areas, and sage grouse strutting and nesting areas for assessing cumulative impacts for those projects that are located on the Forest. These data are considered sufficient for satisfying these requirements of the Ashley National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
In goshawk habitat (forested lands, including transitory openings created by timber harvest or fire), limit understory grazing utilization to an average of 20% by weight, not to exceed 40% on any specific site. Average browse utilization would be limited to 40% by weight, and would not exceed 60%. This guideline does not apply to non-forested habitat types (Appendix CC – Ashley Forest Plan Amendment pages CC 7-9).
There are two historic goshawk territories that could be impacted by project activities; however, these territories have not been active since at least 2006 and the nests are no longer standing for either of these territories. Forest Plan standards for goshawk habitat are being met. In addition, there have not been any recent timber sales, prescribed or wildfires within the Ashley National Forest portion of the project area. Therefore, the specifics of this guideline will be met with the implementation of project activities.
126
Resource management. activities will be allowed if they will not adversely affect any TES (LRMP IV-30)
Implementation of the action alternatives will not adversely affect any TES species within the Ashley NF portion of the Burnt Fork Allotment. Therefore this S&G has been met.
Manage the habitat of all TES animal species to maintain or enhance their status (LRMP IV-30, Objective 3)
Implementation of the action alternatives will maintain TES habitat and minimal competition for forage between prey base and domestic livestock will occur, supported by analysis of monitoring points resulting in light to moderate grazing within the Ashley NF portion of the Burnt Fork Allotment. Therefore this S&G has been met.
Where it is determined through the landscape assessment process that ungulate grazing is contributing to an indentified functioning-at-risk condition relative to habitat needed to support goshawk and its prey, modify grazing practices to maintain or restore the desired seed, mast, and foliage production defined in the landscape assessment process. Review success of the modifications annually. If modifications are not providing for the desired progression toward production objectives defined in the landscape assessment, modify practices through the next annual operating plan. (Northern Goshawk Forest Plan Amendment, Guideline X)
Northern goshawk habitat and minimal competition for forage between prey base and domestic livestock will occur, supported by analysis of monitoring points resulting in light to moderate grazing within the Ashley NF portion of the Burnt Fork Allotment. Therefore this S&G has been met.
Riparian areas are given high priority for rehabilitation in range improvement, fish and wildlife improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance, and KV programs (LRMP IV-46)
Monitoring points have demonstrated improvement in riparian habitat and willow habitat components (Table 10 -sites11-10,11-20A, 11-26, 12-12B and 12-25B&C), therefore this S&G has been met. No riparian areas are in need of rehabilitation within the ANF portion of the Burnt Fork Allotment.
Standards and guidelines from the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000) that apply to grazing these allotments are listed below.
Mange livestock grazing within riparian areas and willow carrs in lynx habitat to provide conditions for lynx and lynx prey.
Implementation of the action alternatives will not impact the riparian or willow habitat component. Monitoring points have demonstrated improvement in riparian habitat and willow habitat component (Table 10 - sites 11-10,11-20A, 11-26, 12-12B and 12-25B&C), therefore this S&G from the LCAS has been met.
Maintain or move towards native composition and structure of herbaceous and shrub plant communities.
Monitoring points have demonstrated improvement moving towards an increase in native composition and structure of herbaceous and shrub plant communities (Table 10 - sites 11-4,11- 7B,11-8A,11-15A,11-20C,12-15 and 12-23).
127
Ensure that ungulate grazing does not impede the development of snowshoe hare habitat in natural or created openings within lynx habitat.
Analysis of monitoring points demonstrates that implementation of the action alternatives would result in light to moderate grazing and a continued increase in grass, forbs, shrub, willows and aspen (McConkey 2010; Garcia de la Cadena 2010; Table 10) throughout the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotments, therefore this LCAS S&G has been met.
Do not allow livestock use in openings created by fire or timber harvest that would delay successful regeneration of the shrub and tree components.
Currently there are no recent wildfire, prescribed burns or harvest cut openings within the Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek and Hickerson Park C&H Allotment, so this LCAS S&G does not apply. Monitoring points indicate that current grazing strategy has not impacted past harvest openings (Table 10 sites 11-25 and 12-27).
Manage grazing in aspen stands to ensure sprouting and sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of aspen clones.
Monitoring points demonstrate an increase in aspen suckers where grazing occurs ensuring that grazing in and along the edges of aspen stands are not impacting sucker survival or growth (Table 10 - sites 12-4B, 12-5A, 12-5B, 12-6, 12-16 and 12-21). This LCAS S&G is being met.
Within the elevation ranges that encompass forested lynx habitat, shrub-steppe habitats should be considered as integral to the lynx habitat matrix and should be managed to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition.
Within lynx habitat, monitoring points demonstrate an increase in growth of shrub-steppe habitats within the allotments (Table 10 -sites 12-3A, 12-4A, 12-21, 12-23A and 12-32). This LCAS S&G is being met.
Within lynx habitat, manage livestock grazing in riparian areas and willow carrs to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition to provide for cover and forage for prey species.
Implementation of the action alternatives will not impact the riparian or willow habitat component therefore allowing the habitat component to maintain or achieve mid seral or higher condition. Monitoring points have demonstrated improvement in riparian habitat and willow habitat component (Table 10 – sites 11-10,11-20A, 11-26, 12-12B and 12-25B&C), therefore this S&G from the LCAS has been met. Recreation/Wilderness (Issue 5)
Recreational use within the project area is quite sporadic due in part to the access. The majority of visitors come from the Wasatch Front via I-80 (approx. 100 miles), Wyo. Hwy 414 through Mtn. View (approximately 28 miles), and then on to dirt roads for another 6 miles to finally reach the northern Forest boundary which is also the Beaver Creek Allotment boundary. There are approximately 20+ miles of dirt road providing access within the allotment area. The condition of the roads varies somewhat with the majority being suitable for high clearance vehicles only.
The analysis area contains one developed campground (Hoop Lake) which has 41 camping units. This campground typically is not fully utilized until elk hunting season in early October. It is surrounded by a buck/pole fence to exclude livestock grazing. The typical Forest visitor utilizing this area is more apt to camp outside of a developed campground in one of the numerous dispersed camping locations scattered throughout the analysis area. 128
Outside of the Wilderness and proposed Wilderness areas, in the upper reaches of the Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork Allotments, there are the following recreation opportunities as defined in the Forest Plans: RN – Roaded Natural SPNM – Semi Primitive Non-Motorized SPM – Semi Primitive Motorized
All of the area, except for the Wilderness and proposed Wilderness areas, is managed for “Multiple Uses” with emphasis for Terrestrial Habitat, Aquatic Habitat, Maintaining/Restoring Forested Ecosystem Integrity, and for Timber Growth and Yield.
A corridor encompassing the major access roads leading across the area and up to each trailhead has been defined as having Roaded Natural (RN) recreation opportunities. Camps are fairly easily access pickups, 4x4s, and SUVs. Camps are typically large canvas wall tents, and camper trailers. You may see a motor-home at times in Hoop Lake Campground.
The area north of the RN corridor is defined as Semi Primitive Motorized (SPM). Roads are rougher, narrower, and steeper. Travel upon these roads are limited to 4-wheel drive vehicles exclusively as well as ATVs. Camps are not as “comfortable” as in the RN area. Most are limited to tents and maybe a small camper trailer now and then.
The area south of the RN corridor (between the corridor and the Wilderness) is defined as Semi Primitive, Non-Motorized (SPNM). Travel within this area is strictly by foot or horseback. Camping in this area is either in tents or “under the stars”; whatever can be hauled on a horse or in a backpack.
On the edge of the RN corridor are five trailheads providing access to approximately 25 miles of non-motorized foot trails in the SPNM area divided between the West Beaver, Middle Beaver, Burnt Ridge, Kabell Meadows, Burnt Fork, and Fish Lake Trails. All the trailheads, except West Hoop Lake and Beaver Meadows, have limited facilities. There are bulletin boards, some horse tie racks, and cleared parking areas. East Hoop Lake Trailhead also has a toilet and horse corrals.
Use on these trails is typically light throughout most of the summer season but then peaks during the first couple of weeks in October for elk hunting. Use of Hoop Lake Trailhead and Kabell Meadows Trail is light to moderate throughout the summer but also sees a significant spike in use during the hunting seasons in early fall.
