BLM
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2018-0003-EA
February 2020 West Box Elder Range Improvement Projects
Location: Townships 7-13 North, Ranges 17 and 18 West; Box Elder County, Utah
Applicant/Address: State of Utah Grazing Improvement Program and Grazing Allotment Permittees (A. William Kimber, Clay N. Blanthorn, Burt C. Kunzler, Della Ranches, Grouse Creek Livestock Association, Jay or Diane Tanner, A. William Kimber, Kimber Edwin Estate, KN Double Cone Ranch L.L.C., Lyman Kimber, Milt Oman, Pickett Ranch & Sheep Co., Richins Family L.L.C., River View Ranch L.L.C., Simplot Land & Livestock Division, Ted K. Tracy and Warr Land and Livestock) Salt Lake Field Office SaltField Lake
Salt Lake Field Office 2370 South Decker Lake Boulevard Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Phone: (801) 977-4300 Fax: (801) 977-4397
February 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 4 1.1 Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Background ...... 4 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 4 1.4 Decision to be Made ...... 4 1.5 Land Use Plan Conformance ...... 4 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ...... 5 1.6.1 Federal Laws (As Amended) ...... 5 1.6.2 BLM Policies ...... 6 1.6.3 State of Utah Plans ...... 6 1.6.4 Box Elder County Plans ...... 6 1.7 Identification of Issues ...... 6 1.7.1 Issues Considered in Detail/Issue Statements ...... 6 1.7.2 Issues Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 8 CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 9 2.2.1 Range Improvement Design ...... 11 2.2.2 Design Features ...... 12 2.3 Alternative B – No Action ...... 17 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 17 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 18 3.1 Introduction ...... 18 3.2 General Setting ...... 18 3.2.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 18 3.2.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species ...... 19 3.2.3 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 24 3.2.4 Migratory Birds ...... 26 3.2.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 28 3.2.6 Fish Habitat ...... 32 3.2.7 Soils and Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 32 3.2.8 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds ...... 39 3.2.9 Water Resources and Water Quality ...... 40 3.2.10 Wetlands and Riparian Zones ...... 41 CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 43 4.1 Introduction ...... 43 4.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...... 43 4.2.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 43 4.2.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species ...... 44 4.2.3 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 50 4.2.4 Migratory Birds ...... 53 4.2.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 55 4.2.6 Fish Habitat ...... 56 4.2.7 Soils and Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 57 4.2.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 61 4.2.9 Water Resources/Quality ...... 61
i February 2020
4.2.10 Wetland /Riparian Zones ...... 62 4.3 Cumulative Impacts ...... 63 4.3.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 63 4.3.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species ...... 63 4.3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse ...... 65 4.3.4 Migratory Birds ...... 65 4.3.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 66 4.3.6 Fish Habitat ...... 66 4.3.7 Soils and Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species ...... 67 4.3.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weed Species ...... 67 4.3.9 Water Resources/Quality ...... 67 4.3.10 Wetland/Riparian Zones ...... 68 CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 69 5.1 Introduction ...... 69 5.2 Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Coordination/Consulted ...... 69 5.3 Summary of Public Participation ...... 70 5.3.1 List of Commenters ...... 70 5.3.2 Modifications Based on Public Comment and Internal Review ...... 71 5.4 List of Preparers ...... 71 5.5 Appendices ...... 72 A – Interdisciplinary Team Checklist ...... 73 B – Literature Cited ...... 76 C – Figures/Maps ...... 81 D – Comments and Responses (Comment Period) ...... 87 E – Acronyms/Abbreviations ...... 90
ii February 2020
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project area covering twenty-two grazing allotments in Box Elder County...... 81 Figure 2. Owl Springs and U and I allotments proposed range improvements...... 82 Figure 3. Keg Springs and Red Butte allotments proposed range improvements...... 83 Figure 4. Junction Creek allotment proposed range improvements...... 84 Figure 5. Muddy Creek allotment proposed range improvements...... 85 Figure 6. Greater sage-grouse habitats within the project area...... 86
List of Tables
Table 1. Number/length and locations of proposed range improvements...... 10 Table 2. Design features...... 12 Table 3. Allotments with proposed range improvements...... 18 Table 4. List of migratory birds with potential to occur within the project area...... 27 Table 5. Big game habitat acreages within the project area...... 28 Table 6. Occupancy trends by habitat within Box Elder County (Unit 1)...... 31 Table 7. Soil types in the project area...... 32 Table 8. Land cover types in the project area...... 36 Table 9. Noxious weeds documented within the project area...... 39 Table 10. Streams in the project area included in the 2016 UDWQ Integrated Report...... 41 Table 11. Estimated disturbance from the proposed range improvements...... 43 Table 12. Impacts to important big game habitat relative to total habitat available in project area...... 56 Table 13. Acres of soil type disturbance under Proposed Action...... 57 Table 14. Acres of soil type disturbance by range improvement under Proposed Action...... 57 Table 15. Estimated vegetation disturbance under the Proposed Action...... 58 Table 16. Estimated vegetation disturbance by range improvement from the Proposed Action...... 59 Table 17. Acres of wetlands intersected by the Proposed Action...... 62 Table 18. Length of stream intersected by range improvements...... 62 Table 19. List of persons, agencies, and organizations consulted...... 69 Table 20. Entities providing public comments during the scoping period...... 71 Table 21. Entities providing public comments during the comment period...... 71 Table 22. SLFO preparers and reviewers...... 71 Table 23. SWCA preparers and reviewers...... 72
iii February 2020
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA)1 has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences of the West Box Elder Range Improvement Projects as proposed by the grazing permittees and the State of Utah’s Grazing Improvement Program (GIP). The project area is shown in Figure 1.2 1.2 Background In accordance with the livestock grazing regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §4120 (Grazing Management), the BLM has received requests for multiple rangeland improvements from existing grazing permittees and the State of Utah’s GIP for grazing allotments in western Box Elder County, Utah. This EA [the West Box Elder Range Improvement Projects (DOI-BLM-UT-W010-2018-0003-EA)] addresses these requests. 1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of BLM’s action is to respond to requests for rangeland improvements and consider the installation, use, maintenance, or modification of range improvements within the project area, in a manner that is consistent with applicable law. The need for this action is established by the BLM’s regulations, as described in 43 CFR §4120.3 – §4120.3-5 (Range Improvements). 1.4 Decision to be Made The BLM’s decision to be made is whether cooperative range improvement agreements or range improvement permits would be issued for multiple range improvements within the project area and, if the agreements or permits are issued, what terms and conditions would be applied for each range improvement in accordance with 43 CFR §4120.3-4. 1.5 Land Use Plan Conformance The alternatives would conform to the management goals and decisions in the Box Elder Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP) (BLM 1986),3 as amended and is consistent with the following objectives, goals, and decisions of the approved plan (as amended): Program Decision Page Short Title Number Number Lands 4 9 Legal/Physical Access Range 1 13 Categorize Allotments Range 2 13 Prepare AMPs Range 7 20 Control Noxious Weeds Air, Soil and 1 20 Evaluate Watershed
1 Uncommon or frequently used abbreviations/acronyms are listed in Appendix E. 2 All figures (maps) are located in Appendix C. 3 The literature citied in this EA are located in Appendix B.
4 February 2020
Program Decision Page Short Title Number Number Air, Soil and 2 20 Water Rights Watershed Air, Soil and 3 20 Water Quality Watershed Air, Soil and 4 21 Erosion Watershed Air, Soil and 5 22 Riparian Areas Watershed Wildlife 7 30 Protect Habitat Cultural 1 32 Evaluate The BLM’s goals and objectives for managing the greater sage grouse are described in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) and associated Record of Decision (BLM 2015).4 The Proposed Action is consistent with the ARMPA. The alternatives developed in this EA are also consistent with the Box Elder ROD/RMP decisions, goals, and/or objectives related to the management of the following resources, including but not limited to air quality, cultural resources, special status species, fire/fuels management, lands/access, soil, water, riparian zones, and wildlife. 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans Implementation of the alternatives are consistent with the applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, policies, county ordinances, and other plans listed below. Federal policies include but are not limited to Executive Orders (EO) and BLM Manuals, Handbooks (H), Instruction Memorandums (IM), and Information Bulletins (IB). Compliance with applicable statute, regulation, and policy includes the completion of procedural requirements, including consultation, coordination, and cooperation with stakeholders, interested publics, and Native American Tribes and completion of the applicable level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. 1.6.1 Federal Laws (As Amended) The alternatives are designed to be consistent with requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA), the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The alternatives are also designed to be consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA).
4 The BLM amended its management plan for greater sage grouse in Utah in March 2019 (BLM 2019). A preliminary injunction was issued by United States District Court for the District of Idaho in October 2019, which enjoined BLM from implementing the 2019 plan and directed the BLM to implement the 2015 plan (BLM 2015).
5 February 2020
1.6.2 BLM Policies The alternatives are designed to comply with BLM’s Utah Rangeland Health: Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangeland (BLM 1997), BLM Utah IM 2005-091 (Riparian Policy), BLM Utah IM 2015-019 (Rangeland Management and Water Rights), BLM Washington Office (WO) IM-2016-147, (Resource Improvement Projects-Water Developments), and BLM WO IM 2018-25 (Implementation of the Habitat Objectives Table from the 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plans and Amendments). 1.6.3 State of Utah Plans The State of Utah’s Resource Management Plan (Utah 2018) supports livestock grazing program efforts that address rangeland developments and improvements, continued livestock grazing following appropriate rangeland management principles, and cooperation with livestock permittees and the State of Utah. The Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse and the Utah Wildlife Action Plan are comprehensive state-wide plans that cover the project area (Utah 2019, Utah Wildlife Action Plan Joint Team 2015). In the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse, conservation objectives and management actions are identified that pertain specifically to the project area. The State of Utah’s statewide big game management plans for mule deer (UDWR 2014), elk (UDWR 2015a), antelope (UDWR 2017a), moose (UDWR 2017b), and cougar (UDWR 2015b) cover the project area. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and BLM are both signatories on the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Least Chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) in the State of Utah (UDWR 2005a), the Conservation Agreement for Springsnails in Nevada and Utah (BLM 2017), the Conservation and Management Plan for Three Fish Species in Utah (UDWR 2006b), and the Rangewide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Northern Leatherside (UDWR 2009b). Boreal toads are managed under the Boreal Toad Conservation Plan (UDWR 2005b). 1.6.4 Box Elder County Plans The alternatives are consistent with value and goal statements within the Box Elder County General Plan (Box Elder County 1998) and the Box Elder County Resource Management Plan (Box Elder County 2017). It is consistent with the County's multiple use philosophy, desire that public lands continue to provide livestock grazing, and desire for grazing to be used as a tool to improve resource and watershed health, forage productivity, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities, while reducing invasive weed species and the risk of wildfire. 1.7 Identification of Issues The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed the proposed range improvements and completed an IDT checklist (Appendix A) to identify resources and land uses that could be affected by the construction/maintenance of range improvements and issuing the requested cooperative range improvement agreements or range improvement permits. Additional public scoping and comment period information is contained in Section 5.3. 1.7.1 Issues Considered in Detail/Issue Statements The following resources and their corresponding issue statements were identified and prepared by the IDT during the scoping process (internal and external):
6 February 2020
Livestock Grazing • Would livestock use patterns and distribution be altered due to these proposed range improvements? Would the construction/maintenance of these proposed range improvements require resource specific design features? Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species • Would range improvements affect BLM sensitive species? • Would range improvements affect sensitive springsnail species present at springs and water sources? Greater Sage-Grouse • Would range improvements affect greater sage-grouse and their life-cycle habitats? • Would proposed fences affect greater sage-grouse, including risk for in-flight collisions? • What management actions are necessary for each range improvement in order to comply with the land use plan’s goals and objectives regarding greater sage-grouse management? Migratory Birds • Would migratory birds and their habitats, including raptors and neotropical migrants, be affected? Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species • Would range improvements and associated changes in livestock grazing impact the distribution of big game? • Would the proposed range improvements affect big game winter habitats? • Would fences affect big game movements? • Would range improvements impact species that prey on wildlife, including cougar? Fish Habitat • Would water associated range improvements affect the least chub and its habitat? • Would water associated range improvements affect fish habitats, including instream flows and temperatures in rivers? Soils and Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species • Would the infrastructure affect existing soil and vegetation conditions? • Would construction/maintenance related disturbances be reclaimed to minimize soil loss and impacts on vegetation? Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds • What type of weeds/invasive species are present? • Would construction/maintenance activities create habitat or opportunity for establishing and/or spreading weeds? Water Resources/Quality • Would water associated range improvements affect existing water rights or ground water sources?
7 February 2020
• North Red Butte Well and pipeline are within the Level 2 Groundwater protection zone for the east Grouse Creek Pipeline Co; how would range improvements maintain protection for this drinking water source? Wetlands/Riparian Zones • Would range improvements affect wetlands and riparian areas? Public scoping and comment period comments were also reviewed and were utilized to verify and update the information contained in Section 1.7.1. 1.7.2 Issues Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail The IDT checklist (Appendix A) also identified those resources and land uses that were determined to be not present or not impacted to a degree that requires detailed analysis. Those resources that were not analyzed in detail are as follows: Not Present National Historic Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness / Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild Horses and Burros. Not Impacted Air Quality, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice, Farmlands (Prime or Unique), Floodplains, Fuels / Fire Management, Geology / Mineral Resources / Energy Production, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Lands and Access, Native American Religious Concerns, Paleontology, Property Boundary Evaluation, Recreation, Socio-Economics, Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or Special Status Plant Species, Travel / Transportation, Visual Resources, Wastes (Hazardous or Solid), Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, and Woodland / Forestry.