Visitor use of foot trails in the Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork Allotments over the past ten years has held fairly steady. Since registration to use these trails is voluntary, the true number of visitors is difficult to determine but is likely higher than what is shown.
Table 39. Registered Recreation Users at trailheads within Allotments Trailheads West Beaver Middle Beaver Hoop Lake Burnt Fork Beaver Mdws 1999 143 124 96 121 No reg. box 2004 104 129 226** 24** No reg. box 2009* 66 54 46 67 No reg. box *Collected registration sheets for 2009 only ran through the end of August. Since use of these trailheads typically peaks during the first couple weeks in October, we probably could assume the final use figures to approximately double since use would continue through September and increase in early October. **Unknown cause for the spike in use for 2004 for Hoop Lake or the dip in use in 2004 for Burnt Fork.
The Beaver Creek Allotment extends into the High Uintas Wilderness (HUW) and encompasses approximately 3790 acres of existing Wilderness (Class II and III). There are also 1,480 acres of 129
proposed Wilderness in this allotment directly adjacent to the HUW. The upper end of the Burnt Fork Allotment also extends into the HUW and encompasses approximately 420 acres of Class II Wilderness. The upper end of the Hickerson Park Allotment (administered by the Ashley National Forest) also extends into the HUW and encompasses approximately 2,750 acres of Class II Wilderness.
130
Figure 11. High Uinta Wilderness
Management of these areas is guided by the following prescriptions related to Wilderness as defined in the Revised Forest Plan (pp. 4-64, 65):
1.2 - Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class II (Semi Primitive Non-Motorized recreation) Opportunity Class II Areas are characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment. Human induced change is evident but will recover (slowly in higher elevation areas). Outstanding opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation exist. Encounters with others are more frequent then Class I. Permitted livestock grazing may occur.
1.3 - Existing Wilderness - Opportunity Class III (Semi Primitive Non-Motorized recreation) Opportunity Class III Areas are characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment but impacts could persist from year to year. During peak season and in popular areas concentrated use is more common and opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation more limited. Permitted livestock grazing may occur.
131
(G1.1-3-1) Grazing and wildland fire use are allowed; prescribed fire is allowed to meet wilderness fire management objectives (FSM2324.2)
1.5 - Proposed Wilderness (within Semi Primitive Non-Motorized area) For areas recommended as wilderness, wilderness characteristics must be protected until Congress takes final action (FSH 1909.12,7.31). These areas are managed to maintain the characteristics qualifying them as capable and available for wilderness recommendation. Activities must not result in long-term changes to the wilderness character.
(G1.5-3) Grazing is allowed on open allotments to meet site-specifically defined desired conditions.
Existing Wilderness Character
Wilderness character is defined in terms or degrees of being: “Untrammeled”, “Natural”, “Undeveloped”, and providing for “Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation”:
1. “Untrammeled” Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation.
Human controls or manipulations within the proposed Wilderness area and in the existing Wilderness are limited to the presence of the trails which are maintained to mitigate human impacts to the surrounding environment. It is not a regulation that visitors have to use these trails. These areas are essentially just as “untrammeled” as when they were first proposed to be designated Wilderness.
2. “Natural” Wilderness is when ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.
Grazing and moving cattle temporarily displace some wildlife in their immediate vicinity. The vegetation grazed off by the cattle is not available for wildlife use. However, the extent of this impact has not increased since these areas were first determined to have adequate characteristics to be classified as Wilderness.
3. “Undeveloped” Wilderness is when it retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation.
That portion of the Middle Beaver Creek Trail that lies within the Wilderness encompassed in the allotment has four boardwalks constructed of treated 2x4’s. They are approximately 30 inches wide and vary from 4 feet to approximately 10 feet long. They are used to “bridge” wet areas sensitive to human and horse traffic.
No developments associated with the allotment are within these areas. Overall, the area is just as undeveloped as when it was first determined to have enough characteristics to qualify it as Wilderness.
4. “Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation” Wilderness is defined when an area provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. It’s a measure of the experiences available to have a vastness of scale, and a high degree of challenge and risk while using outdoor skills. It’s characterized by meeting nature on its own terms. (Landres et al. 2008).
These Wilderness and proposed Wilderness areas are remote and distanced from the
132
sights and sounds of mechanization. Those portions lying within the Bunt Fork and Beaver Creek Allotments however do not contain highly sought after attributes such as fishable lakes, scenic meadows, or opportunities for viewing far horizons or large landscapes.
In contrast, the Wilderness portion of the Hickerson Park Allotment is highly scenic with expansive views of open meadows, timbered slopes, and rugged mountain tops. It also contains Fish Lake that supports a good population of trout and is a destination for campers visiting this area.
Within the Beaver Creek Allotment only ¼ mile of the West Beaver Trail extends through proposed Wilderness. There are no areas along this section of trail that would cause cattle to concentrate in any significant numbers on their own.
Also in the same allotment, a little more than 4 miles of the Middle Beaver Trail lie within Class III Wilderness. The majority of the preferred grazing sites seems to be west of the trail on the opposite side of Middle Beaver Creek and screened from view by dense conifer stands.
In the Burnt Fork Allotment approximately ¾ of a mile of the Burnt Fork Trail extends through Class II Wilderness. Conditions in this portion of the allotment are not such that really attract cattle and hold them for any length of time. The amount of time they spend in this area is so limited that the impacts to the Wilderness characteristic are also very limited and similar to those listed above for the Beaver Creek Allotment.
In the Hickerson Park Allotment approximately one mile of the North Side Highline Trail extends through Class II Wilderness. Much of the trail lies within McCoy Park which is also favored by cattle. There are times when recreational/wilderness users may find cattle in the area.
Overall, within the Wilderness and proposed Wilderness areas encompassed by these allotments, conflicts between grazing cows and Wilderness visitors have been minimal. Those areas being favored by the cattle on these allotments tend to be separated from those being used by Wilderness visitors except along some of the trails. This past year there were no negative comments targeting cattle grazing noted on the trailhead registration sheets within these allotments and no negative comments taken verbally by Forest Service personnel. As registration sheets are voluntary and encounters with visitors are sporadic, it is difficult to quantify the public’s perception of livestock grazing in the wilderness.
In a survey conducted by Colorado State University in the High Uintas Wilderness (HUW) (Johnson et al. 1997) found that: “...the proportion of visitors who accepted livestock grazing in wilderness (43%) was similar to the proportion who considered grazing to be unacceptable (40%). Three-quarters of those who accepted grazing, however, predicated their approval on proper management to protect rangeland ecosystems. A majority of the wilderness visitors surveyed reported that encounters and livestock impacts detract from a wilderness experience.”
This same survey also found: “…that livestock seen in the distance impact visitors considerably less than livestock encounters close to visitor use areas. Findings also indicate that the presence of cowboys or sheepherders detracts far less than encountering livestock in high-use or riparian areas. This suggests that grazing will be more acceptable to wilderness visitors if riders are used often enough to prevent livestock from congregating and to keep them away from visitor-use areas.” Colorado State University and printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, Volume 3, Number 2 (Johnson et al. 1997).
The Utah Wilderness Act states, “…there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness (Public Law 98-428).” The Wilderness
133
portions of the project area were being grazed prior to parts of them being designated Wilderness and Congress felt at that time they possessed ample wilderness characteristics. Therefore Congress did not intend that livestock grazing be viewed as inherently “not in keeping” with wilderness qualities. In addition, Section 303 of the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 noted that recreation conflicts alone would not be the determining factor in the removal of livestock from those newly established Wilderness Areas…” (Forest Service 2003, Appendix B9-3).
Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Senate Report, August 6, 1984, Utah Wilderness Bill) state, “…grazing in wilderness areas established by this Act (Utah Wilderness Act), where established prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, shall be administered in accordance with section 4(d) (4) of the Wilderness Act and section 108 of Public Law 96-560 (which is the Colorado Wilderness Act).” Section 108 of the Colorado Wilderness Act then refers to guidelines contained under the heading “Grazing in National Forest Wilderness” in the House Committee Report 96- 617. These are the Congressional Grazing Guidelines.”
As stated in the fifth paragraph of the Congressional Grazing Guidelines “...there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness.” As stated in the Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 293.7 “grazing in wilderness areas ordinarily will be controlled under the general regulations governing grazing of livestock on National Forests. This includes the establishment of normal range allotments and allotment management plans. Furthermore, wilderness designation should not prevent the maintenance of existing fences or other livestock management improvements, nor the construction and maintenance of new fences or improvements which are consistent with allotment management plans and/or which are necessary for the protection of the range.”
Guideline #1 of the Congressional Grazing Guidelines further repeats and clarifies the above paragraph: “....nor should wilderness designations be used as an excuse by administrators to slowly “phase out” grazing. Any adjustments in the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness areas should be made as a result of revisions in the normal grazing and land management planning and policy setting process, giving consideration to legal mandates, range condition, and the protection of the range resource from deterioration.”
All general prohibitions and wilderness resource objectives in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) and special orders applied specifically to the High Uintas Wilderness apply to livestock management operations within the allotment (unless specifically authorized). The Revised Forest Plan (Forest Service 2003, Appendix VI-1) has established the following direction for management of the High Uinta Wilderness. “As long as other allowed resource activities, such as livestock grazing or fire use, meet the direction in the standards and guidelines, then they are consistent with the wilderness and recommended wilderness prescription categories.” (Forest Service 2003a, page 4-63) Those Revised Forest Plan standards and guidelines (pages VI-3 to VI-5) that specifically pertain to livestock management in the wilderness included:
MA-01-022 - (G) Grazing of livestock established prior to Sept. 1984 shall be permitted to continue, subject to regulations. Manage allotments to protect the wilderness resources. (FSM 2324.2 - Forest Service 2007)
MA-01-023 - (G) As wilderness AMPs are revised, include wilderness resource objectives.
MA-01-028 - (G) Coordinate management of livestock and recreation use to protect the wilderness character of the area.
MA-01-029 - (G) Regulate grazing use on and adjacent to heavily used recreation areas to prevent deterioration of the wilderness resource and minimize user conflicts.
134
MA-01-030 - (S) Allow predator control only when necessary to protect threatened or endangered species or to prevent special and serious losses of domestic livestock.
MA-01-031 - (S) Direct predator control at eliminating the offending animal(s) while presenting the least possible hazard to other animals or people.
MA-01-032 - (S) Allow no aerial predator control in the High Uintas Wilderness.
Although the following standards and guides are aimed at recreational use in the Wilderness, it is important that the permittee follow these same requirements, unless specifically authorized.
MA-01-035 - (S) Condition Class 1: Occupied campsites are one mile apart. Condition Class 2: Occupied campsites are ¼ mile apart. Condition Class 3: Occupied campsites are 200 feet apart.
MA-01-036 - (S) Condition Class 1: No campsites have a site impact index (SII) over 40. Condition Class 2: No more than 10% of campsites have an SII of 50 or more. Condition Class 3: No more than 20% of campsites have an SII of 50 or more.
MA-01-038 - (S) Group size does not exceed 14 persons and 15 head of pack and saddle stock.
MA-01-040 - (G) All classes: Stock may be tethered to a tree for 2 hours or less if damage is occurring to tree or vegetation at base of tree.
MA-01-044 - (S) Prohibit campfires where the firewood supply is depleted and continued fire building threatens the wilderness qualities of the area.
Past grazing management activities have remained consistent with the above mentioned management direction in the wilderness. These activities are expected to remain consistent with future management.
Livestock grazing can displace visitors, make popular hiking trails, fishing spots, and campsites undesirable and compete with recreational stock for forage. These impacts can affect recreational use and alter individual wilderness experiences.
Cattle on the move will bunch up and take the path of least resistance. Most conflicts are associated with the movement of cattle along those same roads and trails Forest visitors also use. When encountered on a road, motorists have to slow down or stop for short periods of time. When encountered on a trail, hikers have to watch their step and keep their pets under direct control. Conversely, some hiking trails in the analysis area are cleared and maintained by the livestock permittees, providing improved access for recreationists.
Cattle on the move are vocal. A large herd can be pretty noisy and can disturb campers as they trail past their camps. Grazing cattle typically quiet down and spread out once they have located their calves. Hoopes Lake campground is fenced, keeping cattle out of the develop recreation area. However some dispersed campers find the odors and sight of cow manure offensive.
If camping in one of the dispersed areas there are no fences however, cattle don’t really like to be close to humans and will maintain some distance from occupied camps unless herded close. Also no fee is charged for dispersed camping and campsites are not designated so expectations are generally lower and campers have the option of moving.
Big game animals, especially elk, will avoid cattle to some degree and move into the secluded surrounding areas to get away from them. When hunting seasons and grazing seasons overlap, hunters may have to extend their searches for game animals. For a hunt to end “successfully”,
135
more time may have to be spent looking for and then harvesting game.
In the project area, elk hunting is the most popular of the big game hunts. The general elk rifle season starts on the first Saturday of October. The end of the cattle grazing season is approximately September 30 on the Burnt Fork Allotment and September 10 on the Beaver Creek Allotment. On the Hickerson Park Allotment, the cattle have rotated off the Wilderness portion by the time general elk season begins. This means that for the most part the cattle are gone from all of the project area before the elk hunt starts.
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Recreation and Wilderness
Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects: Implementing the Proposed Action’s range improvement fences may cause a minor inconvenience to recreation users. Gates in fences on roads and trails eases passage but a fence with no gate encountered when walking off trails can be irritating to cross and impassable when riding a horse. Those being proposed in this alternative happen to be relatively short, in areas infrequently visited by the recreating public, and they would have gates. Conflicts between recreational users and livestock primarily happen when there is interaction between the two. The Proposed Action would incorporate the use of more grazing units which would limit the area and amount of time that livestock occupy any one particular area within the allotments. This would reduce the interaction between livestock and recreational users, thus reducing conflict. Additionally, the proposed ponds would provide additional opportunities for recreational users to view wildlife.
Wilderness character is defined in terms or degrees of being: “Untrammeled”, “Natural”, “Undeveloped”, and providing for “Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation”. The Wilderness area within the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek Allotments are used infrequently by cattle and this would not change with this alternative. There won’t be an increase in cattle within the Wilderness portion of the Hickerson Park Allotment. No range improvements would be constructed within the proposed Wilderness or in the existing Wilderness. Impacts to the Wilderness character would not increase.
The continuation of livestock grazing would not affect the roadless character of the area as no road construction or timber harvesting would occur as part of the Proposed Action.
Wilderness character is defined in terms or degrees of being: “Untrammeled”, “Natural”, “Undeveloped”, and providing for “Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation”. The Wilderness area within the Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek Allotments are used infrequently by cattle and this would not change with this alternative. There won’t be an increase in cattle within the Wilderness portion of the Hickerson Park Allotment. No range improvements would be constructed within the proposed Wilderness or in the existing Wilderness. The Wilderness character would remain unchanged from present condition.
The continuation of livestock grazing would not affect the roadless character of the three IRAs.
Alternative 2 (No Grazing)
Direct and Indirect Effects: If grazing were eliminated, there would continue to be some recreation-livestock conflicts for two years as described under Alternative 1; after that timeframe there would be no recreationist-livestock conflicts due to removal of livestock and range improvements. Trail clearing by the livestock permittee would no longer be performed.
136
Environmental conditions inside the wilderness would remain relatively unchanged; however, the wilderness rating in some areas on the allotment may be eligible to change from a Class II to a Class I.
The continuation of livestock grazing for two years would not affect the roadless character of the area as no road construction or timber harvesting would occur as part of the No Action Alternative.
Alternative 3 (Maintaining Existing Grazing Management)
Direct and Indirect Effects: The opportunity for interaction between recreationists and livestock would continue at present level, as additional grazing units would not be implemented.
There would not be an increase in cattle within the Wilderness portion of the Hickerson Park Allotment. No range improvements would be constructed within the proposed Wilderness or in the existing Wilderness. The Wilderness character would remain unchanged from present condition.
The continuation of livestock grazing would not affect the roadless character of the three IRAs.
Cumulative Effects The continuation of livestock grazing would not affect the roadless character of the area as no road construction or timber harvesting would occur as part of the No Action Alternative. Cumulative Effects: There would be minor recreationist/wilderness-livestock conflicts. The level of recreational use would remain the same. Current road, trail, motorized recreation use are expected to continue. With proper timing of moving cattle, impacts can be minimized to recreationists and wilderness visitors. . Inventoried Roadless Areas
Within the Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork Allotments are portions of three separate Roadless Inventory areas (IRA’s): High Uintas, Widdop Mountain, and the Cow Hollow IRA on the ANF. Since roadless areas are typically undeveloped, they may contain attributes that could qualify them to be considered for Wilderness designation. As such, potential impacts associated with proposed uses of these areas are described in how they affect these attributes of wilderness: (1) Natural Integrity, (2) Apparent Naturalness, (3) Remoteness, (4) Solitude, (5) Opportunities for Primitive Recreation, (6) Special Features and Values, and (7) Manageability.