8 February 2020
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction This EA analyzes the potential effects of implementing Alternative A – Proposed Action and Alternative B – No Action. The No Action Alternative is considered and analyzed to provide a baseline against which to compare the impacts of the Proposed Action. 2.2 Alternative A – Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, multiple range improvements would be authorized under cooperative agreements or permits and would be constructed and maintained in western Box Elder County as proposed by the grazing permittees and the State of Utah GIP. The rangeland improvements would be located within the grazing allotments depicted in Figure 1. The rangeland improvements would provide additional water sources and fence lines for interior allotment pastures and allow for more effective grazing management. Several rangeland improvements are listed below and illustrated in Figures 2 through 5. These range improvements would occur on a mix of BLM-managed lands, lands administered by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), and private lands.5 Table 1 provides the number/length and locations of the range improvements. The typical design features for all of the following range improvements are described in Section 2.2.2 and Table 2. Highway 30 Well In the Owl Springs allotment, a new non-culinary well would be drilled and a new water storage tank, 6.3 miles of a new pipeline, and five new troughs would be installed. The Highway 30 well would be approximately 2.75 miles east of the Highway 30 and Grouse Creek Junction (Figure 2). Lucin Road Well In the southwest portion of the Owl Springs allotment, a new non-culinary well would be drilled and a new water storage tank, 3.4 miles of a new pipeline, and four new troughs would be installed. The Lucin Road Well would be approximately 3.5 miles north of the historic town of Lucin, Utah (Figure 2). Red Butte Corral Pipeline In the southern portion of the Red Butte allotment, a new water storage tank, two miles of a new pipeline extension, and two new troughs off an existing well/pipeline would be installed. The Red Butte Corral Pipeline would be approximately 12 miles south of the town of Grouse Creek, Utah (Figure 3). Keg Springs Pipeline In both the Red Butte and Keg Springs allotments, two miles of new pipeline and two new troughs off an existing stock pond/spring at Keg Springs would be installed. The Keg Springs Pipeline would be approximately 11 miles southeast of the town of Grouse Creek, Utah (Figure 3). Red Knolls Pipeline
5 Separate approval of the projects by SITLA and the private landowners would be required.
9 February 2020
In the central portion of the Red Butte allotment, existing water from a trough (outside the existing Red Knolls exclosure) would be captured and six miles of new pipeline and five troughs would be installed. This project would be 3.25 miles southwest of the town of Grouse Creek, Utah (Figure 3). Red Butte Pasture Fence In the central portion of the Red Butte allotment, seven miles of a new barbed-wire pasture fence would be installed. The Red Butte Pasture fence would be approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the town of Grouse Creek, Utah (Figure 3). North Red Butte Well and Pipeline In the northern portion of the Red Butte allotment, a new non-culinary well would be drilled and a new water storage tank, 3.4 mile of a new pipeline, and six new troughs would be installed. The North Red Butte Well would be approximately 3.25 miles east of the town of Grouse Creek, Utah (Figure 3). Junction Creek Pipeline In the Junction Creek allotment, 2.4 miles of a new pipeline and two new troughs off an existing well on private ground would be installed. The Junction Creek Pipeline would be approximately 6.5 miles northwest of the town of Yost, Utah (Figure 4). Muddy Creek Pipeline Extension In the Muddy Creek allotment - Warm Spring pasture, three miles of new pipeline and one new trough off the existing Muddy Creek Pipeline would be installed. The Muddy Creek Pipeline Extension would be approximately 11 miles southwest of the town of Rosette, Utah (Figure 5). Table 1. Number/length and locations of proposed range improvements. Range Improvement Number/Length Location Names/Types Highway 30 Well Well and Storage Tank 1 well & storage tank T8N. R17W. Section 7. Pipeline & troughs 6.3 miles & 5 troughs T8N. R18W. Sections 12 & 25; T8N. R17W. Sections 18, 19, & 21. Lucin Road Well Well and Storage Tank 1 well & storage tank T8N. R18W. Sections 22, 27, 34, & 35. Pipeline and troughs 3.4 miles & 4 troughs T8N. R18W. Sections 22, 27, 34, & 35. Red Butte Corral Pipeline Storage Tank, pipeline & 1 storage tank, 2 miles & 2 T10N. R18W. Sections 22, 27, & 34. troughs troughs Keg Springs Pipeline Pipeline & troughs 2 miles & 2 troughs T10N. R17W. Sections 8, 9, 15, & 16. Red Knolls Pipeline Pipeline & troughs 6.0 miles & 5 troughs T11N. R18W. Sections 24, 25, 30, & 31. Red Butte Pasture Fence Fence 7 miles T11N. R17W. Sections 18 & 19; T11N. R18W. Sections 25, 26, & 27. North Red Butte Well and Pipeline Well and Storage Tank 1 well & storage tank T12N. R17W. Section 32. Pipeline & troughs 3.4 mile & 6 troughs T12N. R17W. Sections 31 & 32. Junction Creek Pipelines and Troughs Pipeline & troughs 2.4 miles & 2 troughs T15N. R17W. Sections 33, 34, & 35.
10 February 2020
Range Improvement Number/Length Location Names/Types Muddy Creek Pipeline Pipeline & trough 3 miles & 1 trough T12N. R15W. Section 31; T11N. R15W. Sections 5 & 6. 2.2.1 Range Improvement Design The following sections detail design and construction/maintenance of each type of range improvement being proposed. Post-construction site inspections would be conducted to ensure the range improvements are installed and functioning properly. Range improvement maintenance would be subject to the terms and conditions of the issued permits/agreements. All features or components of water developments and fence lines (such as solar panels, fittings, escape ramps, or gates) would be constructed according to the guidelines/requirements contained in handbooks [Water Developments, H-1741-02 (BLM 1990) and Fencing, H-1741-01 (BLM 1989)] and as specified in Proposed/Final Decisions issued, if this alternative is selected. Wells Wells would be drilled and cased using a light truck-mounted drill rig. Disturbance area would be approximately 0.25 acre per well. Well and casing depth would vary at each well location. Following well completion, a solar-powered submersible pump would be installed and connected either to a storage tank or a pipeline directly to the troughs. Two to four solar panels, each approximately 8 square feet in area, would be needed to power the solar pump. Solar panels would be pole mounted and placed immediately adjacent to the well. Pipelines Pipelines would vary in length, depending on the specific layout and design requirements. Each pipeline would generally be constructed of 2-inch diameter high-density polyethylene pipe buried 24 to 36 inches deep with either a backhoe or trencher or ripped in with a dozer equipped with a ripper and attached pipe layer with a width of approximately five to ten feet. Longer pipelines would be placed in or adjacent to existing roads or two-track roads (where possible). Shorter pipelines would be placed to minimize total surface disturbance (subject to specific construction constraints such as topography, bedrock, etc.). Storage Tanks Storage tanks provide water storage between the water source and the point of use. The size and type of storage tank construction/maintenance material would vary depending on water use needs. Storage tanks would either be buried or placed on the ground. Disturbance area would vary based on the size of the storage tank, but generally would be about 0.10 acre. For storage tanks placed on the ground, the bottom surface of each storage tank would consist of a concrete pad foundation, approximately one foot thick, hauled to the area using a cement truck or would be placed on a solid packed and leveled gravel base. The sides of each storage tank would be galvanized steel that is painted to match the surrounding landscape. Each storage tank would be covered by a corrugated tin lid with metal supports placed within the storage tank. Storage tank assembly would occur on site. The storage tank placement area would be cleared and leveled using a grader or bulldozer or similar equipment prior to construction of the storage tank. Troughs Troughs can vary greatly in size and shape based on the type of livestock use and can be designed to cater to various wildlife species. Generally, metal troughs would be up to 1,000
11 February 2020 gallons in total capacity and round or rectangular in shape. Tractor tire troughs or frost-free troughs may also be used depending on the system design and water needs in an area. Each trough would occupy up to approximately 30 square feet in total area and be placed directly on the ground surface following clearing and grading using a grader, bulldozer, or similar equipment. Wildlife escape ramps would be installed in each trough. Fences/Gates Fences, including their associated gates, would be barbed-wire construction (four strand, steel post fencing with Easy Fence corner panels, end panels, and stress panels) with a smooth bottom wire no lower than 18 inches above the ground surface to allow for wildlife passage. The top wire would not exceed approximately 42 inches above ground surface. The second and third wire spacing would follow the fencing guides found in BLM’s Fencing Handbook H-1741-01. Prior to installation, brush would be cleared between two and five feet on each side of the centerline by mowing or blading as needed. Posts (steel or wood) would be driven in the ground, and wire would be stretched tightly and secured with wire clips. Maintenance actions could include the periodic mowing of maturing woody vegetation immediately adjacent to the fence to maintain the integrity of a properly functioning line. 2.2.2 Design Features The design features listed in Table 2 would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential effects of the range improvements on resources and uses present on BLM-managed lands. The design features were developed by the IDT in consideration of the issues raised during the public scoping and the comment periods and the resources present in the project area. Design features may benefit multiple resources or uses but are generally only listed once. Table 2. Design features. Resource Area Design Feature Air Quality • Water or other means satisfactory to the authorized officer would be used for dust control during construction/maintenance activities. Areas of Critical • The Central Pacific Railroad Grade and any associated feature (including trestles) would be avoided by 200 feet Environmental during construction/maintenance activities. Concern • The Central Pacific Railroad Grade would not be used by heavy vehicles, including any construction/maintenance equipment. Cultural • Prior to construction, cultural resource inventories would be completed by a certified archaeologist. The certified Resources archeologist would flag the historic properties and be on site at all times during construction near those areas. Additional pedestrian surveys are required for the proposed projects within the Muddy Creek, Junction Creek and Keg Springs allotments prior to new surface-disturbing activities. • Procedures for determining importance and/or effect would be determined by criteria listed in 36 CFR §60.4 and follow procedures described in 36 CFR §800. Cost of any further cultural work would be borne by the permittee or designated agent. • Infrastructure (e.g., troughs, fences, pipelines) will be placed to avoid any identified historic properties. During pipeline construction, avoidance of the eligible properties would be accomplished by boring under the sites or rerouting the pipeline. • Any cultural resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered during construction/maintenance activities, shall be immediately reported to the authorized officer by telephone, and followed by subsequent written confirmation. All operations would be suspended 100 meters from the discovery’s outer boundary and the cultural resources would be appropriately protected until an evaluation has been made by the authorized officer. For Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony discovered during an undertaking involving BLM-managed lands, all parties would comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and its implementing regulations at 43 CFR §10 (B). For cultural resources discovered, other than Native American human remains, funerary item, sacred object, or objects of cultural patrimony, the evaluation would determine the discovery’s importance and whether mitigation measures are necessary to allow activities to proceed. The permittee or designated agent is responsible for all cost incurred and associated with any required evaluation and mitigation measures. Any decision on treatment and/or
12 February 2020
Resource Area Design Feature mitigation would be made by the authorized officer after consulting with the permittee or designated agent. Operations may resume only upon the authorized officer’s express written authorization to proceed.
Fish Habitat • Natural free-flowing and spring water sources would be avoided during all construction/maintenance activity other than authorized water development projects. If a pipeline must intersect streams or springs, then it must be bored under the surface water system. • See design features under sensitive species for additional requirements • Instream flows in the Raft Rive, Grouse Creek, Goose Creek, and their tributaries are habitat for multiple fish species, including sensitive species. As these species are limited by temperature and instream flow, range improvements would be designed to minimize impacts on natural flows and riparian corridors. Any new pipelines or water withdrawals from the river would be sized or gauged so that only the permitted water right can be diverted. Unavoidable riparian disturbance for construction/maintenance must be revegetated with native vegetation. Fuels/Fire • The permittee or designated agent undertaking construction/maintenance activities would notify the BLM of any Management fires and comply with all rules and regulations administered by the BLM concerning the use, prevention, and suppression of fires on federal lands, including any fire prevention orders that may be in effect at the time of the permitted activity. The permittee or designated agent may be held liable for the cost of fire suppression, stabilization, and rehabilitation. In the event of a fire, personal safety would be the first priority of the permittee or designated agent. The permittee or designated agent would do the following. 1) Operate all internal and external combustion engines on federally managed lands per 43 CFR §8343.1, which requires all such engines to be equipped with a qualified spark arrester that is maintained and not modified. 2) Carry shovels, water, and fire extinguishers that are rated at a minimum as ABC-10 pound on all equipment and vehicles. If a fire spreads beyond the suppression capability of workers with these tools, all would cease fire suppression action and leave the area immediately via pre-identified escape routes. 3) Initiate fire suppression actions in the work area to prevent fire spread to or on federally administered lands. 4) Notify the Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center (801) 495-7600 (or 911) immediately of the location and status of any escaped fire. Invasive • Any disturbance resulting from construction/maintenance activities outside of existing roads would be reviewed by Species/Noxious the authorized officer, and if necessary, the disturbed area would promptly be reclaimed using seed mixes and Weeds reclamation techniques approved by the authorized officer. • Responsibility for noxious weed treatments on new range improvements would be identified by the authorized officer and where necessary would be treated by the BLM or Box Elder County. • Only approved weed-control provisions from the BLM’s western states environmental impact statements/records of decisions would be used. • Construction procedures would follow all best management practices and weed control measures recommended to prevent invasive infestations as dictated by the Commissioner of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food and the Box Elder County Weed Department's Noxious Weed Program under the Utah Noxious Weed Control Act (Title 4, Chapter 17) in the project area (Utah Department of Food and Agriculture 2018). Construction crews would also comply with all weed management procedures administered by the BLM as per the Herbicide Use Standard Operating Procedures of the Record of Decision for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2007); the Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2016a); and the Decision Record for the Salt Lake District Weed Management Plan EA (UT-020-96-24). • If range improvements are constructed in weed infestations, high risk areas would be pre-treated before construction begins, equipment would be cleaned before entering a worksite, driving would be avoided through the infestation, and disturbed sites would be re-vegetated with species appropriate for the site. Lands/Access • All survey monuments found shall be protected. Survey monuments include, but are not limited to, General Land Office and BLM Cadastral Survey Corners, reference corners, witness points, U.S. Coastal and Geodetic benchmarks and triangulation stations, military control monuments, and recognizable civil (both public and private) survey monuments. In the event of obliteration or disturbance of any of the above, the permittee or designated agent shall immediately report the incident, in writing, to the authorized officer and the respective installing authority if known. Where General Land Office or BLM right-of-way monuments or references are obliterated during operations, the permittee or designated agent shall secure the services of a registered land surveyor or a BLM cadastral surveyor to restore the disturbed monuments and references using surveying procedures found in the Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands in the United States, latest edition. The permittee or designated agent shall record such survey in the appropriate county and send a copy to the authorized officer. If the BLM cadastral surveyors or other federal surveyors are used to restore the disturbed survey monument, the permittee or designated agent shall be responsible for the survey cost. • When implement a proposed project in proximity to a change in land ownership, a Land Survey Review request should be submitted prior to construction of the range improvement(s). • Fence lines would be constructed along appropriate property, allotment, and pasture boundaries in a manner that avoids property or boundary disputes. • Existing infrastructure (such as pipeline, telephone, telegraph, and transmission lines, roads, trails, fences, and ditches) shall be protected during construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of the range improvement. The permittee or designated agent would contact other right-of-way users of public lands affected by this range
13 February 2020
Resource Area Design Feature improvement in advance of any construction activity. Damage caused by the permittee or designated agent to public utilities and improvements shall be promptly repaired by the permittee or designated agent to a condition which is satisfactory to the authorized officer. Livestock Grazing • All range improvements shall follow the guidelines of BLM’s Handbooks H-1741-1 Fencing and H-1741-2 Water Developments. • Certified biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, botanists, or hazardous materials handler/cleanup utilized during construction/maintenance activities would be reviewed and approved by the authorized officer. Migratory Birds • All construction activities would be completed outside of the prime migratory bird nesting season (March 1–July 15). If the construction activities cannot occur outside of the prime nesting season, migratory bird nest surveys would be conducted by a certified biologist seven to ten days prior to construction. Active nests would be avoided by an appropriate distance to prevent negative effects on the nest until the young are no longer dependent on the nest. Nest buffers would be developed and approved by the authorized officer in coordination with appropriate resource specialists. • Migratory bird, bat, and other wildlife mortality would be minimized at new water developments through the use of functional wildlife escape ramps (BLM IM-2016-147, Resource Improvement Projects- Water Developments). The placement of obstructions across the water surface (braces, fence wires) would be avoided to allow aerial drinkers (i.e., bats and birds) access to water developments. • For any work completed during the raptor nesting season (January to September for bald and golden eagles, March to October for other raptors likely to occur within the project area), preconstruction raptor nest surveys would be conducted by a certified biologist. If active nests are found, species specific spatial and seasonal buffers would be implemented as described in Romin and Muck (2002). Topographic and vegetative features, species sensitivity, the habituation of breeding pairs to existing activities in the project area, and the local raptor nesting density, would be reviewed to determine site-specific buffers. Paleontology • Any paleontological resource discovered during construction/maintenance activities shall be immediately reported to the authorized officer. All operations would be suspended in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the authorized officer. An evaluation of the discovery would be made by the authorized officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of objects with scientific value. The permittee or designated agent would be responsible for the cost of evaluation and any decision as to proper mitigation measures would be made by the authorized officer after consulting with the permittee or designated agent. Greater Sage- • Implement the following actions from the ARMPA (BLM 2015): Grouse Habitat o Limit the presence of waste (trash) and road-kill during construction and maintenance (ARMPA’s MA-SSS- 3d). o Limit noise from discrete anthropogenic disturbances from exceeding 10 decibels above ambient sound levels at occupied leks from 2 hours before and 2 hours after official sunrise and sunset during breeding season. Also limit project-related noise in other greater sage-grouse habitat and seasons where it would be expected to reduce functionality of the habitats to support greater sage-grouse populations (ARMPA’s MA-SSS-3e). o The following seasonal restrictions would apply to construction activities, unless, in coordination with the appropriate State of Utah agency, site-specific restrictions were determined to better protect greater sage- grouse (ARMPA’s MA-SSS-3g): - In breeding (leks), nesting and early brood rearing habitat from February 15 – June 15 - In brood rearing habitat from April 15- August 15 - In winter habitat from November 15 – March 15 o As appropriate, during the construction of range improvements, apply the required design features to minimize risk of West Nile Virus, as described in the ARMPA’s Appendix C (ARMPA’s MA-SSS-3i). o To reduce outright greater sage-grouse strikes and mortality, remove, modify or mark fences in high risk areas (Stevens et al. 2012) based on proximity to lek (e.g., within 1.2 miles of a lek), lek size, and topography, or as latest science indicates. Employ the fence collision risk tool from the Natural Resource Conservation Service/Conservation Effects Assessment Project Conservation Insight Publication Applying the Sage Grouse Fence Collision Risk Tool to Reduce Bird Strikes). (ARMPA’s MA-LG-16). o In PHMA, monitor for and treat noxious weeds and treat invasive species where needed, associated with existing range improvements. (ARMPA’s MA-LG-17). o In PHMA, after construction, prioritize the use of native seeds for reclamation, based on availability, adaptation, and probability of success. Where probability of success or adapted seed availability is low, desirable non-native seeds may be used as long as they support greater sage-grouse habitat objectives. Re- establishment of appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site potential, should be the principle objective for rehabilitation efforts. (ARMPA’s MA-VEG-5). Soils and • Construction/maintenance outside of existing roads may require reclamation using a seed mix approved by the Vegetation, authorized officer. Excluding Special Status Species
14 February 2020
Resource Area Design Feature • No construction/maintenance activities shall be performed during periods when the soil is too wet to adequately support equipment. If such equipment creates ruts in excess of 4 inches deep, the soil shall be deemed too wet to adequately support equipment. • Appropriate temporary erosion control devices include silt fence, straw bale structures or straw wattles, mulching, and/or erosion control matting. Where appropriate, these controls would be installed to dissipate the velocity of any stormwater discharge from the construction areas and prevent sediment from leaving the construction areas. • Sediment controls would be installed at the same time as initial ground disturbance and would be refurbished when accumulated sediment reaches approximately 50 percent of the control structures’ capacity. During construction, regular monitoring of the effectiveness of temporary erosion control devices is necessary after each rainfall event of at least 0.5 inch, and additional erosion controls may be required. • The BLM would monitor the effectiveness of revegetation and permanent erosion control devices, such as trench breakers, pocking, mulch, and revegetation, during the operation and maintenance of the pipeline system. Following successful revegetation of construction areas, the BLM would remove temporary erosion control devices. • Soil compaction in construction areas would be evaluated prior to revegetation activities to ensure that the permeability of the subsoils would be sufficient to support deep-rooting species, such as perennial bunchgrasses and shrubs. Otherwise, the sites would be at risk of cheatgrass dominance. Construction equipment traveling over moist or saturated soils, including un-graveled access roads, could cause rutting. Allowing equipment to meander within the area of disturbance rather than concentrating travel into a single lane would minimize the potential for impacts, such as rutting. These measures would be implemented on all lands crossed by the range improvement (e.g., BLM, SITLA, private), unless the land-managing agency or landowners request otherwise. • When topsoil and vegetation is cleared during construction activities, topsoil and all cleared vegetation, including sagebrush and grasses, would be stockpiled. When implementing reclamation procedures, the construction areas would be scarified for reseeding pursuant to BLM requirements, and the topsoil containing the nutrients, microorganisms, seeds, and roots for enhancing reclamation, as well as all removed vegetation, would be redistributed. The spreading of organic topsoil, native seed sources, and vegetation would reduce the potential for erosion and likelihood of invasion by weed species, especially cheatgrass, and provide a source of mulch to aid revegetation. Salvage and replacement of topsoil and vegetation promotes vegetation establishment and helps ensure reclamation success. In cases where a construction area has been invaded heavily by cheatgrass, replanting with perennial bunchgrasses as soon as possible would be accomplished to reduce fire return intervals and allowing native shrubs to return to the system. Threatened, • Preconstruction surveys for BLM sensitive plant species would be conducted by a certified botanist. If populations Endangered, are found, areas will be avoided by re-locating or re-routing the range improvement. Candidate or Special Status Plant Species Threatened, • Surveys for boreal toad would be conducted in suitable habitats six weeks prior to and during Endangered, construction/maintenance activities by a certified biologist. If boreal toads are documents, range improvement Candidate, or construction/maintenance in boreal toad habitat would not occur during breeding season from April – June. Special Status Construction in winter is preferred. Animal Species • Surveys for springsnails would be conducted in springs and aquatic habitats that are proposed for development or proposed water developments within 1 mile of spring systems, within one year prior to construction and maintenance activities by a certified biologist. If springsnails are documented, water development projects must not lead to declines in available habitat. Re-locating the project to a non-occupied site or greater distance from occupied habitat may be required. Construction of other range improvement projects would avoid occupied habitat through a 600 m riparian buffer. • Water levels in Keg Springs would be monitored during and after water development activities and should not drop below 1.4 feet as measured on the staff gauge. Inflow rates should not drop below 1.5 gallons per minute as measured by the flume to maintain fish and amphibian habitat. These levels are considered base flow measured in August 2018. If inflow or pond levels drop below minimum levels, livestock water use from this source would be deferred. • Baseline water levels at Red Knolls Pond would initially be based off of established levels at Keg Springs as the ponds are of similar size and species requirements are similar. Levels of 1.4 feet on a staff gauge and inflow levels of 1.5 gallons per minute would initially be used as minimum flow rates and pond levels. These levels will be monitored and may be modified if different requirements are determined based on-site specific needs. This monitoring would occur prior to range improvement implementation and monthly during the period of use to maintain fish habitat. If inflow or pond levels drop below minimum levels, livestock water use from this source would be deferred. • Pipelines that intersect streams or springs would be bored under the surface water system. • Biological surveys would be required for long-billed curlew and grasshopper sparrow seven to ten days prior to ground disturbing activities in grasslands. Implementation of the migratory bird design features would minimize impacts to these species. • Surveys would be required a minimum of two weeks prior to ground disturbing activities for burrowing mammals and BLM sensitive species (pygmy rabbit, kit fox, burrowing owl, dark kangaroo mouse, short-eared owl) in areas
15 February 2020
Resource Area Design Feature where there is suitable habitat. Surveys must be completed by a certified biologist and results provided to the BLM biologist. Active burrows would be avoided by all construction/maintenance activities. Temporal and spatial buffers would be identified in coordination with a BLM biologist and the authorized officer. • If active kit fox dens are found during the construction phase of the range improvement, a 200-foot no-disturbance buffer around the dens would be maintained until they are no longer occupied.. Additionally, the following procedures would be implemented: o All excavated steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep would be covered at the close of each working day. If trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks should be installed. Before holes or trenches are filled they would be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. o All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches or greater and stored at the construction site for one or more nights would be inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. Any kit foxes found inside the structure would be allowed to leave before the structure is buried, capped, or moved. • Occupied and historic pygmy rabbit burrows would be avoided with a minimum 100-m buffer. A BLM authorized biologist would map burrow complexes and provide buffers prior to any construction or implementation. Fences and range improvements as proposed would require rerouting if locations with pygmy rabbit populations are identified. • Increases in vehicle traffic could potentially increase danger to this species, resulting in death; construction crews would need to remain vigilant and maintain low speeds during construction to minimize any potential impacts to these species. Travel/ • Construction/maintenance activities would not be allowed to block or interfere with routine public use of any route. Transportation Vehicles/equipment can be staged/parked within two feet of any route. After construction/maintenance activities, any equipment or supplies would be promptly removed from the public land. • To the greatest extent possible, pipelines would be installed within or along the shoulder of existing roads or routes. When new disturbance is required, the disturbance width would be kept to the minimum necessary to install the proposed range improvement. Disturbance along fence lines would also be kept to the minimum necessary for installation and maintenance. • Disturbed areas will be re-seeded, using an appropriate seed mix, to reduce the potential for long-term unauthorized use of the disturbance by off-highway vehicles. Temporary signing or fencing may also be employed, where appropriate, to assist in the establishment of vegetation and to reduce long-term use of disturbed areas. • Cross-country disturbance shall be reclaimed in a manner that discourages new route establishment. Visual Resources • Minimize contrast to the form, line, color and texture of the landscape. • Above-ground infrastructure such as water tanks would be painted to blend with the surrounding landscape. • All new structures would be sited to avoid breaking the visible horizon, when possible, to reduce visibility. For example, new fences would be placed on the side of a hill, rather than on top. Wastes • Any fluids (gasoline or otherwise) used to fuel or maintain vehicles/equipment during construction/maintenance (hazardous or activities would be stored in approved or original containers. Fluids used during construction/maintenance activities solid) would be promptly removed from the public land. • Any spills must be reported to the authorized officer within 1 hour. • The permittee or designated agent would be responsible for hiring a certified company to clean-up and process, including associated costs, any spill of fluids, including hazardous materials. Water • Prior to any development that requires a new water right or change application on an existing water right, these Resources/Quality water rights must be obtained from the Utah Division of Water Rights. Water rights applications must follow the (drinking/surface/ BLM’s policy for new water rights for range improvements (BLM IM UT 2015-019). ground) • Water rights applications must follow Utah Division of Water Rights appropriation policy for ground water development in the Great Salt Lake Desert and or Snake River Tributaries regions. Wetlands/Riparian • Riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitat associated with the range improvements must be maintained in proper Zones functioning condition. • All range improvements would be required to comply with the Box Elder Resource Management Plan (1986, as amended). Riparian areas would be maintained or improved to proper functioning condition. No new surface disturbing activities would be allowed within 1,200 feet of riparian areas unless it can be shown that: there are no practical alternatives, all long-term impacts can be fully mitigated, or the activity would benefit and enhance the riparian area. Wildlife, • Fence specifications in BLM Handbook H-1741-01 would be followed. Fences would be constructed and Excluding Special maintained in a “wildlife friendly” manner (bottom wire would be smooth and wire spacing would include: no Status Species higher than 42 in. top wire, and no lower than 18 in. on the bottom wire, with the 2nd and 3rd wire spacing following the fencing handbook). Design and layout of fence lines would accommodate big game movement over and under the fence. • Construction/maintenance activities would be conducted during timeframes that accommodate temporal and spatial requirements of big game species, avian species, and special status species.
16 February 2020
2.3 Alternative B – No Action Under the No-Action Alternative, new range improvements would not be constructed and the previously received applications for new range improvements, as considered in the proposed action, would be denied. Livestock grazing activities, including the use of existing rangeland improvements, would continue under current management. 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Keg Springs Pipeline Original Layout The BLM originally considered different trough locations for the Keg Springs Pipeline, as proposed by the permittees. This original layout would have located these features within a citizen-proposed unit of lands with wilderness characteristics. The Keg Springs Pipeline and trough realignment carried forward for analysis (Section 2.2, Table 1) would avoid the citizen- proposed area that may contain wilderness characteristics. This alternative (original layout) is similar to the Proposed Action; therefore, it is not carried forward for consideration. North Bedke Spring Development The BLM originally considered the North Bedke Spring Development as a water source in the central portion of the Red Butte allotment, as proposed by the permittees. After a site visit, it was determined that this location did not supply enough water to support the troughs or maintain the natural spring. In lieu of this, the Red Knolls Pipeline range improvement was identified to supply enough water in this portion of the grazing allotment. This alternative (original layout) is similar to the Proposed Action, except it does not supply enough water; therefore, it is not carried forward for consideration. Other Alternatives The BLM did not consider any other action alternatives. No other alternatives were identified by the IDT or brought forward by the public during the scoping or comment periods. The alternatives carried forward represent those necessary for a reasoned choice among alternatives (40 CFR §1502.14) and are based on the issues that were identified by the public and the IDT.