137
Figure 12. Roadless Areas within the Allotments
The portion (11,530 acres) of the High Uintas IRA contained in the allotments lies directly adjacent to the High Uintas Wilderness area and contains similar attributes although in less spectacular proportions. The drainages run north and south, are for the most part heavily timbered with numerous scattered small wet meadows and ponds. Typical recreational use during the summer is fairly light and usually is associated with hikers or horseback riders traveling through to the High Uintas Wilderness beyond; there are no real attractions such as fishable lakes, high vista points, or large lush meadows to speak of. Recreational use tends to peak during the general elk hunt in early October. Hunters would probe into all corners of this roadless area which holds a sizable number of elk. There are no motorized travelways within the High Uintas IRA. Typical recreational use is non-motorized.
In contrast, the Widdop Mountain IRA (8,000 acres) and the adjoining Cow Hollow IRA on the Ashley National Forest (1850 acres) are not associated with the High Uintas Wilderness. The drainages within these IRAs run east to west; are heavily timbered on the north facing slopes but are open and brushy on the south facing slopes. There are a few widely scattered springs and the Burnt Fork is the only continuously running stream. Typical recreational use in the summer is fairly light and generally involves the use of ATV’s and 4x4’s. Recreational use peaks in the fall during the general elk hunt in early October. There are a number of travelways open to motorized use in the Widdop Mountain and the Cow Hollow IRAs. Typically IRAs are thought to be restricted to motorized travel, however in these two areas motorized travel is allowed on designated travelways. Use by full size vehicles has actually decreased but is being replaced with increasing ATV use.
Existing Wilderness Attributes within the Inventoried Roadless Areas
138
1. Natural Integrity – is the extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating. Impacts to natural integrity are measured by the presence and magnitude of human- induced change to an area. This change includes physical developments as well as activity in the area.
In the High Uintas IRA, human activities influence the natural environment near the perimeter but because of vegetative screening and a diverse topography this influence diminishes rapidly. Overall, long-term ecological processes are intact and operating; impacts to natural integrity are minimal. There is a concrete head gate installed into Thompson Creek to divert some of its water into a canal which eventually empties into the Lake. Also there is a fence just west of Hoop Lake Campground.
In the Widdop Mountain & Cow Hollow IRAs, impacts to natural integrity are more prevalent because of the open terrain. Three water developments exist and relieve some of the contact and competition between domestic cattle and wildlife for water. Visitors to the areas typically use motorized vehicles on the numerous travelways which extend into the interior of the areas. The presence of human visitation is quite evident.
The Cow Hollow IRA is similar to Widdop Mountain IRA. In addition to a number of travelways open to motorized vehicles, there is also an existing water development.
Overall the IRAs are remote and isolated from highly populated areas and are only accessible via low standard dirt roads. Species composition is generally made up of natural plant and animal communities and what existing range improvements are present, they are of limited size and are of limited consequence to the natural integrity of the areas. Of course the grazing of domestic cattle during the summer introduces a “non-natural” animal temporarily but there has not been any permanent introduction of a non-natural plant or animal. Invasive non-native plants are continuously being watched for and eliminated when found. Several species of non-native fish have been introduced into the streams but it may be argued that they are still a “natural” segment of the animal community.
2. Apparent Naturalness – is an indicator of whether an area appears natural to most people who are using the area. It is a measure of importance of visitors’ perception of human impacts to the area. There may be some human impacts, but it would not be obvious to the casual observer and the area would have the appearance of being affected only by the forces of nature.
Within the High Uintas IRA, there are several old roads in Georges Park which have been closed to motorized traffic for a number of years. South of Hoop Lake on Thompson Creek is a water diversion and a canal transferring water out of Thompson Creek into Hoop Lake and the fence just west of Hoop Lake Camp Ground. No other forms of human occupation or modification exist.
Within the Widdop Mtn. IRA, there are several travelways open to motorized travel. Several range improvement structures exist in the way of one fence and three water developments.
Within the Cow Hollow IRA, there are a number of travelways open to motorized travel as well as one water development.
The scale of improvements is limited within all three IRAs. Overall the areas still appear natural to most people.
3. Remoteness – is the perceived condition of being secluded, inaccessible, and “out of the way.” Topography, vegetative screening, distance from human impacts, distance from sight and sounds of man, and difficulty of travel all contribute to remoteness.
139
The IRAs are very remote. Access is by dirt road and the closest paved road is 10+ miles away. Motorized access is allowed within the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRAs which would ease travel and diminish the sense of remoteness. In contrast, there are no motorized travelways within the High Uintas IRA.
4. Solitude – is a personal, subjective value defined as isolation from the sights, sounds, presence of others, and the developments of man.
The High Uintas IRA portion affected by this analysis has a significant amount of area that is beyond the sights and sounds of human development and motorized use. The West Fork Beaver, Middle Fork Beaver, Kabell Meadows, Burnt Fork, and the Fish Lake Trails extend anywhere from one to three miles beyond motorized access through undulating timber covered terrain. To hike along these trails or even to stop along the way and spend some time takes serious preparation and planning. On these trails one doesn’t have to get much farther than ¼ mile from the trailheads and you leave the sights and sounds of motorized use behind.
In contrast, within the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRA’s, opportunities are limited. Use of the areas is not heavy but it is steady throughout most of the summer. In the fall, use of the area peaks during the general elk hunt in early October; 4 wheel drive vehicles and ATVs are a common sight. You are never very far from a road or trail that is open to motorized use.
5. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation – is the perception to experience primitive and unconfined recreation in a roadless setting. A primitive recreation experience includes the opportunity to experience solitude, a sense of remoteness, closeness to nature, serenity, and spirit of adventure. What is the area’s capability to providing for these opportunities in a wilderness setting? Does the area provide opportunities for physical and mental challenges?
In the High Uintas IRA, opportunities are excellent because of the vast size and wildness of the area.
Opportunities for primitive recreation in the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRAs are moderate. Challenging experiences and diversity of opportunities are somewhat limited because of a lack of vegetative screening, and the existence of motorized travelways.
6. Special Features and Values - Are there other values such as those with ecologic, geologic, scientific, educational, scenic, historical, or cultural significance?
The High Uintas IRA is directly adjacent to the High Uintas Wilderness and acts as a buffer between the Wilderness and motorized use. In this regard it contributes to those wilderness attributes dependant on isolation, distance, and screening from human developments. It also benefits in that it is not an isolated island immediately surrounded on all sides by roads, motorized trails, developed campgrounds, etc.
Within the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRA’s, vegetation patterns differ from what is typical of the rest of the North Slope. You find extensive open areas on south facing slopes and dense stands of Douglas fir on the north facing slopes. It is important winter range for big game species when most big game winter range along the North Slope is on private land.
7. Manageability… What is the ability to manage an area as wilderness as required by the Wilderness Act? Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines Wilderness as an area that :….(3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. …” How do boundaries affect manageability of the area?
140
The High Uintas IRA meets the size requirement by itself but it is also directly attached to the High Uintas Wilderness along its southern boundary. The northern boundary in many places lies directly adjacent to open roads. Situations arising from use of the roads (potential fires, littering, erecting signs, off road camping, sight and sounds of motorized use, etc.) would complicate management of this boundary. Motorized use into this roadless unit has been restricted for 20+ years.
The Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRA’s would be difficult to manage as wilderness. The use of motorized vehicles throughout the area is not new and very much established. Due to the physical makeup, range improvements such as fences and water developments are quite necessary to control cattle grazing patterns and reduce impacts to the limited water sources.
Existing Roadless Characteristics
1. Soil, Water, and Air Resources…Soil, Water, and Air Resources are the foundation upon which other resource values and outputs depend. Healthy watersheds provide clean water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses; help maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations; and are the basis for many forms of outdoor recreation.
The High Uintas IRA has many small and some large wetlands along streams.
The Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRAs have only a few small wetlands along small narrow streams.