17 February 2020
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents resources and uses that are potentially affected by construction/maintenance of range improvements within the project area. This chapter presents the past and present actions that created the existing environment and provides the baseline for comparison of impacts/consequences, which are described in Chapter 4. 3.2 General Setting The project area is approximately 494,412 acres and is located in Box Elder County in the northwestern corner of Utah. The project area consists of the 22 allotments, shown in Figure 1. This area is within the Central Basin and Range and Northern Basin and Range Level III ecoregions (Woods et al. 2001) and is composed of northerly trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. Valleys, slopes, and alluvial fans are either shrub- and grass-covered, shrub-covered, or barren. Woodland, mountain brush, and scattered open forests are found at higher elevations on mountain slopes. The potential natural vegetation is, in order of increasing elevation and ruggedness, saltbush-greasewood, Great Basin sagebrush, and juniper-pinyon woodland (Woods et al. 2001). Elevation of the project area ranges from approximately 4,500 feet above mean sea level along State Route 30 in the southern portion to approximately 9,000 feet above mean sea level in the Grouse Creek Mountains. The project area occurs within the Goose Creek, Raft River, Northern Great Salt Lake Desert, and Pilot-Thousand Springs watersheds [Hydrologic Units Codes (HUC) 8 17040211, 17040210, 16020308, and 16020307, respectively]. Primary activities within the project area have been and continue to be grazing, ranching, and agriculture. Infrastructure associated with these activities include roads, power lines, water developments, and pipelines. 3.2.1 Livestock Grazing The analysis area for livestock grazing is the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could affect existing livestock management. Livestock grazing of cattle, sheep, and horses occurs throughout the 22 allotments within the analysis area at various times throughout the year. Existing range improvements in the analysis area include vegetation treatments, wells, pipelines, troughs, ponds, fences, gates, cattleguards, corrals, and exclosures. There are similar range improvements on private land within the grazing allotments that are owned and funded by the private landowner, and are used in association with their grazing operation on BLM-managed lands. Grazing systems vary throughout the analysis area and can include season-long and deferred/rest rotation. The existing grazing system and the proposed range improvements (by allotment) are shown in Table 3. The allotments with proposed water source range improvements do not currently have enough water sources to support uniform livestock use. Table 3. Allotments with proposed range improvements. Allotment Number of Type of Season of Use AUMs Proposed Range Improvements (Acres) Pastures Livestock Junction 2 74 C 5/16-6/30 112 Junction Creek pipeline (2.4 miles) Creek 77 C 11/01-12/03 84 Junction Creek 2 troughs
18 February 2020
Allotment Number of Type of Season of Use AUMs Proposed Range Improvements (Acres) Pastures Livestock (7,539) 150 C 5/16-6/30 227 154 C 11/01-12/03 167 Keg None Not Assigned Not Assigned 683 Keg Springs pipeline (2 miles) Springs Keg Springs 1 trough (18,466) Muddy 6* 328 C 4/10-4/30 226 Muddy Creek pipeline (3 miles) Creek Muddy Creek 1 trough (68,366) 210 C 11/20-12/20 214
Red Butte None 745 C 11/1-11/30 1,493 Keg Springs 1 trough (32,568) (currently) 12 C 10/1-10/15 North Red Butte well and pipeline 12 C 5/1-5/15 1 well 770 C 4/1-4/30 North Red Butte pipeline (3.4 mile) 6 troughs 1 storage tank Red Butte Pasture fence (7 miles) Red Butte Corral pipeline (2 miles) Red Butte Corral 2 troughs Red Knolls Pipeline (6 miles) Red Knolls 5 troughs Owl None 399 C 12/01-2/28 1,592 Highway 30 well Springs (currently) 298 C 3/1-3/31 Highway 30 pipeline (6.3 miles) (34,489) Highway 30 5 troughs Lucin Road well Lucin Road pipeline (3.4 miles) Lucin Road 3 of the 4 troughs U & I 1 85 C 12/01-3/31 338 Lucin Road 1 of the 4 troughs (15,823) 57 C 11/01-3/31 283 Lucin Road pipeline (0.1 of the 3.4 miles) 57 C 11/01-3/31 283 * Numbers provided are for the pastures with pipelines.
3.2.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species The analysis area for threatened, endangered, candidate, or special status animal species is the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could affect these species or their habitat. BLM Manual 6840 provides policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM special status species and the ecosystems on which they depend on BLM-managed lands. The BLM special status species are: 1) species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA, and 2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA, which are designated as BLM sensitive by the state director(s). All federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following delisting would be conserved as BLM sensitive species. The State of Utah also publishes a sensitive species list (UDWR 2017a). The most recent IM listing of Utah BLM Sensitive Species is IM UT-2019-005, which was updated on March 4, 2019. A total of 15 BLM sensitive species have the potential to be present within the project area (BLM 2019). A more detailed discussion of each species is presented below.
19 February 2020
Golden Eagle The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is protected under the BGEPA, which specifically prohibits purposeful and inadvertent disturbance of eagle nests. Golden eagles typically nest on cliffs but may build nests on the ground, man-made structures, or in trees. Invasion of cheatgrass and increased fire cycles have negatively affected breeding success of golden eagles in western Utah through the loss of shrubs and a perceived decline in prey (Slater et al. 2012, 2013). Golden eagle nests are known to be present less than one mile from proposed range improvements in the Owl Springs allotment. There is suitable habitat for nesting and foraging golden eagles throughout the project area. A complete inventory of golden eagles within the project area has not been completed, however it is assumed that golden eagles are likely to nest and forage within the project area, in addition to the known locations in the Owl Springs allotment. Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a small, ground-dwelling owl who nests in burrows. In northwest Utah, the species is most likely to utilize existing ground squirrel burrows and badger excavations. Most habitat descriptions include level, open areas with low grass cover, available burrows, and perch sites (Poulin et al. 2011). The habitat requirements for all phases of the burrowing owls life history are available within the project area. Numerous burrowing owl colonies are known to occur on the Red Butte and Owl Springs allotments. In Red Butte, there is a nest less than one mile southwest of a proposed trough. This species has high fidelity to breeding areas and often return to the same burrows each year. In northern Utah, burrowing owls return to breed in early April. Ferruginous Hawk Ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) live in open environments, such as grassland, shrubsteppe, and cold deserts. These birds avoid areas of intensive agriculture, urban or suburban development, extremely high elevations, closed forests, and narrow canyons (Restani 1991). Knowledge to-date suggests that the major limitation to ferruginous hawks is not high mortality, but instead, low reproductive output as caused by habitat loss to cultivation and cheatgrass invasion, reduced distribution and abundance of prey, and locally-high levels of disturbance to nesting pairs (Travsky and Beauvais 2005). Ferruginous hawks in northern Utah predominantly nest in or at the bottom of juniper trees near desert shrub (RINS 2019) and seeded crested wheatgrass treatments, presumably due to the availability of prey items like jackrabbits (Howard 1975). Ferruginous hawk nests have been documented on the Owl Springs, Keg Springs, Red Butte, and Muddy Creek allotments. It is likely ferruginous hawk nests exist on the other allotments but have not yet been located. Grasshopper Sparrow Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is a grassland-interior species that prefers large grassland habitats. This species generally arrives in Utah in April and migrates for the winter beginning in September. During the breeding season, grasshopper sparrows make nests on the ground, generally at the base of bunchgrasses. Important foraging habitat consists of a relatively high percentage of bare ground that is often used for hunting insects from the ground. Habitat within the project area is conducive for grasshopper sparrow foraging and breeding. Furthermore, sightings of this species have occurred within Box Elder County in the vicinity of
20 February 2020
the project area, suggesting that the likelihood of this species occurring within the project area is high (Pardieck et al 2019). Long-billed Curlew During nesting, long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus) prefer habitats with sparse, short grasses, such as mixed-grass and shortgrass prairies and agricultural fields, where they make ground nests. Outside of the nesting season, they prefer taller, dense grasses; this species migrates to the coastal regions and Mexico for the winter months. Their diet consists of insects and aquatic/marine invertebrates; they are able to use their long bill to burrow deep for earthworms and other deeper burrowing invertebrates. This species is known to occur within the project area (Pardieck et al 2019). Short-eared Owl The short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) is a medium-sized ground nesting owl, observed nesting in Box Elder county starting in April. It frequently flies during daylight, especially at dusk and dawn, as it forages for rodents. This owl is usually found in grasslands, shrublands, and other open habitats. It is nomadic, often choosing a new breeding site each year, depending on local rodent densities. Nests are generally located in slight depressions, often beside or beneath a bush or clump of grass. No short-eared owl nest locations have been observed within the project area. However, these nests are difficult to identify and only exist from nesting to fledging periods, approximately April 1 through May 15. Suitable breeding habitat is available for the species and the species has been observed within the project area (Pardieck et al 2019). Based on vegetation structure, species composition at assessment, inventory, and monitoring sites, and trend data, it is presumed small rodents and other prey are readily available for the species. Pygmy Rabbit Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensisis) is a sagebrush obligate species, preferring large expanses of dense sagebrush cover and soils that are conducive for constructing large and often complex burrows. This species relies on sagebrush as an important portion of its diet, especially in the winter, when snow covers grasses and forbs. Primary threats to pygmy rabbit include loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation either due to natural events, such as wildfire, or anthropogenic impacts, such as conversion to agricultural land and development. Pygmy rabbit populations in the area have declined and many historic burrow complexes no longer support pygmy rabbits. There is no current research within the project area that addresses the reason for decline. These declines may be associated pinyon and juniper expansion, the spread of cheatgrass, increased fire cycles, and/or historic overgrazing. Pygmy rabbits are known to occur within the project area, and the species is known not to occur in Owl Springs allotment (Biotics Database 2005). These populations tend to overlap with higher density of greater sage-grouse leks in the northern portion of the project area. The distribution of this species is patchy, primarily in plains dominated by big sagebrush and alluvial fans where shrubs occur in dense stands and the soil is relatively deep (Green and Flinders 1980a and 1980b, Dobler and Dixon 1990). The only allotments in the project area where pygmy rabbits have not been recorded are Kilgore, U and I, Owl Springs, and White Lakes. Existing records indicate historic pygmy rabbit burrows are known to occur within 500 feet of the proposed Red Butte Fence. A known population exists approximately three miles southeast of the proposed Junction
21 February 2020
Creek Pipeline. Numerous active burrow complexes are near the proposed trough in the Muddy Creek allotment. Results of a habitat-modelling exercise further indicate that potentially suitable habitat may be present throughout the project area and within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action. Kit Fox Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) is mostly a nocturnal species that inhabits desert scrub, chaparral, and grassland habits, including sagebrush and saltbush communities. Kit fox opportunistically eat small mammals, small birds, reptiles, invertebrates, and plant matter (NatureServe 2019). The primary food item for kit fox is usually the most abundant nocturnal rodent or lagomorph in the area such as kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.) or black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) (McGrew 1977; NatureServe 2019). Kit fox are communal animals, often occupying large and complex dens where they have refuge and their young develop. Mating generally occurs during the winter months, from December to February, with pupping occurring in March and April. Individual kit fox home ranges reportedly have been increased in Utah, suggesting an overall potential decline in population density and abundance (Utah Wildlife Action Plan Joint Team 2015). Kit fox are known to occur throughout Box Elder County, and available records show kit fox have been observed within less than one mile of multiple proposed troughs in the Owl Springs allotment (Biotics Database 2005). These are mortality records, and specimens were collected along roadsides. Den locations are unknown, however it is reasonable to assume kit fox are present within the project area. Dark Kangaroo Mouse The dark kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus) occurs primarily in the Great Basin ecoregion of the western United States. In Utah, the species occurs in the West Desert, typically in sagebrush areas with sandy soils (Biotics Database 2005). Dark kangaroo mice are nocturnal and primarily active during warm weather, remaining in underground burrows during the day and during cold winter months. The species has a relatively small home range and likely disperses no further than a couple hundred meters (NatureServe 2019) despite being capable of movements up to a couple of kilometers. Females give birth to a litter of two to seven young during late spring or early summer, and may produce more than one litter per year. The dark kangaroo mouse primarily eats seeds, but insects are also consumed. Food is sometimes stored in burrows for later use. Dark kangaroo mice do not seem to need a free water source, apparently obtaining the water they need from their food. Dark kangaroo mouse is known to occur in the southern portion of Box Elder County and may be present in the southern portion of the project area; however, species occurrence is unknown. Boreal Toad Boreal toads (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) are managed under a State of Utah Management Plan (UDWR 2005b). Boreal toads can be found in a broad variety of habitats, in the vicinity of slow moving or still water anywhere from sea level to more than 11,000 feet in elevation. However, during breeding season, they are generally located near permanent or temporary waterbodies with shallow, sandy bottoms. Following breeding, they move to terrestrial habitats, including forests and grasslands. Boreal toads are known to breed in ponds and springs in western Box
22 February 2020
Elder County and records indicate that they are present in various habitats throughout the project area (UDWR 2005b). While many boreal toad populations are threatened by the chytrid fungus, which can cause mass mortality among amphibian populations, it is not currently detected within the project area. Additionally, this species suffers from loss of habitat, including vital wetlands, which can isolate populations. Least Chub Least chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) is managed under the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Least Chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) in the State of Utah (UDWR 2005a). Least chub is a species endemic to the Bonneville Basin. This small fish species exists in lentic habitats; as such, populations are susceptible to changes in water level, including spring discharge, as well as vegetation encroachment and impacts from grazing. This species spawns in shallow vegetated areas from April through August. The diet of this species is comprised of insect larvae and algae. It is tolerant to changes in its environment, such as temperature, pH, and salinity. Least chub historically existed in Lake Bonneville. Current populations are found in remnants of the lake’s isolated spring complexes. All least chub in Box Elder County are introduced refuge populations created to increase population resiliency and decrease extinction risk. Within the project area, least chub were introduced into Keg Springs in 2009. Least chub were introduced into Red Knolls pond in 2005. Both populations have been successfully established, demonstrate recruitment following introduction, and are considered refuge populations. Least chub were also introduced and persist in many other ponds within the project area. Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia bouvieri) is a subspecies of cutthroat trout in the salmon (Salmonidae) family, native to the greater Yellowstone area, including portions of the Snake River drainage. It resides in cold, clear streams and mainly feeds on small invertebrates. Yellowstone cutthroat trout historically occurred in the Goose Creek and Raft River drainages, but in Utah, current populations are only known to occur in the Raft River drainage. Bluehead Sucker The bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus) is managed under the Conservation and Management Plan for Three Fish Species in Utah (UDWR 2006a). It is a relatively large-bodied river fish native to the Colorado River Basin and the Upper Snake, Weber, and Bear Rivers of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah (UDWR 2006b). This fish is a benthic species, feeding along the bottom of streams and rivers where it scrapes up algae, organic debris, and aquatic invertebrates (Muth and Snyder 1995). Spawning for this species generally occurs in shallow waters and timing varies based on elevation; however, at higher elevations, this species usually spawns in mid- to late summer. Population decline has occurred as a result of stream diversions, the damming of streams, and the presence of competitive non-native fish species (UDWR 2006a). Based on the Conservation and Management Plan for Three Fish Species in Utah (UDWR 2006a), the nearest surveys for this species occurred in tributaries to Goose Creek, where individuals were not identified (UDWR 2006a). More recent surveys in 2015 documented
23 February 2020
bluehead sucker in Basin Creek which is in the Raft River drainage and Goose Creek (UDWR 2016a). Northern Leatherside Chub Northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei) is a small minnow native to the streams and rivers of the northern portion of the Bonneville and Snake River Basin in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada. While once common throughout its native range, it is now listed as a sensitive species due to substantial decreases in population levels. Northern leatherside chub is managed under a multi-state conservation agreement and strategy. Habitat for this species includes stream channels with healthy riparian vegetation and intact streambanks. Spawning for this species occurs in the spring season during high water and may be influenced by temperature (UDWR 2009b). Within the Lower Snake River drainage, this species has potential occurrence within the Goose Creek drainage (HUC 17040211), specifically within Goose Creek and Beaverdam Creek, Idaho (UDWR 2009b). In 2001, individuals were identified within Goose Creek on the Idaho side of the Utah-Idaho border; tributaries to Goose Creek in Utah were surveyed in 2001, and no individuals were identified (UDWR 2009b). As such, it is possible that this species could occur in the very northwestern extent of the project area. Springsnails The northwest Bonneville pyrg (Pyrgulopsis variegata) and Toquerville pyrg (Pyrgulopsis kolobensis) are springsnail species known to occur in West Box Elder County. Distribution and taxonomy of pyrgulopsis spp is poorly known and there may be more species and locations than currently documented. These and all species of springsnails in Utah are sensitive species that are managed under the Conservation Agreement for Springsnails in Nevada and Utah (BLM 2017). The distribution of Pyrgulopsis is limited to natural springheads and springbrooks and are typically very sensitive to changes in water quality and quantity. They are immobile and highly sensitive to site scale disturbance. They may be locally abundant in springs that are in good condition. Historically, springs and water sources have been developed and utilized for grazing and domestic uses throughout the project area, which has likely resulted in the loss of springs and springsnail populations. 3.2.3 Greater Sage-Grouse The analysis area for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is the BLM’s Box Elder Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA).6 This is the area within which the Proposed Action could affect greater sage-grouse or their habitats. The BLM has designated the greater sage-grouse as a sensitive species and manages Greater sage-grouse habitat in Utah pursuant to the ARMPA (BLM 2015). Similarly, greater sage-grouse are classified by the State of Utah as a sensitive species and are managed by the State in accordance with the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse (Utah 2019). The Box Elder greater sage-grouse population falls within Greater Sage-Grouse Management Zone IV and is part of Northern Great Basin greater sage-grouse population, identified in the
6 The State of Utah’s plan identifies eleven Greater Sage-grouse Management Areas (SGMA) in Utah. The Box Elder SGMA is similar to the boundaries of BLM’s Box Elder PHMA.