2. Sources of Public Drinking Water…Sources of Public Drinking Water are derived from watersheds located on National Forest lands. Proper management of these watersheds is crucial in maintaining the flow of clean water to a growing population.
Creeks in the IRAs eventually feed into Flaming Gorge Reservoir which is currently the water source for the Town of Dutch John, Utah.
3. Diversity of plant and animal communities…Undeveloped areas are more likely than roaded areas to support greater ecosystem health, including the diversity of native and desired nonnative plant and animal communities, due to the absence of disturbances caused by roads and accompanying activities. Inventoried roadless areas also conserve native biodiversity, by providing areas where nonnative invasive species are rare, uncommon, or absent.
In general, the High Uintas IRA has a low age class diversity with most forest stands in the mature age class. However, the mountain pine beetle epidemic is killing a huge portion of the mature stands. There are areas of wet meadow vegetation types not common elsewhere on the Forest. There is a high diversity for animal communities.
The Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRAs are dominated by Douglas fir on the north-facing slopes and sagebrush/mountain mahogany communities are common on the south-facing slopes.
4. Habitat for TES and Species Dependent on Large Undisturbed Areas of Land…Inventoried roadless areas function as biological strongholds and refuges for many species. Of the nation’s species currently listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, approximately 25% of animal species and 15% of plant species are likely to have habitat within inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands.
Within the High Uintas IRA there are no known vegetation species at risk; there is lynx and wolverine habitat present, and there are goshawk and Northern three-toed woodpeckers; there is metapopulations of Colorado River cutthroat trout.
141
Within the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRAs there are no known vegetation species at risk; lynx habitat is present; there are cutthroat trout in Burnt Fork.
5. Primitive and Semi-primitive Classes of Recreation…These areas often provide outstanding recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing. While they may have many Wilderness-like attributes; unlike Wilderness, the use of mountain bikes and other mechanized means of travel including motorized vehicles are often allowed.
Typical recreation activities in the High Uintas Roadless inventory area include viewing natural scenery, camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and fishing.
Many opportunities exist for primitive classes of non-motorized recreation.
Typical recreation activities in the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRA’s include viewing natural scenery, camping, 4-wheeling (both standard vehicles and atv’s), and hunting.
Many opportunities exist for semi-primitive classes of motorized recreation.
6. Reference Landscapes for Research Study or Interpretation…The body of knowledge about the effects of management activities over long periods of time and on large landscapes is very limited. Reference landscapes can provide comparison areas for evaluation and monitoring.
There are no proposed, candidate or designated research natural areas in the IRAs.
7. Landscape Character and Integrity…High quality scenery, especially scenery with natural- appearing landscapes, is a primary reason that people choose to recreate.
The landscapes within the High Uintas roadless inventory areas are dominated by thick Lodgepole Pine interspersed with mountain meadows and tumbling creeks. Viewed alone, this area is unremarkable in that it appears consistent with the rest of the North Slope. Viewed with the rest of the Uinta Mountains, the scenery is very much high quality.
Within the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRA’s, the landscapes are quite different; the mountains run east and west. The south facing slopes are dominated by sage, mountain mahogany brush, and grasses while the north facing slopes are dominated by thick stands of Douglas fir. The scenery is good but rather unremarkable and not breathtakingly outstanding.
8. Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites…Traditional Cultural Properties are places, sites, structures, art, or objects that have played an important role in the cultural history of a group. Sacred sites are places that have special religious significance to a group.
No significant sites have been identified in the IRAs.
9. Other Locally Unique Characteristics…Inventoried roadless areas may offer unique characteristics and values that are not covered by the other characteristics. Examples include uncommon geological formations, which are valued for their scientific and scenic qualities, or unique wetland complexes. Unique social, cultural, or historical characteristics may also be dependent on the roadless character of the landscape. Examples include ceremonial sites, places for local events, areas prized for collection of non-timber forest products, or exceptional hunting and fishing opportunities.
These IRAs do not offer other unique characteristics not mentioned above.
142
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Inventoried Roadless Areas
Continued grazing (alternative 3) would have no additional direct or indirect effects to inventoried roadless area management. Livestock grazing has historically been a part of these areas. Continued grazing would not create any new range developments or improvements, but would simply allow for use of existing range developments. Continued grazing would not create any new roads nor make any improvements or modifications to existing classified roads. All permitees would be required to abide by the Travel Management Plan. Any deviation from the plan would require written, authorized approval from the district ranger. The current roadless area boundaries within the grazing allotments were developed during periods of active grazing with existing range developments that never affected the delineation of the inventoried roadless area. Inventoried roadless area management would continue according to Interim Directive 1920-2004-1.
Implementing the Proposed Action (alternative 1) would have some minor affects on the existing roadless character. No road construction or timber harvesting would occur as part of this alternative, however, several fences and other range improvements would be constructed.
The “no grazing” alternative (alternative 2) would result in a minor increase in overall conditions for wilderness attributes and roadless characteristics.
Effects to Wilderness Attributes
1. Natural Integrity – In alternative 1 a number of range improvements are proposed. The fences should only pose a minor impact to how wildlife move through the area while at the same time restricting cattle to those areas where they are supposed to be at particular times. Water developments would help spread grazing cattle into areas typically avoided because of the distances to water. Competition for space and water at natural watering sites would be reduced.
In alternative 3, no improvements are proposed. There would be some competition between domestic cattle and wildlife for drinking water especially on the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRAs.
In the “no action” alternative there would be no impacts to natural integrity.
2. Apparent Naturalness - The degree of development resulting from implementing alternative 3 (no action) is not sufficient to impact the apparent naturalness of the areas. No new range improvements or developments such as fences, troughs, waterlines, or holding ponds are proposed. The presence of livestock impacting the apparent naturalness of inventoried roadless areas is subjective, however, livestock would not occupy the entire allotments at one time, but would be limited to single pastures within the allotments.
Under the proposed action alternative, no road construction or timber harvesting would occur, however, several fences and other range improvements would be constructed. Fences detract from the undeveloped appearance of an areas. However, there are not many range developments being proposed and they would not dominate the landscape and the setting would appear natural from most vantage points.
There would be no range development in alternatives 2 or 3.
3. Remoteness - None of the alternatives would change the access to the areas. The sense of being secluded and removed from human development and activity would not be affected.
143
4. Solitude – Implementing either the proposed Action or 3 would necessitate occasional human activity to move and control cattle. Implementing the “no action” alternative would eliminate the necessity for a permittee to move cattle or to build or maintain range improvements
5. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation - The continued grazing would not conflict with perceptions of isolation from the sights, sounds, and presence of others, and the developments of man. Opportunities for solitude could be less favorable near roads; and in parts of the allotments where there is a higher concentration of range developments. However, these range developments do not dominate the landscape and the presence of livestock would be spread out during the year by occupying single pastures at a time. Vast landscapes would still be available to proved more optimal opportunities for solitude. Continued grazing under alternative 3 would also not affect the existing opportunities for primitive recreation. It would not impact the travel plan or any recreation activities. No new restrictions would be imposed on recreation activities because of grazing.
Implementing the proposed action or Alternative 3would have a slight impact on one’s ability to find “outstanding” opportunities for experiencing primitive or unconfined recreation in the vicinity of the proposed range improvements. However, these developments are proposed to be constructed in areas that are not frequented by forest visitors.
Under the “no grazing” alternative, this attribute would improve slightly.
6. Special Features and Values - Implementing any of the alternatives would not affect Special Features.
7. Manageability - Implementing any of the alternatives would not affect the Manageability of the inventoried roadless areas since they would not alter its boundary, size, shape, access, etc.
Effects to the Roadless Characteristics
1. Soil, water, and air resources - Under the proposed action (alternative 1) a number of water developments are proposed. Use by domestic cattle and wildlife would spread into areas previously avoided because of the distance to drinking water. Trampling along existing stream banks should be reduced somewhat.
Under the “no action” alternative (alternative 3) especially on the Widdop Mountain and Cow Hollow IRAs, concentration by cattle and wildlife in watering sites would continue.
Under the “no grazing” alternative (alternative 2) there would be no competition for water between cattle or wildlife. Wildlife would still be limited to natural watering sites and may still avoid areas that are of substantial distance from water.
There would be no direct or indirect effects to air resources.
2. Sources of public drinking water- -No adverse effects to water quality within the municipal watershed would occur from the proposed action or Alternative 3 (physically, chemically or biologically) because current conditions include grazing and monitoring indicates that beneficial uses have generally been met, and because the adaptive management strategy allows for correction of site-specific problems. Alternative 2 would not affect sources of public drinking water.
3. Diversity of plant and animal communities - Implementing any of the alternatives would not change the plant or animal community.
144
4. Habitat for TES and species dependent on large undisturbed areas of land - There would be no direct or indirect effect to threatnened or Endangered plants or fisheries as there are none present in the project area. Canada lynx; it was determined that grazing activities would not negatively affect the lynx, its habitat, or its prey base’ habitat but may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the lynx or it habitat (see Biological Assessment in project record & Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife reports). It was determined that there would be no impact to sensitive plant species, and that livestock grazing may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for boreal toad, Colorado River Cutthroat trout, wolverine, boreal owl, great gray owl, and the northern goshawk.
5. Primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreation - Grazing has the greatest potential to affect dispersed campers who might be displaced from areas where cattle and excrement are concentrated. Trail users can move through the areas impacted by livestock. However, no fee is charged for dispersed camping and campsites are not designated so expectations are generally lower and campers have the option of moving. The continued grazing would not directly or indirectly affect primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreation. Eliminating grazing altogether would probably increase opportunities for primitive or semi-primitive class of recreation slightly.
6. Reference landscapes – There haven’t been any proposed or designated in any of the IRAs.
7. Landscape character and scenic integrity - None of the alternatives would directly or indirectly affect the landscape character or scenic integrity.
8. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites – No significant sites identified. No effects.
9. Other locally identified unique characteristics – No sites identified. No effects from any alternative.
Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts to inventoried roadless areas from past, present, and future activities within the analysis area that are not related to this project may include: other proposed actions, timber projects, personal use fuelwood collection, pole and post and Christmas tree harvesting, fire, water impoundments and diversions, grazing in neighboring allotments, lands and minerals projects, and dispersed recreation. No new range or road developments are proposed under this alternative. Any new developments or improvements would be reviewed under a separate analysis.
Under the proposed action, several range improvements are planned. These would be added to the Thompson Creek water diversion in the High Uintas roadless IRA and to the three water development s in the Widdop Mountain IRA and the one in the Cow Hollow IRA.
Livestock grazing has historically been a part of these areas. The current roadless area boundaries within the grazing allotments were developed during periods of active grazing with existing range developments that never affected the delineation of the inventoried roadless area. Inventoried roadless area management would continue according to Interim Directive 1920-2004- 1.
Wilderness Attributes
The grazing in combination with past, present, and future activities within the analysis area would not cumulatively affect wilderness attributes:
145
1. Natural Integrity - Long-term ecological processes of the area would not be altered. The current trend and magnitude of human induced change within the project area is not sufficient to cumulatively affect natural integrity. Ecological systems would not be confined or limited.
2. Apparent Naturalness – Additional range improvements proposed under alternative 1 would increase the amount of human development and would increase the chance for a forest visitor to run across one. However, livestock, planned range developments and improvement in combination with past, present, and future activities would not create sufficient concentrated impacts to impact the apparent naturalness. Given the expansiveness of the project area, evidence of human activity is not easily discernible.
3. Remoteness - There would be no cumulative impacts to the remoteness attribute within the overall area of the allotments.
4. Solitude - Solitude is a subjective attribute however there should be only negligible impacts to cumulative effects from continued grazing in combination with past, present, and future actions.
5. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation - There would be no cumulative effects to opportunities for primitive recreation.
6. Special Features—There would be no cumulative effects to Special Features.
7/ Manageability—There would be no cumulative effects to the manageability of the inventoried roadless area since grazing in combination with past, present, and future actions should not alter its boundary, size, shape, access, etc.
Roadless Characteristics
Continued livestock grazing in combination with past, present, and future activities within the analysis area that are not related to this project would not cumulatively affect roadless characteristics. Heritage Resources
The U-W-CNF has determined that the reissuance of livestock grazing permits without modification does not necessitate the initiation of new Heritage Resource Field Inventories. Utah SHPO concurred with this determination in December 2008. While the Forest Service acknowledges that livestock grazing has the potential to adversely affect heritage resources, the agency has determined that monitoring heritage resources that may be susceptible to damage is a more efficient way to identify and mitigate adverse affects, compared to 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.
Proposed Action: As part of the proposed action, eleven range improvements would create new ground disturbance. The collective footprint of these 11 areas of disturbance is less than one acre. A Class III intensive pedestrian survey of the areas did not result in the identification of any newly identified or previously identified heritage resources in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The Forest Service has made the determination of No Historic Properties Affected as per 36CFR800.4(d).
No Grazing: Permitted livestock grazing would be phased out and unnecessary range improvements would be removed resulting in surface disturbing activities. 146
Alternative 3: Continuation of livestock grazing under current management would not include ground disturbance activities associated with the eleven range improvements that are part of the proposed action.
Cumulative Effects: No adverse effects to heritage resources are anticipated from any of the alternatives; therefore, no cumulative effects.
Other Findings:
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and Departmental Regulation 5600-2 direct federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment (Federal Register 1994).
Implementation of any of these alternatives would be consistent with this Order and would not have a discernible effect on minorities, American Indians, or women, or the civil rights of any United States citizen. Nor would it have a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities or low- income individuals. No civil liberties would be affected. Public involvement and comment was sought and incorporated into this document. The Forest Service has considered all public input from individuals or groups regardless of age, race, income status, gender, or other social/economic characteristics (see project record).
Executive Order 12898 also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife (Federal Register 1994). The decision would not alter opportunities for subsistence hunting by Native American tribes. Native American tribes were provided an opportunity to comment on the proposal (see project record).
Based on experience with similar projects on the Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District, none of the alternatives would substantially affect minority or low-income individuals, women, or civil rights. The implementation of this project is expected to provide job opportunities in communities such as Evanston, Wyoming. Some of these communities include minority populations that may benefit from the economic effects.
Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity
NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (Council on Environmental Quality 2002, 40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).
Grazing may provide jobs associated with livestock management during the grazing period on public lands and possibly on private lands as livestock are moved off the allotment. Grazing 147
provides for the use of the range environment by livestock grazing in coordination with other resource needs and uses. Currently, livestock-recreationist interactions are minimal as described in the Recreation/Wilderness section. Effects of grazing are analyzed in Chapter III and an analysis indicates no impacts to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity from short-term uses. Conditions on this allotment would continue to be maintained and/or improved. As desired resource conditions are currently being achieved, it is expected that they would continue to be achieved following the implementation of the Proposed Action.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects
There would be no unavoidable adverse effects under Alternative 2 as well as no unavoidable adverse effects as a result of grazing or grazing management under the Proposed Action or Alternative 3. The established long-term monitoring points in riparian and upland locations would be re-evaluated every five to ten years, or as needed, to analyze the effectiveness of the proposed management strategy in meeting the objectives. In addition to long-term monitoring points, short-term or annual effects of grazing would be evaluated each year. If long-term or yearly monitoring determines that management objectives are not being met, then the management actions would be adjusted. As desired resource conditions are currently being achieved, it is expected that they would continue to be achieved following the implementation of the Proposed Action. Monitoring provides information and administrative flexibility exists so that the management system, numbers grazed, season grazed, etc. can be altered if additional unexpected environmental concerns are noted through future monitoring and evaluation.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.
There is no irreversible commitment of resources associated with any of the alternatives. There would be a minimal irretrievable commitment of water and forage consumed by domesticated livestock and associated soil disturbance; however, this use would be consistent with Forest Plan direction.
148
IV. CONSULTATION AN D COORDINATION
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Interdisciplinary Team Justin McConkey – Rangeland Management Specialist, Interdisciplinary Team Leader Bernard Asay – Wilderness/Trails Manager Paul Chase – Fisheries Biologist Charlie Condrat – Forest Hydrologist Tom Flanigan – Forest Archeologist Paul Flood – Forest Soil Scientist Dan Garcia de la Cadena – Wildlife Biologist Pam Jarnecke – Environmental Coordinator Stephen Ryberg – Former Evanston-Mountain View District Ranger Darcy Stock – GIS Specialist
Ashley National Forest Interdisciplinary Team Daniel Abeyta – Fisheries Biologist Bob Christensen – Wildlife Biologist Sherel Goodrich – Forest Ecologist Donald Jaques – Recreation Program Manager Sarah Leahy – Soils Scientist Kris Rutledge – Environmental Coordinator Aaron Zobell – Rangeland Management Specialist
Grazing Permittees Doug Beck Milt Beck George Gamble Taylor Ranches Jon & RaNae Wilde Quarter Circle Three Bar Ranch Allen & Nancy Young
Other Government Agencies Contacted City of Evanston Congressman Bishop Representative Petersen Senator Barrasso Senator Bennett Senator Enzi Senator Hatch Summit County Commissioners Town of Mountain View Town of Manila Uinta County Commissioners U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State Historic Preservation Office Ute Indian Tribe N.W. Band of the Shoshone Nation Wyoming Farm Bureau Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wyoming State Forestry Wyoming State Planning Office
The Proposed Action was sent out for comment to 118 interested parties; a list of these contacts is in the project file.