24 February 2020
2004 Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment (Connelly et al. 2004). Greater sage-grouse require large, intact, interconnected expanses of sagebrush shrubland for winter, breeding, nesting, and summering habitats to sustain a population (Connelly et al. 2011). The species is vulnerable to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation from development, infrastructure, inappropriate grazing management, and other disturbances (USFWS 2013). Key threats specific to the Box Elder greater sage-grouse population include wildfire, introduction/spread of invasive species, conifer encroachment, agricultural conversion, mining, infrastructure, and recreation (USFWS 2013). Within the Box Elder PHMA, there has been gradual change in vegetation and therefore greater sage-grouse habitat. Pinyon-juniper and invasive annual grasses have increased on the landscape. The occurrence and size of wildfires has also increased in the area and contributed to the vegetation changes. Multiple vegetation treatments have occurred on public and private lands within the Box Elder PHMA including sagebrush treatments, pinyon-juniper removal, seedings (including post-fire recovery), herbicide treatment, prescribed fire, and riparian rehabilitation. The BLM considers PHMA to be the highest value habitat for maintaining sustainable populations of greater sage-grouse. Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) are subsets of PHMA and area nationally recognized as areas with the highest densities of greater sage-grouse and important for greater sage-grouse persistence (BLM 2015). The Box Elder PHMA encompasses 70,209 acres of SFA, 1,135,700 acres of PHMA, and 67 known leks (Figure 6). The Box Elder greater sage- grouse population supports one of the largest greater sage-grouse populations in Utah. Based on lek counts from 1998 to 2017, the Box Elder greater sage-grouse population is estimated to range between 1,316 and 4,652 birds (PLPCO 2019). Lek counts between 1994 and 2013 indicated a stable population (BLM, Forest Service, 2015) and the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report considered this population stable with potential for growth (USFWS 2013). Within the Box Elder PHMA, Utah DWR identifies 725,070 acres of modelled breeding habitat, 495,508 acres of modelled summer habitat, and 716,900 acres of modelled winter greater sage- grouse seasonal habitats (USU 2017). The project area overlaps with brood-rearing, summer, and winter habitats. Within much of the Junction Creek, Red Butte, Muddy Creek allotments, there is identified greater sage-grouse brood-rearing, summer, and winter habitat. The Keg Springs allotment overlaps with some breeding and summer habitat while winter habitat is identified throughout the allotment. The Owl Springs allotment has greater sage-grouse breeding and wintering habitat in the northern, narrow section of the allotment. The U & I allotment has greater sage-grouse breeding habitat identified in the western section of the allotment and wintering habitat identified in the north and western portion of the allotment. In terms of life history, during winter, the availability of sagebrush above the snowpack determines greater sage-grouse distribution. Local research suggests that greater sage-grouse heavily use black sagebrush during winter (Thacker 2010). During the spring and summer months, greater sage-grouse utilize a variety of habitats. Leks are open sites surrounded by sagebrush habitat where males perform a strutting display for females as a courtship ritual. Habitat for nesting includes areas of sagebrush with high canopy cover and horizontal understory vegetation obscurity from predator detection. As spring progresses, greater sage-grouse take advantage of available arthropods and preferred herbaceous vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation and the associated arthropods are critical for chick survival after hatching. As the summer progresses and vegetation desiccates, greater sage-grouse (both brood and non-brood rearing) move to where green vegetation is available at higher elevations, riparian areas, draws, and/or
25 February 2020
agricultural fields (Knick and Connelly 2011). In the fall months, greater sage-grouse begin to transition between their summer and winter habitats, based largely on the weather conditions. In general, birds begin to move away from their summer habitat once herbaceous vegetation and invertebrates are no longer available. During this period, the birds move to their wintering habitat and transition to a diet consisting primarily of sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011). Lek locations are generally good indicators of surrounding nesting habitat and are sometimes located near winter habitat where leks are used as greater sage-grouse transition from winter habitat to nesting habitat. In the southern portion of the Box Elder PHMA, telemetry data indicates that lek locations coincide with winter habitats in areas of sagebrush flats (Knerr 2007). Furthermore, in the late spring, many greater sage-grouse are moving up in elevation and to the north or to alfalfa fields (Knerr 2007, Graham 2013). In particular, the Kimball Creek, Cotton Thomas Basin, and the Goose Creek area received use by radio-marked birds during the summer months (Knerr 2007, Graham 2013). Greater sage-grouse have also been documented moving from the southeast part of the Box Elder PHMA to the Red Butte Creek during the summer (Sandford pers. comm. 2019). 3.2.4 Migratory Birds The analysis area for migratory birds is the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could affect migratory birds or their habitats. A variety of migratory bird species use habitats within the analysis area for breeding, nesting, and foraging. Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA with eagle species afforded additional protection under the BGEPA. Under EO 13186, federal agencies are responsible for implementing the provisions of the MBTA by promoting conservation principles and management practices. Federal agencies must ensure that federal actions are evaluated for potential impacts on migratory birds. The BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) operate under an agreement (BLM MOU WO-230-2010-04), which provides management direction to integrate the conservation of migratory birds. This agreement provides direction for evaluating the effects of agency actions on migratory birds through the NEPA process. This includes identifying potential measurable negative effects on migratory bird populations, focusing first on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. In such situations, the BLM would implement approaches to lessen the negative effects. USFWS’s Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) report identifies migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as threatened or endangered) that, without additional conversation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. The BCC report lists bird species by Bird Conservation Regions (BCR). The project area falls within BCR 9: Great Basin (USFWS 2008). The Avian Conservation Strategy (ACS) published by the Utah Partners in Flight (UPIF) Program also ranks bird species and habitat types according to their need for conservation action (Parrish et al. 2002). The BLM uses the BCC report as well as UPIF’s ACS when analyzing effects of proposed management actions and formulating appropriate conservation measures. Species identified on these lists with potential to inhabit the project area are presented in Table 4.
26 February 2020
Table 4. List of migratory birds with potential to occur within the project area. Common Name (Scientific Name) BLM-Listed Great Basin Birds Utah Primary Breeding Secondary Breeding Winter Habitat Sensitive of Conservation Partners Habitat Habitat Species Concern (Region 9) in Flight (USFWS 2008) American avocet (Recurvirostra americana) Wetland Playa Migrant American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) Water Wetland Migrant Black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) Wetland Playa Migrant Black-throated gray warbler (Setophaga nigrescens) Pinyon-Juniper Mountain Shrub Migrant Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) Wet Meadow Agriculture Migrant Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Shrubsteppe High Desert Scrub Migrant Broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus) Lowland Riparian Mountain Riparian Migrant Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) High Desert Scrub Grassland Migrant Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) Water Wetland Migrant Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Pinyon- Juniper Shrubsteppe Grassland Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Cliff High Desert Scrub High Desert Scrub Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Grassland Grassland Migrant Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) Mountain Shrub High Desert Scrub Migrant Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Ponderosa Pine Lowland Riparian Northern Oak Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) High Desert Scrub Pinyon-Juniper High Desert Scrub Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Grassland Agriculture Migrant Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Cliff Lowland Riparian Wetland Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) Pinyon-Juniper Ponderosa Pine Pinyon-Juniper Sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) Shrubsteppe High Desert Scrub Low Desert Scrub Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe Migrant Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Shrubsteppe Grassland Shrubsteppe Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Wetland Grassland Agriculture Snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus) Playa Playa Migrant Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Lowland Riparian Mountain Riparian Migrant
27 February 2020
Habitat for various migratory bird life history requirements, including nesting, breeding, foraging, and migration stopover areas, is provided by a variety of vegetation within the project area. This vegetation includes sagebrush steppe, shrub steppe, desert scrub, riparian areas, grasslands, and pinyon juniper woodlands. In general, migratory bird nesting activity occurs between January 1 and August 31 with the primary nesting season and most activity occurring between April 1 and July 1. 3.2.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species The analysis area for wildlife, excluding special status species, is the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could affect these species or their habitat. The project area encompasses habitat for an array of wildlife, including big game, small game, and non-game species. Based on data from the UDWR, the following habitats exists throughout the project area: substantial summer and substantial and crucial winter habitat for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus); substantial summer habitat for pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana); crucial winter and year-long habitat for rocky mountain elk (Cervus canadensis), general cougar habitat (Puma concolor), and general moose (Alces alces) habitat. Additionally, habitat is present year-round for game birds and a variety of reptile species, including various snake and lizard species. The UDWR primarily focuses management efforts on big game species. Big Game The success of big game populations can be attributed to suitable habitat conditions, resource availability, presence of necessary refuge, and the level of biogenic and anthropogenic disturbances. Critical periods of an animal’s life cycle can leave them particularly vulnerable to disturbances related to human activity. Big game species are important for hunting and viewing opportunities, both of which are popular activities in Utah. The State of Utah has divided the big game ranges into two categories: those having substantial value and those having crucial value. Substantial value habitat is defined as habitat used by wildlife species that is not vital for the population’s survival, as degradation or lack of substantial value habitat would not result in species decline. Crucial value habitat is defined as that essential to the life history requirements of a wildlife species survival because there are no alternative ranges of habitat available. Degradation or unavailability of crucial habitat would lead to declines in carrying capacity and/or population size. For example, crucial winter range can be where big game migrate to lower elevations and compete for limited resources, which may limit populations (UDWR 2014). Big game are also vulnerable during fawning and calving periods, as mothers tend to their young by providing food resources and protection from predators. Big game habitat data is provided in Table 5, identifying the acres of important habitat within the project area, by species. Table 5. Big game habitat acreages within the project area. Habitat Type Mule Deer Pronghorn Elk Moose Crucial Winter 308,056 N/A 35,459 N/A Crucial Yearlong N/A N/A 283,258 N/A Substantial Winter 1,079 N/A N/A N/A Substantial Summer 51,035 250,306 N/A N/A
28 February 2020
Habitat Type Mule Deer Pronghorn Elk Moose Substantial Yearlong N/A N/A N/A 357,103 Mule Deer The Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan (UDWR 2014) provides guidance for mule deer population management in Utah. The plan identifies mule deer populations by herd units, where each herd unit has a unique management plan. The project area is fully within Deer Herd Unit #1 (Box Elder), which is further parsed into three subunits: 1A (West Box Elder County), 1B (East Box Elder County), and 1C (portions of Tooele, Salt Lake, and Weber Counties north of I-80 and west of I-15). The project area lies within Subunit 1A and per the Deer Herd Unit #1 Management Plan (UDWR 2013a), the management goals for this unit include: Managing for a population of healthy animals capable of providing a broad range of recreational opportunities, including hunting and viewing; balancing deer herd impacts on human needs, such as private property rights, agricultural crops, and local economies; and maintaining the population at a level that is within the long-term capability of the available habitat to support (UDWR 2013a). The project area encompasses 308,056 acres of crucial winter habitat and 51,035 acres of substantial summer habitat. Despite current management efforts, several factors continue to threaten the quality and quantity of available habitats to Utah herds, including Subunit 1A. These factors include the following: • Pinyon and juniper forest encroachment, limiting understory density of forbs and shrubs; • Increased wildfire frequency and intensity; and • Introduction and proliferation of weeds, such as cheatgrass, altering the natural wildlife paradigms. Pronghorn The Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan (UDWR 2017) provides guidance for pronghorn population management in Utah. The statewide goals for pronghorn management include: maintaining a viable population of pronghorn in all suitable habitat within the State; assuring sufficient habitat is available to sustain healthy and productive populations; and providing high quality opportunities for hunting and viewing of pronghorn. The vast majority of pronghorn populations occur in shrub-steppe and grassland habitat throughout the State. As of 2017, the pronghorn population estimate within Box Elder County (Herd Unit #1) was 955 and was generally trending up on a predicted 5- and 10-year trend. The project area encompasses approximately 250,000 acres of substantial summer habitat, which largely encompasses shrub-steppe and grassland habitat where succulent forbs and grasses occur, providing nutrition and water. Elk The Utah Elk Statewide Management Plan (UDWR 2015a) provides guidance for elk population management in Utah. The plan assigns herd units to more efficiently manage elk populations in the State. The project area encompasses Elk Herd Unit #1 (Box Elder). Management Plan goals for Herd Unit #1 include: managing for a population of healthy animals capable of providing a broad range of recreational opportunities; considering impacts of the elk herd on other land uses and public interests including private property rights, agricultural crops, and local economies; maintaining the population at a level that is within the long-term capability of the available
29 February 2020
habitat; and prioritize habitat restoration and enhancement efforts to help minimize the loss of grasslands to juniper and cheatgrass expansion, infilling, and/or conversion. Elk require quality habitat with a variety of food types for their diet comprised of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. While elk utilize a variety of habitats throughout the State, they prefer summer habitat at high elevations in aspen-conifer forests. During winter months, they generally move to lower elevation habitats comprised of mountain shrub and sagebrush habitats. Water is an important component of habitat; in general, a lack of water availability and distribution could limit the presence of elk. The project area encompasses approximately 35,000 acres of crucial winter habitat and approximately 283,000 acres of crucial yearlong habitat. Moose The Utah Moose Statewide Management Plan (UDWR 2017b) provides guidance for moose population management in Utah. The goals of the Management Plan include achieving optimum populations of moose in all suitable habitat within the State; assuring sufficient habitat is available to sustain healthy and productive moose populations; and providing high-quality opportunities for hunting and viewing of moose. The most recent population estimate (UDWR 2017b) for moose throughout Utah is 2,650 individuals, with the majority residing in the northern half of Utah. Moose require habitat that includes shrubs and young deciduous trees throughout most of the year. In northern Utah (including the project area), moose are generally associated with river bottoms, ponds, and lakes, which are often associated with an abundance of shrubby and aquatic vegetation (UDWR 2017b). Moose populations in northern Utah have also done well in more dry habitats, dominated by mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii), serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and burned coniferous forests (UDWR 2017b); moose utilize thick stands of conifers for shelter in the winter and to stay cool during the heat of summer. The project area encompasses approximately 357,000 acres of substantial yearlong habitat. Big Game Trends Every 5 years, the UDWR publishes regional big game range trend studies. The Utah Big Game Range Trend Studies: Northern Region (UDWR 2016) states the ability to detect changes in vegetation composition (range trend) on big game winter ranges is an important part of the big game management program. The health and vigor of big game populations are closely correlated to the quality and quantity of forage in key areas. The project area is fully within Unit 1, which includes all of Box Elder County. The trend analysis investigated several habitats in Box Elder County at specified study locations, primarily within the northeastern region of the county, which encompasses portions of the project area. In general, mule deer, elk, and cattle were the primary occupants of the investigated habitats and in most habitats occupancy of these species was down, relative to previous study years (Table 6).