149
V. REFERENCES
Abeyta, D. 2008. Aquatics Specialist Report For Livestock Grazing on the Commissary Park, Hickerson Park, Sheep Creek Park, and Sheep Creek Mountain Allotments Flaming Gorge Ranger District.
Anderson, E. William. 1974. Indicators of Movement on Range Watersheds. Journal of Range Management 27(3), May 1974.
Armour, C., D. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1994. The effects of livestock grazing on western riparian and stream ecosystem. Fisheries 19(9):9-12.
Asay, B. 2010. Recreation and Wilderness technical report: Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger Distict. Unpublished.
Asay, B. 2010a. Roadless technical report: Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger Distict. Unpublished.
Ashcroft, Gaylen L., Jensen, Donald T. and Jeffrey L. Brown. 1992. Utah Climate. Utah Climate Center, Utah State University, Logan ,UT.
Bedell, T. E., chair, Glossary Update Task Group, Society for Range Management. 1998. Glossary of terms used in range management. Denver, CO: Edison Press.
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Water Conservation 54:419-431.
Binns, N. A. 1982. Habitat Quality Index Manual. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne.
BirdNote 2004. Williamson’s Sapsucker. http://www.birdnote.org/birdnote.cfm?id=675.
Blackwell, Boyde H. 1993. Beaver Distribution, Habitat and Population Survey (1971-1982). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Brown, G. D. 2006. An alpine plant community classification for the Uinta Mountains, Utah. USDA, Forest Service, Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National Forests.
Bureau of Land Management 1988. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service 1988. Fences. 5E42D31 – Range Structural Equipment. Missoula Technology & Development Center, Missoula, MT.
Bureau of Land Management 1989. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service 1989. Facilities for Watering Livestock and Wildlife. 5E42D31 – Range Structural Equipment. Missoula Technology & Development Center, Missoula, MT.
Bunnell, 2004. Bunnell, K., Shirley, J., Flinders, J., Wolfe, M., Bissonette, J. Forest Carnivores Occurrence, Distribution, & Limiting Factors: Canada Lynx & Wolverine Surveys in Utah. Final
150
Report to: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, US Forest Service, & US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Burton, E. C., M. J. Gray, A. C. Schmutzer, and D. L. Miller. 2009. Differential Responses of Postmetamorphic Amphibians to Cattle Grazing in Wetlands. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 73(2):269-277.
Chase, P., P. Cowley, and D. Stock 2006. Fish Passage at Road Crossings Assessment Wasatch-Cache National Forest FY 2006.
Chase, P. 2001. Effects of Cattle Grazing on Riparian Areas and Fish Populations. A literature review conducted for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Chase et al 2006. Fish Passage at Road Crossing Assessment. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. FY 2006.
Chase 2010. Aquatic Technical Report Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, W-C portion of the Hickerson Allotments. Supplemented by D. Abeyta, Ashley National Forest. Unpublished.
Chase 2010a. Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation - Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, W-C portion of the Hickerson Allotments. Unpublished.
Condrat, C. 2010. Water resources technical report: Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger Distict. Unpublished.
Corte 1963. Corte, A.E., 1963. Particle sorting by repeated freezing and thawing. Science 142 3591, pp. 499–501
Cowley, P. K. 1995. Fish surveys on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Uinta and Wasatch- Cache National Forests. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Cowley, P. 2010. Biological Assessment for Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, and Hickerson Park Cattle Allotments.
Cronquist, A. 1994. Asterales. Intermountain flora Vol. 5. Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden. 496 p.
Economic Profile System (EPS) 2009. A SocioEconomic Profile of Uinta County, Wyoming. Headwaters Economics.
Ellsworth, E. and T.D. Reynolds. (2006, July 19). Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/snowshoehare.pdf [date of access].
Fairbridge, Rhodes W. 1968. The Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series, Volume III. Reinhold Book Corporation.
Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology 8:629-644.
151
Flinders, Jerran T.; Bunnell, K.D.; Shirley, J.J.; Wolfe, M.L.; Bissonette, J.A. 2004. Forest carnivores occurrence, distribution and limiting factors: Canada lynx and wolverine Surveys in Utah. Brigham Young University.
Flanigan 2010. Flanigan, Tom. Archeology Technical Report Burnt Fork, Beaver Creek, W-C portion of the Hickerson Allotments. Unpublished.
Flood, P. 2009a. Soil Condition Evaluation Monitoring, Burnt Fork-Beaver Creek Cattle Allotments. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest. August, 2009.
Flood, P. 2010. Soils technical report: Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Unpublished.
Forest Service, 1981. Forest Service Handbook Intermountain Region (Region 4). FSH 2209.21 – 1981 – 1 Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook. Ogden UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region (Region 4).
Forest Service, 1970. Burnt Fork C&H and Beaver Creek C&H Allotment Management Plans. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Mountain View Ranger District.
Forest Service 1986. Ashley National Forest Forest Plan and FEIS. http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/ashley/projects/lrmp/1986lrmp.shtml.
Forest Service, 1995. Soil Resource Inventory for the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. Unpublished maps and descriptions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, UT..
Forest Service, 1995a. Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Management Plans. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Mountain View Ranger District
Forest Service, 2002. 36 CFR. § 222.4(a)(1) Changes in grazing permits and 36 CFR § 222.6a Compensation for permittees’ interest in authorized permanent improvements. U.S. Department of Agriculture,, Forest Service.
Forest Service, 2003. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Forest Service, 2003a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan FEIS. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Forest Service, 2003b. Forest Service Manual Intermountain Region (Region 4). FSM 2200 – Range Management. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region (Region 4).
Forest Service, 2004. Forest Plan Monitoring - Wasatch Cache National Forest. First Year Report. Section 5, pp16-20. March 2003-March 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Foresy.
152
Forest Service, 2007. Assessment of Management Indicator Species Capability and Suitability on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest with the Management and Restoration Direction. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Management indicator species of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, Utah. Version 2008-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Forest Service, 2008a. Record of Decision and Forest Plan Amendments: Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study for National Forest System Lands in Utah. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests. November 2008.
Forest Service, 2009. Forest Service GIS data – Livestock Capability/Suitability analysis/mapping.
Forest Service 2010. Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2010. Management Indicator Species monitoring of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Planning Area. Salt Lake City, Utah. Version 2010-1.
Forest Service, 2010a. Rangeland Analysis - Burnt Fork-Beaver Creek Cattle Allotments. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch- Cache National Forest, Mountain View Ranger District. 2010.
Forest Service 2010b. Forestwide miles of Colorado cutthroat trout. GIS analysis, September 2010. Darcy Stock – GIS specialist. Unpublished.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
Garcia de la Cadena, D. 2010. Wildlife species technical report: Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch- Cache National Forest, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District. Unpublished.
Garcia de la Cadena, D. 2010a. Biological Assessment – Terrestrial Wildlife Species- Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District. Unpublished.
Garcia de la Cadena, D. 2010b. Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife Species- Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District. Unpublished
Goodrich, S. 2006. Distribution and abundance of pocket gophers in the Uinta Mountains in context of livestock grazing and other factors. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest.
Goodrich, S. 2008. Plant Value Ratings Ashley National Forest. Unpublished.
153
Goodrich, S. and R.A. Zobell 2009. Hickerson Park Allotment-Flaming Gorge Ranger District- Ashley National Forest-Condition and Trend of Vegetation and Ground Cover. Unpublished.
Goodrich, S. 2010. Biological Evaluation and biological Assessment for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Sensitive Plant Species.
Graham, Russell T.; Rodriguez, R.L.; Paulin, K.M.; Player, R.L.; Heap, A.P.; Williams, R. 1999. The northern goshawk in Utah: Habitat assessment and management recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Gregory, J. S., B. L. Gamett. 2009. Cattle Trampling of Simulated Bull Trout Redds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 29:361-366.
Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, tech. editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 214 p. 3 Maps.
Helm 1982. Helm D. 1982. Multivariate analysis of alpine snowpatch vegetation cover near Milner Pass, Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado, USA.Arc. Alp. Res. 14: 87–95.
Hickman, T., and R. F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.5. 38 pp.
Hilfiker, E.L. 1991. Beaver – water, wildlife, and history. Interlaken, NY: Windswept Press.
Hirsch, et.al. 2006. Hirsch, C.L., S.E. Albeke, and T.P. Nesler. 2006. Range-wide Status of Colroado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Holecheck, J.L., et al. 2001. Range Management, Principles and Practices. Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
Holmgren et al. 2005. Holmgren, N. H., Holmgren, P. K., Cronquist, A. 2005. Intermountain flora vol. 2, part B. Bronx, NY: The New York botanical Garden. 448 p.
Jaques 2010. Donald Jaques, Acting Recreation Program Manager, Ashley National Forest. Burnt Fork Allotment (Ashley National Forest Portion) Recreation Resources Technical Report.
Johnson et al. 1997. Visitor Perceptions of Livestock Grazing in Five U.S. Wilderness Areas. A preliminary assessemtn. International Journal of Wilderness. Volume 3, Number 2.
Karmiris, I.E. and Nastas, A.S. 2006. Intensity of livestock use in relation to habitat use by brown hares (Lepus europaues). Laboratory of Range Science, Faculty of Forestry and Natural Environment. Aristotle University. Thessaloniki 54124, Greece.
Kershner, J. L., B.R. Roper, N. Bouwes, R. Hendreson and E. Archer. 2004. An analysis of stream habitat conditions in reference and managed watersheds on some federal lands within the Columbia River Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 24:1363-1375.
Krebs, Charles J.; Boonstra, R.; Nams, V.; O’Donoghue, M.; Hodges, K.E.; Boutin, S. 2001. Estimating snowshoe hare population density from pellet plots: a further evaluation. Canada Journal of Zoology. 79: 1-4. 154
Leahy 2010. Soil Resources Supplemental Report, Burnt Fork Allotment – Ashley National Forest. Unpublished.
Lentsch 1997. Lentsch, L., Converse, Y. and Perkins, J. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the State of Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. March 1997.
McConkey, J. 2010. Range technical report: Burnt Fork C&H, Beaver Creek C&H and the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache N.F. Portion of the Hickerson Park C&H Allotment Environmental Assessment. Forest Service, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger Distict. Unpublished.
McLeod, D.; Inman, K.; Coupal, R.; Gates, J. 2002. Uinta County land use and planning survey results. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1998. Inventory Methods for Beaver and Muskrat; Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 22. Victoria, British Columbia NOAA 2010. Precipitation frequency estimate from NOAA atlas 14 for Beaver Creek and Burnt Fork allotments. Website: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov
NatureServe 2009. Online database. www.natureserve.org.
NOAA 2009a. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Average Precipitation Data.
Olson, R.; Hubert, W. A. 1994. Beaver: Water resources and riparian habitat manager. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
Phillips, R. L., M.J. Trlica, W.C. Leininger, and W.P. Clary 1999. Cattle use affects forage quality in a montane riparian ecosystem. Journal of Range Management 52(3): 283-289.
Platts, W. S. 1991. “Livestock grazing”. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:389- 423.
Proven, Timothy H. 1980. Utah furbearer harvest report and management recommendations, 1979-1980. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Rhodes, Bruce D. and Sharrow, Steven H. 1990. Effects of grazing by sheep on the quantity and quality of forage available to big game in Oregon’s Coast Range. Journal of Range Management 43(3), May 1990. Pages 235-237.
Rinne, J. N. 1999. Fish and Grazing Relationships: The Facts and Some Pleas. Fisheries 24(8):12-22.
Roath, L. R. and W. C. Krueger. 1982. Cattle grazing and behavior on a forested range. Journal of Range Management 35:332-338.
Ruediger et al. 2000. Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Gary Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger, and Al Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Missoula, MT. Forest Service Publication #R1-00- 53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.
155
Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W.; Koehler, G.M.; Krebs, C.J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Squires, J.R. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 30WWW.
SHPO 2008. Utah State Historic Preservation Office 2008. Concurrence letter.
SRM 1998. Society for Range Management. 1998. Glossary of terms used in range management. Denver, CO: Edison Press.
Sauer et al. 2008. Sauer, J. R., B. G. Peterjohn, and W. A. Link. 2008. Observer differences in the North American Breeding Bird Survey.
Thompson, P. and P. Chase. 2008. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) Distributional Surveys and Monitoring in Northern Utah, 2008.
Thompson, P. and P. Chase. 2009. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) Distributional Surveys and Monitoring in Northern Utah, 2009.
UCDC. 2009.Utah Conservation Data Center. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Wyoming Field Office 2009. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics.
USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service 1988. Fences. 5E42D31 – Range Structural Equipment. Missoula Technology & Development Center, Missoula, MT.
USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service 1989. Facilities for Watering Livestock and Wildlife. 5E42D31 – Range Structural Equipment. Missoula Technology & Development Center, Missoula, MT.
USEPA. 2003. National management measures for the control of nonpoint pollution from agriculture. EPA-841-B-03-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Washington, D.C. 20460. (Last visited April 19, 2004) http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/
Utah, State of. 2006. Utah Water Quality Assessment Report to Congress 2006. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality.
Utah, State of. 2009. Standards of Quality of Waters of the State, Section R317-2, Utah Administrative Code. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality.
UDWR. 2000. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Moose.
UDWR. 2003b. Gray Wolves in Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.
UDWR. 2004. Bighorn Sheep Unit Management Plan, Year 2004 to 2010, Unit #8 North Slope, Uinta Mountains. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ogden, Utah.
UDWR. 2005a. Utah’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah.
UDWR. 2005b. Rocky Mountain Goat Management Plan. Units # 7,8,9. Uinta Mountains (Kamas, North Slope, South Slope). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah.
156
UDWR. 2005c. Utah Wolf Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.Salt Lake City, Utah.
UDWR 2008a. UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MULE DEER.
UCDC. 2009.Utah Conservation Data Center. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp
USDA NRCS 2006. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. The PLANTS Database, (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA
USDA NRCS 2010. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. The PLANTS Database, (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA
USDA Wildlife Services. 2008. Population Monitoring, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, FY 2007; Wildlife Services Management Work Plan, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Wildlife Services, Salt Lake City, Utah.
USDI 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the Northern Goshawk in the Contiguous United States West of the 100th Meridian. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 63:35183-35184.
USDI. 2003. Notice of remanded determination of status for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule. Federal Register. Washington D.C.
USDI. 2007a. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Utah Counties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.
USDI. 2007b. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Wyoming Counties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
USFWS 2010. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. July 12, 2010. Concur Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
USGS Website. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. Route: UT # 85107, Wasatch NF.
Washburn 1956. Washburn, A. L. 1956. Classification of patterned ground and a review of suggested origins. Bulletin of Geology. SOCA. m. 67:823-66.
Welsh et al. 2008. Welsh, S.L.; Atwood, N. D.; Goodrich, S.; Higgins, L. C. 2008. A Utah flora 4th ed. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Print Services. 1019 p.
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)Wild Sheep Working Group Initial Subcommittee Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management In Wild Sheep Habitat. June 21, 2007
Wolfe, Michael L.; Maxfield, B. D. 1999. Utah furbearer harvest report, 1998-1999. Publication No. 02-06. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah.
157
Wolff, Jerry O. 1978. Food habits of snowshoe hares in Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42 (1):1978.
The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. 2009. http://www.wolverinefoundation.org/sponsors.htm
Young, M. K., R. N. Schmal, T. W. Kohley, V. G. Leonard. 1996 Conservation Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. General Technical Report RM-249. 38 p.
Young, M. K. 1995. Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. General Technical Report RM-256. 61 p.
Zobell 2009. NEPA Sufficiency (Changed Condition) Review and Finding Analysis for areas of the Hickerson Park Allotment located within the Ashley National Forest.
Zobell 2010. Supplemental Water Resources Technical Report For the Beaver Creek & Burnt Fork Allotments. Ashley National Forest.
158