30 February 2020
Table 6. Occupancy trends by habitat within Box Elder County (Unit 1). Habitat Primary Overall Mean Abundance Range (days use/acre) Habitat Occupant Occupancy Condition* Trend (days use/acre) Mountain Elk Decrease Elk: 15 days use/acre (2016) – 23 days use/acre (2001); Good (sagebrush) Mule deer: 7 days use/acre (2016) – 17 days use/acre (2016); (deer summer range) Cattle: 1 day use/acre (2016) – 7 days use/acre (2006) Mountain Cattle N/A Cattle: 0 days use/acre (2006) – 30 days use/acre (2011) Poor (black Mule deer: 0 days use/acre (2016) – 6 days use/acre (2001) (deer winter range) sagebrush) Upland Mule deer Decrease Mule deer: 12 days use/acre (2016) – 22 days use/acre (2001); Very Poor to Fair (sagebrush) Elk <1 days use/acre (2001) – 2 days use/acre (2016); (deer winter range) Cattle: 2 days use/acre (2016) – 12 days use/acre (2006) Upland Mule deer Decrease Mule deer: 5 days use/acre (2001) – 27 days use/acre (2006); Poor (black Elk: 0 days use/acre (2006, 2011, 2016) – 71 days use/acre (2001); (deer winter range) sagebrush) Cattle: 0 days use/acre (2001, 2016) – 4 days use/acre (2011) Upland Mule deer Decrease Mule deer: 17 days use/acre (2016) – 78 days use/acre (2006); Good (browse) Elk: 0 days use/acre (2001, 20016, 2016) – 5 days use/acre (2011); (deer summer range) Cattle: 3 days use/acre (2011) – 8 days use/acre (2006) Semidesert Mule deer Decrease Mule deer: 14 days use/acre (2016) – 26 days use/acre (2001); Fair (sagebrush) Elk: 0 days use/acre (2001, 2006, 2011) – 0.7 days use/acre (2016); (deer winter range) Cattle: 0 days use/acre (2001) – 2 days use/acre (2016) Semidesert Mule deer Increase Mule deer: 15.5 days use/acre (2001) – 24 days use/acre (2016); Poor-fair to Good (black Elk: 3 days use/acre (2016) – 11 days use/acre (2011); (deer winter and elk sagebrush) yearlong range) Cattle: 2 days use/acre (2001) – 8 days use/acre (2011) Horse: 0 days use/acre (2001, 2006) – 0.3 days use/acre (2011, 2016) *Source: UDWR (2016) Results of the trend analysis suggest that mule deer are the most commonly observed occupant throughout Unit #1 across all habitat types investigated; however, there is a general decrease in big game occupancy throughout the Unit (UDWR 2016). Overall, the greatest identified threats to the habitat conditions throughout Unit #1 include spread and proliferation of invasive weed species that threaten the native herbaceous understory and encroachment of pinyon-juniper communities. Cougar The Utah Cougar Management Plan Version 3 (UDWR 2015b) provides guidance for cougar population management in Utah. The goal of the management plan is to “maintain a healthy cougar population in their current distribution while considering human safety, economic concerns, other wildlife species, and maintaining hunting through 2025.” (UDWR 2015b). A healthy population is defined as one where there is a reasonable proportion of older age individuals; breeding females are present; individuals are considered healthy; there is a balance with their natural prey; and genetic variability within the population. The project area is fully within the Great Basin Management Area, which encompasses all of Box Elder County. Cougars utilize a broad and diverse array of habitats within Utah, including semi-arid, low elevation pinion-juniper communities and high elevation aspen-conifer forests. Their primary prey species are mule deer and elk; however, in areas where deer and elk co-exist, cougars generally select deer as prey (UDWR 2015b). To date, most research suggests that predation by cougars alone is not a major limiting factor in prey species abundance (mule deer
31 February 2020
and elk). The current estimate of cougar population size is 2,927 throughout Utah (UDWR 2015b). 3.2.6 Fish Habitat The analysis area for fish habitats is the HUC 12 subwatersheds crossed by the project area. This area represents the area within which the projects considered in this EA may affect fish and fish habitat. Perennial springs, streams, and rivers in the project area provide habitat for several fish species; both native and non-native. As noted in the Section 3.2.9, streams within the project area are designated for the cold-water fishery/aquatic life beneficial use; therefore, providing habitat for cold-water species. The hydrology is largely driven by snowmelt and springs. In general, past and present water development and habitat fragmentation from diversions have impacted fish habitat in this analysis area. Native fish that may be present within the project area include Yellowstone cutthroat trout, northern leatherside chub, bluehead sucker, and least chub, which are discussed in Section 4.2.2. Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and non-native fish species also may be present in the project area. The Raft River is a popular trout fishery. The Raft River watershed, Keg Springs and Red Knolls provide important habitat for fish and aquatic species as described Section 3.2.92 and Section 4.2.2. 3.2.7 Soils and Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species The analysis area for soils and vegetation is the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could cause surface disturbance. Soils Description of the soils in the project area is based on the 1985 Soil Survey of Box Elder County, Utah, Western Part (UT601), published by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (NRCS 1997). The project site is in Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 28, Land Resource Unit A, North Desert Zone. Soil characteristics that can affect construction or increase the potential for soil impacts include highly erodible soils, prime farmland, hydric soils, compaction-prone soils, presence of shallow bedrock, droughty soils, depth of topsoil, and steep slopes. Additionally, revegetation potential, soil chemistry, and presence of biological soil crusts may be relevant factors in addressing soil impacts of range improvement activities. The primary soils in the project area are arid soils, originating from lacustrine deposits and alluvium derived from limestone and quartzite. The geographic positions of these soils are lake plains, lake terraces, deltas, alluvial fans and basin floors. Soils are well drained and usually dry, but moist in winter and spring and for brief periods in late summer due to convection storms. Table 7 lists the soil types in the analysis area. Table 7. Soil types in the project area. Soil Type Acres % of Project Area Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) 133,272.5 27.0% Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) 75,677.6 15.0% Skumpah-Playas (s7775) 72,387.1 15.0% Rock outcrop-Rexmont-Clavicon (s7781) 70,287.2 14.0% Wilsongulch-Tomsherry-Cottonthomas-Coalbank-Bluehill (s1975) 30,257.4 6.0%
32 February 2020
Soil Type Acres % of Project Area Ridgecrest family-Parkay family-Eyre family-Broad Canyon family-Bickmore family (s7783) 28,841.6 6.0% Ridgecrest family-Parkay family-Broad Canyon family-Bickmore family (s7784) 25,636.4 5.0% Tosser-Sitar-Hiko Peak-Bezzant (s7778) 24,862.5 5.0% Tarnach-Cliffdown (s7782) 11,340.7 2.0% Declo-Darkbull (s1836) 8,301.5 1.5% Rock outcrop-Promo-Cliffdown (s7776) 7,019.8 1.0% Rock outcrop-Ola-Itca-Birchcreek-Arbone (s1844) 3,432.9 1.0% Tarnach-Cliffdown (s5571) 2,888.7 1.0% Skumpah-Saltair-Playas-Dynal (s8102) 206.4 0.5% TOTAL 494,412.3 100.0% The soil types in the project area are described below, in order from most prevalent to least prevalent soil type. Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) This soils unit has shallow, moderately deep, and very deep, well drained, nearly level and gently sloping soils; on fan terraces in a semidesert climatic zone. The vegetation is mainly Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) on the Lembos soils, black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) on the Acana soils, and Wyoming big sagebrush and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) on the Kunzler soils. This unit is used dominantly for rangeland or wildlife habitat. A few areas are used as irrigated cropland. The soils in this unit are slightly to moderately susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and moderately susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) This soils unit has moderately deep and very deep, well drained, gently sloping to moderately steep soils; these soils are located on fan terraces in an upland climatic zone. The vegetation is mainly Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and Wyoming big sagebrush on the Dahar soils; antelope bitterbrush, mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) on the Bullump soils; and Wyoming big sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) on the Raftriver soils. This unit is used dominantly for rangeland, wildlife habitat, or woodland. A few areas are used for irrigated or dryland crops. The soils in this unit are very slightly to moderately susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and slightly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Skumpah-Playas (s7775) This soils unit have playas and very deep, well drained, near level soils; these soils are located on lake plains and lake terraces in a desert climatic zone. The vegetation on the Skumpah soils is mainly xerophytic shrubs, grasses, and annual weeds. This unit is used dominantly for rangeland or wildlife habitat. A few areas are used as irrigated cropland. The soils in this unit are highly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and moderately susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Rock Outcrop-Rexmont-Clavicon (s7781) This soils unit has rock outcrop and shallow and moderately deep, well drained, and somewhat excessively drained, moderately steep and steep soils; these soils are located on hillsides in an
33 February 2020
upland climatic zone. The vegetation is mainly Utah juniper on the Rexmont soils. This unit is used for rangeland, wildlife habitat, or woodland. The soils in this unit are very slightly to slightly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and very slightly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Wilsongulch-Tomsherry-Cottonthomas-Coalbank-Bluehill (s1975) This soils unit has moderately deep and very deep, well drained, nearly level to strongly sloping soils; these soils are located on fan terraces in an upland climatic zone. The vegetation is mainly Wyoming big sagebrush, Nevada bluegrass (Poa nevadensis), Utah juniper, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum). This unit is used mainly for rangeland, wildlife habitat, or woodland. A few areas are used for irrigated or dryland crops. The soils in this unit are moderately to very highly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and highly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Ridgecrest family-Parkay Family-Eyre family-Broad Canyon Family-Bickmore family (s7783) This soils unit has moderately deep to very deep, well drained, gently sloping to very steep soils; these soils are located on mountainsides and ridges in mountain and high mountain climatic zones. The vegetation is mainly mountain big sagebrush, spike fescue (Leucopoa kingii), basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), and slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus) on the Parkay family and Bickmore family soils and low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscular) and bluebunch wheatgrass on the Broad Canyon family soils. This unit is used for rangeland, wildlife habitat, or woodland. The soils in this unit are slightly to very slightly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and very slightly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Ridgecrest Family-Parkay Family-Broad Canyon Family-Bickmore Family (s7784) This soils unit has moderately deep to very deep, well drained, gently sloping to very steep soils; these soils are located on mountainsides and ridges in mountain and high mountain climatic zones. The vegetation is mainly mountain big sagebrush, spike fescue, basin wildrye, and slender wheatgrass on the Parkay family and Bickmore family soils and low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass on the Broad Canyon family soils. This unit is used for rangeland, wildlife habitat, or woodland. The soils in this unit are very slightly to slightly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water and very slightly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Tosser-Sitar-Hiko Peak-Bezzant (s7778) This soils unit has very deep, well drained, nearly level to moderately steep soils; these soils are located on fan terraces and lake terraced alluvial fans in a semidesert climatic zone. The vegetation is mainly black sagebrush on the Tosser soils and Wyoming big sagebrush on the Sitar and Hiko Peak soils. This unit is used dominantly for rangeland or wildlife habitat. It is also used for improved pasture. The soils in this unit are very slightly to moderately susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and very slightly to moderately susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Tarnach-Cliffdown (s7782) This soils unit has shallow and very deep, well drained and somewhat excessively drained, strongly sloping to very steep soils; these soils are located on hillsides, ridges, and alluvial fans in desert and semidesert climatic zones. The vegetation is mainly Utah juniper, black sagebrush and grasses on the Tarnach soils and shadscale saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia) and Indian
34 February 2020
ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) on the Cliffdown soils. This unit is used for rangeland or wildlife habitat. The soils in this unit are slightly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and very slightly to slightly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Declo-Darkbull (s1836) This soils unit has very deep, well drained, nearly level to strongly sloping soils; these soils are located on fan terraces in a semidesert climatic zone. The vegetation is dominated by shadscale saltbush, bottlebrush squirreltail, and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) on the Declo soils and cheatgrass on the Darkbull soils. This unit is used mainly for rangeland or wildlife habitat. A few areas are used as irrigated cropland or pasture. The soils in this unit are very slightly to moderately susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and moderately susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Rock Outcrop-Promo-Cliffdown (s7776) This soils unit has rock outcrop and shallow and very deep, well drained and somewhat excessively drained, gently sloping to moderately steep soils; these soils are located on lake terraced alluvial fans and hillsides in desert and semidesert climatic zones. Rock outcrop consists of barren, exposed ridges and ledges of limestone and other sedimentary rocks. Promo soils are on hillsides associated with the Rock outcrop. The vegetation is mainly shadscale saltbush, bud sagebrush (Picrothamnus desertorum), and bottlebrush squirreltail on the Cliffdown soils and back sagebrush, shadscale saltbush, and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) on the Promo soils. This unit is used for rangeland or wildlife habitat. The soils in this unit are slightly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and very slightly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Rock Outcrop-Ola-Itca-Birchcreek-Arbone (s1844) This soils unit has rock outcrop and shallow and moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in colluvium and residuum derived from volcanic, intrusive igneous, and metamorphic rocks. The dominant natural vegetation on Ola soils is Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, antelope bitterbrush, and mountain big sagebrush with widely scattered ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). The vegetation on Itca soils is mainly a forest canopy of singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophyla) and Utah juniper with an understory of mountain big sagebrush, Idaho fescue, antelope bitterbrush, and grasses. This unit is mainly used for forestland, livestock grazing, rangeland, and wildlife habitat. The soils in this unit have medium or high surface runoff and moderately low to moderately high saturated hydraulic conductivity (USDA 2016a, USDA 2016b). Tarnach-Cliffdown (s5571) The soils in this unit are shallow and very deep, well drained and somewhat excessively drained, on strongly sloping to very steep slopes; on hillsides, ridges, and alluvial fans in desert and semidesert climatic zones. The vegetation is mainly Utah juniper, black sagebrush, and grasses on the Tarnach soils and shadscale saltbush and Indian ricegrass on the Cliffdown soils. This unit is used for rangeland or wildlife habitat. The soils in this unit are slightly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and very slightly to slightly susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Skumpah-Saltair-Playas-Dynal (s8102) The soils in this unit are playas and very deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils; these soils are located on lake plains in a desert climatic zone. The vegetation on the Saltair soils is mainly
35 February 2020
pickleweed and inland saltgrass. The vegetation on the Skumpah soils is mainly xerophytic shrubs, grasses, and annual weeds. The vegetation on the Dynal soils is mainly shadscale saltbush, black greasewood, Torrey seepweed (Suaeda moquinii (Torr.)), and bud sagebrush. This unit is used mainly for rangeland or wildlife habitat. The soils in this unit are slightly to highly susceptible to sheet and rill erosion by water, and moderately to extremely susceptible to wind erosion (NRCS 1997). Vegetation The natural vegetation communities of the project area (site potential) are primarily Inter- Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Inter-Mountain Basin Mixed Salt Desert Shrub (LANDFIRE 2008). Succession conditions range from highly invaded uncharacteristic exotic vegetation (predominantly cheatgrass) to current vegetative states with mid-seral succession or disturbance related dynamics, such as structural development or fire frequency. Microphytic crusts commonly occur in the interspaces between shrubs, providing stabilization and nitrogen fixation to the soil, retaining soil moisture and discouraging annual weed growth. Table 8 lists the land cover types in the analysis area. Table 8. Land cover types in the project area. LANDFIRE Vegetation Type Acres % of Project Area Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 108,706.8 22.0% Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 106,502.9 21.5% Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 85,430.4 17.3% Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 80,136.1 16.2% Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 35,518.2 7.2% Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual Grassland 28,293.9 5.7% Other 23,770.0 4.8% Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 12,124.6 2.5% Barren 8,971.0 1.8% Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 4,958.5 1.0% TOTAL 494,412.3 100.0% Land cover types in the project area are described below, in order from most prevalent to least prevalent. Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland This ecological system occurs throughout much of the western United States, typically in broad basins between mountain ranges, plains, and foothills between 1,500 and 2,300 m elevation. Soils are typically deep, well-drained and non-saline. These shrublands are dominated by basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentate) and/or Wyoming big sagebrush. Scattered junipers (Juniperus spp.), greasewood, and saltbush (Atriplex spp.) may be present in some stands. Rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), antelope bitterbrush, or mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) may codominate disturbed stands. Perennial herbaceous components typically contribute less than 25% vegetative cover. Common graminoid species include Indian ricegrass, blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), Idaho fescue, needle and thread (Hesperostipa comate), basin
36 February 2020
wildrye, James’ galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), Sandberg bluegrass, or bluebunch wheatgrass (LANDFIRE 2016). Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub This extensive ecological system includes open-canopied shrublands of typically saline basins, alluvial slopes and plains across the Intermountain western United States. This type also extends in limited distribution into the southern Great Plains. Substrates are often saline and calcareous, medium- to fine-textured, alkaline soils, but include some coarser-textured soils. The vegetation is characterized by a typically open to moderately dense shrubland composed of one or more saltbush (Atriplex) species such as shadscale saltbush, fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), cattle saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa), or spiny saltbush (Atriplex spinifera). Other shrubs present may include Wyoming big sagebrush, yellow rabbitbrush, rubber rabbitbrush, Nevada ephedra (Ephedra nevadensis), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinose), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), desert-thorn (Lycium spp.), bud sagebrush, or horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.). Greasewood is generally absent, but if present does not codominate. The herbaceous layer varies from sparse to moderately dense and is dominated by perennial graminoids, such as Indian ricegrass, blue grama, thickspike wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, James’ galleta, big galleta (Pleuraphis rigida), Sandberg bluegrass, or alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides). Various forbs are also present (LANDFIRE 2016). Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland This ecological system occurs in the Great Basin on dry flats and plains, alluvial fans, rolling hills, rocky hillslopes, saddles and ridges at elevations between 1,000 and 2,600 m. Sites are dry, often exposed to desiccating winds, with typically shallow, rocky, non-saline soils. Shrublands are dominated by black sagebrush (mid and low elevations) and little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscular) (higher elevation),and may be codominated by Wyoming big sagebrush or yellow rabbitbrush. Other shrubs that may be present include shadscale saltbush, ephedra, rabbitbrush, spiny hopsage, Shockley’s desert-thorn, bud sagebrush, greasewood, and horsebrush. The herbaceous layer is likely sparse and composed of perennial bunch grasses such as Indian ricegrass, desert needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosum), Thurber’s needlegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, or Sandberg bluegrass (LANDFIRE 2016). Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland This ecological system occurs on dry mountain ranges of the Great Basin region and eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. It is typically found at lower elevations ranging from 1,600 to 2,600 m. These woodlands occur on warm, dry sites on mountain slopes, mesas, plateaus, and ridges. Severe climatic events occurring during the growing season, such as frosts and drought, are thought to limit the distribution of pinyon-juniper woodlands to relatively narrow altitudinal belts on mountainsides. Woodlands dominated by a mix of singleleaf pinyon and Utah juniper, pure or nearly pure occurrences of singleleaf pinyon, or woodlands dominated solely by Utah juniper comprise this system. Curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) is a common associate. Understory layers are variable. Associated species include shrubs such as greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), low sagebrush, black sagebrush, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate), curl-leaf mountain mahogany, littleleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus intricatus), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii), Sonoran scrub oak (Quercus turbinella), and bunch grasses
37 February 2020
needle and thread (Hesperostipa comate), Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, and muttongrass (Poa fendleriana) (LANDFIRE 2016). Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance This alliance is widespread in mountainous areas across the western United States. The vegetation included in this alliance is characterized by an open-to-dense (10‐70% cover) shrub layer in which mountain big sagebrush is codominant, usually with 40‐60% relative cover with non‐sagebrush shrub species such as Utah serviceberry, Bush rockspirea (Holodiscus dumosus), antelope bitterbrush, or mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus). Perennial graminoids typically dominate the open to moderately dense herbaceous layer. The most widespread species are bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue, which occur from the Columbia Basin to the northern Rockies, although they may not be the most abundant species in individual stands. Other locally important species may include western needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale), blue grama, California brome (Bromus carinatus), slender wheatgrass, Thurber’s fescue, greenleaf fescue (Festuca viridula), prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), spike fescue, basin wildrye, western wheatgrass, muttongrass, and Sandberg bluegrass. The forb layer is variable and can be very diverse. Species of Castilleja, Potentilla, Erigeron, Phlox, Astragalus, Geum, Lupinus, and Eriogonum are characteristic. The alliance forms large, continuous stands on mid‐ elevation mountain slopes and foothills, and can extend above the lower tree line as patches within montane or subalpine coniferous forests. Sites are variable and range from flats to steep slopes to ridgetops with deep to shallow rocky soil (LANDFIRE 2016). Invasive Annual Grassland (Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual Grassland) This ecological system is identified by areas that are dominated by introduced annual and/or biennial forb species, such as saltlover (Halogeton glomeratus), kochia (Kochia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), or annual grass species, such as oats (Avena spp.), brome (Bromus spp.), and Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.) (LANDFIRE 2016). Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat This ecological system occurs throughout much of the western United States in Intermountain basins and extends to the western Great Plains. It typically occurs near drainages on stream terraces and flats or may form rings around more sparsely vegetated playas. Sites typically have saline soils, a shallow water table and flood intermittently, but remain dry for most growing seasons. The water table remains high enough to maintain vegetation, despite salt accumulations. This system usually occurs as a mosaic of multiple communities, with open to moderately dense shrublands dominated or codominated by greasewood. Fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), shadscale saltbush, or winterfat may be present and codominant. Occurrences are often surrounded by mixed salt desert scrub. The herbaceous layer, if present, is usually dominated by graminoids. There may be inclusions of alkali sacaton, saltgrass (Distichlis spicate) (where water remains ponded the longest), or common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) (LANDFIRE 2016). Barren This area is characterized by barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15 percent of total cover (LANDFIRE 2016).
38 February 2020
Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow This Rocky Mountain ecological system is restricted to sites in the subalpine zone where finely textured soils, snow deposition, or wind-swept dry conditions limit tree establishment. It is found typically above 3,000 m in elevation in the southern part of its range and above 1,500 m in the northern part. These upland communities occur on gentle to moderate-gradient slopes. The soils are typically seasonally moist to saturated in the spring, but dry out later in the growing season. These sites are not as wet as those found in Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow. Vegetation is typically forb-rich, with forbs contributing more to overall herbaceous cover than graminoids. Important taxa include fleabane (Erigeron spp.), aster (Asteraceae spp.), bluebell (Mertensia spp.), bearded tongue (Penstemon spp.), bellflower (Campanula spp.), lupin (Lupinus spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), osha (Ligusticum spp.), western meadow-rue (Thalictrum occidentale), Sitka valerian (Valeriana sitchensis), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittate), mule’s ears (Wyethia spp.), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), prairie Junegrass, and shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticose) (LANDFIRE 2016). 3.2.8 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds The analysis area for invasive species and noxious weeds is the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could introduce invasive species or noxious weeds. Within the project area, 19 species of invasive or noxious plants are documented in the National Invasive Species Information Management System (NISIMS) database. This documentation likely severely underestimates the level of infestations that occur in this area. Systematic, area- wide inventories would be extremely labor intensive and have not been conducted. Table 9. Noxious weeds documented within the project area.
Common Name (Scientific Name) Number of Documented Infestations Mapped Area of Infestation (acres)
Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) 1 0.5 Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) 2 1.9 Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) 3 2.2 Broadleaved pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) 4 1.0 Whitetop (Cardaria draba) 4 2.0 Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) 5 4.1 Gypsyflower (Cynoglossum officinale) 5 2.8 Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) 8 9.8 Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) 9 121.6 Whitetop (Cardaria ssp.) 18 7.5 Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) 29 21.4 Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) 31 11.7 Nodding plumeless thistle (Carduus nutans) 35 20.2 Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) 94 45.4 Scotch cotton thistle (Onopordum acanthium) 104 92.4 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 153 144.9 Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) 512 247.8 Black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) 525 806.8 TOTAL 1,542 1,543.7
39 February 2020
Cheatgrass is the most prevalent invasive species in the project area, actively invading virtually all present native sagebrush communities. Early germination gives cheatgrass a physiological advantage over native, perennial grasses that germinate later. Therefore, it provides limited competition for water and other resources. As cheatgrass matures in early summer, it creates a wildland fire hazard just as summer lightning storms are beginning to become more prevalent. Although sagebrush species evolved with fire and can recolonize an area after a wildfire, sagebrush plants cannot tolerate frequent, repetitive burns that eliminate all vegetation. Frequent fires are often the result of, and the reason for, expanding invasions of non-native weed species, such as cheatgrass. 3.2.9 Water Resources and Water Quality The analysis area for water resources and water quality is the HUC 12 subwatersheds crossed by the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could affect water resources or water quality. Surface water resources within the project area include perennial and ephemeral streams, springs, and wetland areas. These systems are generally fed by snowmelt and springs/groundwater inputs. Flow in these systems is seasonal and may become scarce during summer months. The development of these surface water resources is managed by the Utah Division of Water Rights. The Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) is responsible [via the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Clean Water Act] for defining the beneficial uses of each of Utah’s water bodies and evaluating their ability to provide for the beneficial uses. Table 10 lists the major streams within the analysis area that were listed in the 2016 UDWQ Integrated Report (UDWQ 2016). All streams within the project area that were listed in the 2016 Integrated Report are designated for the following beneficial uses: 2B (infrequent primary recreation), 3A (cold water fishery/aquatic life), and 4 (agricultural uses). None of the waterbodies within the project area are currently listed as impaired on the Utah Division of Water Quality 303(d) list. While this may be an indication of good water quality and healthy riparian zones, it is due in part to a lack of water quality information available for these systems. While the Raft River and several streams in the northwestern corner of the state contribute to the Snake River watershed, the majority of the project area drains to the Bonneville Basin. The Raft River is born out of the Raft River Mountains, which include the highest elevation areas in the project area. In general, the current condition of water in the analysis area is a result of historic and previous water withdrawals and diversions. During aquatic AIM monitoring in 2016 and 2017 the Raft River was found to have minimal departure from reference conditions for bank and overhead cover, vegetation complexity, and observed/expected macroinvertebrate scores, indicating good-quality fish and aquatic species habit. Monitoring results revealed elevated nitrogen, phosphorus, and specific conductance, which is a moderate departure from the reference condition for water quality. Groundwater resources are present throughout the project area largely within unconsolidated basin-fill deposits (UDWRe 2001). The water quality of these resources is variable, with the highest water quality found near the mountain ranges where recharge occurs. Further from the mountain areas in the valley portions of the project area the groundwater accumulates salts and other chemical compounds. There are numerous springs throughout the project area that naturally transport groundwater to the surface. Many of the springs and their water rights have
40 February 2020 been developed for domestic and livestock purposes within the project area. Groundwater is also brought to the surface artificially via wells and used for domestic and livestock purposes. Keg Springs pond provides important open water and riparian habitats. Keg Springs was developed as a livestock pond prior to the BLM’s land acquisition. Once it was identified as having suitable habitat to support a least chub population, the pond was dredged to increase its depth and habitat complexity and a fence was installed around the perimeter. It currently is an open water pool bordered by emergent wetland vegetation that provides breeding habitat for boreal toad and habitat for a refuge population of least chub. In a 2013 assessment, Keg Springs was found to be in Proper Functioning Condition. Water levels do not fluctuate excessively, and there is a diverse composition and age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation with high vigor. The pond previously had a water gap in the fence to allow livestock access to water but that has since been removed, and the pond is excluded to livestock. Red Knolls Spring, in the Red Butte allotment, is a developed pond in a grazing exclosure that provides important open water and riparian habitats. The pond holds a refuge population of least chub. The spring source has been developed and piped to the pond inside the exclosure and a trough outside the exclosure. Currently, the system is designed with a Y valve that splits water to the trough and to the pond. Overflow from the trough should then return to the pond. A 2015 assessment found Red Knolls Spring to be in Proper Functioning Condition. Table 10. Streams in the project area included in the 2016 UDWQ Integrated Report. Stream Stream ID 2016 Assessment Unit Category Beneficial Uses Category Description Birch Creek UT16020308-008_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data Cottonwood Creek UT16020308-008_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data Goose Creek UT17040211-001_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data Grouse Creek UT16020308-007_00 2 2B, 3A, 4 No evidence of impairment Junction Creek UT17040210-002_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data Muddy Creek UT16020308-010_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data Pine Creek UT16020308-004_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data Pole Creek UT17040211-002_00 2 2B, 3A, 4 No evidence of impairment Raft River UT17040210-01_00 2 2B, 3A, 4 No evidence of impairment Red Butte Creek UT16020308-003_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data South Junction Creek UT17040210-003_00 2 2B, 3A, 4 No evidence of impairment Straight Fork Creek UT16020308-006_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data Warm Creek UT16020308-005_00 3 2B, 3A, 4 Insufficient data 3.2.10 Wetlands and Riparian Zones The analysis area for wetlands and riparian areas is the HUC 12 subwatersheds crossed by the project area. This is the area within which the Proposed Action could affect wetlands and riparian areas. Riparian and wetland zones occur throughout the analysis area and are associated with both perennial and ephemeral water bodies. Vegetation types within riparian and wetland zones include numerous woody species, such as willow species (Salix spp.), Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii), and golden currant (Ribes aureum) and understory grasses, forbs, and grass-like species, such as sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncaceae spp.), horsetails (Equisetum spp.), and
41 February 2020
watercress (Nasturtium spp.). In general, current wetland and riparian habitat is likely reduced in quality and quantity due to previous and present water developments in the analysis area. Riparian/wetland areas serve several key functions within their associated ecosystems. They provide watering sources and habitat for wildlife including avian, mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, and insects/macroinvertebrates. Many species rely on riparian areas for breeding or other key points in their life cycles. These areas are also watering sources and highly productive foraging areas for domestic livestock. Additionally, healthy riparian areas are critical to maintaining the water quality of adjacent water bodies by providing shading and nutrient filtration. In some instances, riparian and wetland plants can establish themselves associated with human created developments such as ditches, canals, and ponds. Keg Springs and Red Knolls Springs are the primary wetland/riparian areas in the project area, in addition to the perennial streams. Each of these springs are described in Section 3.2.10. The perennial streams also support riparian vegetation which is critical for maintaining properly functioning aquatic habitat through providing shade and bank stability to the stream system. BLM has monitored and evaluated these areas through aquatic Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring and Proper Functioning Condition methodology.
42 February 2020
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 Introduction The potential consequences or effects of each alternative are discussed in this chapter. The intent is to provide the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the effect of each alternative. 4.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Table 11 summarizes the estimated direct disturbance resulting from the Proposed Action for use in the Chapter 4 analyses. Table 11. Estimated disturbance from the proposed range improvements. Range Improvements Proposed Project(s) Type Disturbance (acres) Highway 30 Well Pipeline, Trough, Well 2.5 Lucin Road Well Pipeline, Trough 1.4 Red Butte Corral Pipeline Pipeline, Trough, Well 0.8 Keg Springs Pipeline Pipeline, Trough 0.7 Red Knolls Pipeline Pipeline, Trough 2.5 Red Butte Pasture Fence Fence 8.5 North Red Butte Well and Pipeline Pipeline, Storage Tank, Trough, Well 2.5 Junction Creek Pipeline Pipeline, Trough 0.9 Muddy Creek Pipeline Extension Pipeline, Trough 1.1 TOTAL 20.9 4.2.1 Livestock Grazing 4.2.1.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Livestock grazing would continue to occur as permitted during construction/maintenance activities. Livestock move within pastures in relation to forage and water availability. Areas further than one mile away from a water source are unlikely to be used by livestock for forage (Holechek 2004). In pastures with infrequent watering points, the areas around the water source experience heavy vegetation use by livestock. This high level of vegetation use can occur both in riparian areas and around troughs or ponds and often results in large areas of bare ground. These areas also have an increased potential for colonization by noxious and invasive weeds. With the addition of new troughs and watering points, livestock distribution would be more dispersed, resulting in better utilization of available forage throughout the allotment and better livestock productivity, while also decreasing the impact to forage around each watering point (Holechek 2004). The presence of additional water sources within the allotments may also allow actual livestock use at rates/numbers closer to the current permitted use of each allotment. Long- term impacts would include a shift in livestock use patterns, enhanced livestock distribution, and moderated overall forage utilization levels and rates, as well as the potential for heavier use patterns around new water sources that previously experienced low utilization.
43 February 2020
The Highway 30 Well, Lucin Road Well, North Red Butte Well, and Red Knolls Spring would all provide new sources of water and additional troughs within their respective allotments. The new water sources would allow livestock to graze in new parts of the allotment, which may result in heavier use patterns in areas which may have previously had little use by livestock. Overall use of the allotment would be more uniform and livestock productivity would be improved. The Red Butte Corral Pipeline, Junction Creek Pipeline, and Muddy Creek Pipeline Extension would all provide additional troughs with water sourced from existing wells within their respective allotments. These improvements would allow for greater livestock distribution in the allotment. The new troughs would likely be located in areas that already receive some use, but would encourage a more even distribution across the area and reduce the heavy utilization at existing troughs. The Red Butte Pasture Fence would divide the current allotment into three pastures, allowing for more control of grazing patterns and pasture rotations, timing, and forage utilization. The Red Butte Pipeline, Trough, and Well would provide additional water into the north pasture that would be created from the Red Butte Pasture Fence. The new pipeline would take water from the new well and distribute it to new troughs. The addition of new watering points would spread out the distribution of livestock within the allotment and encourage more even distribution across the area. The Keg Springs Pipeline would provide two new troughs with water sourced from an existing stock pond and spring development. The new pipeline would take water from the stock pond and distribute it to new troughs. The addition of new watering points would increase the distribution of livestock within the allotments and encourage more even distribution across the area. The Red Knolls Pipeline would provide five new troughs with water sourced from an existing stock pond and spring development. The new pipeline would take water from the stock pond and distribute it to new troughs. The addition of new watering points would increase the distribution of livestock within the allotment and encourage more even distribution across the area. Design features (Table 2) would require that all range improvements shall follow the guidelines contained in BLM’s Handbooks H-1741-1, Fencing and H-1741-2, Water Developments. 4.2.1.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, livestock management and grazing would remain the same. Livestock utilization would not become more dispersed, new areas would not experience heavier use, and forage utilization around existing watering points would continue to be high. 4.2.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species 4.2.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Golden Eagle Golden eagles may be temporarily displaced in the Owl Springs, Keg Springs, Red Butte, and Muddy Creek allotments due to construction/maintenance of fences, troughs, wells, and other proposed activities. Spatial and seasonal buffers as stated by Romin and Muck (2002), and included as design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the
44 February 2020
construction phase. It would be expected that any displacement would result in golden eagles utilizing adjacent habitats throughout the project area away from the disturbance. While suitable habitat for golden eagle have been identified in all allotments, there is only one known nest in the vicinity of the proposed range improvements. The recommended disturbance nest buffer for golden eagles is 800 meters (0.5 miles); the Owl Springs trough is outside of the recommended buffer (0.75 miles). Golden eagles may frequent the proposed troughs once constructed for water and as a source for prey items utilizing the additional water source providing a potential benefit to individual eagles. The purpose of the proposed range improvements is to aid in redistribution of cattle within the allotments. Cattle tend to concentrate around springs and water sources. Livestock presence and grazing is likely to increase within a one-mile radius of the proposed developments. Livestock water developments are often associated with an increase in invasive weed species, potentially indirectly impacting ferruginous hawk habitat through the spread of these species. Design features (Table 2) would be used to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds, thereby reducing the potential impacts to habitat. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Burrowing Owl Burrowing owls may be displaced due to ground-disturbing activities and noise associated with the range improvements. Furthermore, potential forage species, such as small mammals including mouse, mole, and vole species, would be expected to decrease temporarily during construction. However, given the prevalence of habitat adjacent to the Proposed Action, forage species would still remain prevalent. Burrows utilized by burrowing owl could potentially be directly impacted during construction activities; however, pre-construction clearance surveys would be conducted prior to initiation of the range improvements to prevent impacts to this species. Active burrows would be avoided by all construction/maintenance activities. Temporal and spatial buffers would be identified in coordination with a BLM biologist and the authorized officer (Table 2). Burrowing owls within the vicinity of proposed troughs would likely see increased livestock activity due to water availability. Burrows may be trampled by livestock as shown by Holmes et al. (2003), who reported the loss of 24 percent of all burrows due to trampling between one season and the next, with burrow loss higher in sandier soils. Conversely, Green and Anthony (1989) reported reduced vulnerability to badger depredation at nests lined with cattle dung (because dung covered the owl scent). Increased livestock use near the Owl Springs, Red Butte, and Red Knolls Pipeline troughs may impact individuals through creating additional habitat through reduced herbaceous vegetation, burrow trampling, potential decrease in reproductive success, and decreased badger predation. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features (Table 2), may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated.
45 February 2020
Ferruginous Hawk Ferruginous hawks may be temporarily displaced in the Owl Springs, Keg Springs, Red Butte, and Muddy Creek allotments due to construction fences, troughs, wells, and other proposed activities. Spatial and seasonal buffers as stated by Romin and Muck (2002), and included as design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the construction phase. It would be expected that any displacement would result in ferruginous hawks utilizing adjacent habitats throughout the project area away from the disturbance. The purpose of the proposed range improvements is to aid in redistribution of cattle within the allotments. Cattle tend to concentrate around springs and water sources. Livestock presence and grazing is likely to increase within a one-mile radius of the proposed developments. Livestock water developments are often associated with an increase in invasive weed species, potentially indirectly impacting ferruginous hawk habitat through the spread of these species. Design features (Table 2) would be used to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds, thereby reducing the potential impacts to habitat. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Grasshopper Sparrow The presence of nesting grasshopper sparrow is likely, given the diversity of habitats present throughout the project area. If construction were to occur during the nesting season, displacement and/or abandonment of nests could occur due to ground-disturbing activities and increased foot traffic, vehicles, and noise. All of these impacts would be temporary, but could increase the likelihood of nest failure. Pre-construction surveys, and as appropriate, application of spatial and seasonal buffers, as described in the range improvement design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the construction phase. Redistributing livestock on the allotments may create additional habitat through light to moderate grazing positively benefiting the grasshopper sparrow. However, Bock and Webb (1984) showed grazing on arid grasslands tended to exclude grasshopper sparrow. All allotments have grazing during the grasshopper sparrow nesting season. Individual nests may be trampled during the breeding season from mid-April to mid-September. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Long-billed Curlew Long-billed curlew could potentially occur throughout the project area. Like other ground- nesting birds, this species could potentially be temporarily displaced due to construction activities associated with the Proposed Action. If long-billed curlews are nesting, ground- disturbing activities could potentially result in destruction of nests, mortality to less mobile young, and/or nest abandonment. Given the relatively small area where the Proposed Action would occur, it is unlikely the species would be adversely impacted by the range improvements. Pre-construction surveys, and as appropriate, application of spatial and seasonal buffers, as described in the range improvement design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the construction phase.
46 February 2020
Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Short-eared Owl Short-eared owl could potentially occur throughout the project area. If construction of the Proposed Action were to occur between March and August, short-eared owl chicks and nests may be trampled. Adults are highly mobile; therefore, direct impacts are not anticipated. Reduced reproductive success is a potential indirect impact in areas formerly not utilized by livestock through alteration of vegetation structure and composition, and potential disturbance by livestock. There is ample habitat available throughout the project area that could be adequately utilized by this species. Pre-construction surveys, and as appropriate, application of spatial and seasonal buffers, as described in the range improvement design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the construction phase. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Pygmy Rabbit Habitat for this species is present throughout the project area, and there are multiple records of this species throughout the project area and in its vicinity. Pre-construction surveys, and as appropriate, application of spatial and seasonal buffers, as described in the range improvement design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the construction phase. Fences and range improvements as proposed would require rerouting if locations with pygmy rabbit populations are identified. Active burrows would be avoided by all construction/maintenance activities. Occupied and historic pygmy rabbit burrows would be avoided with a minimum 100-m buffer. Increases in vehicle traffic could potentially increase danger to this species, resulting in death; construction crews would need to remain vigilant and maintain low speeds during construction to minimize any potential impacts to this species. Operation and maintenance of the Proposed Action would likely require periodic visits to fences, pipelines, and troughs for inspection and potential repairs, if necessary. These visits would be infrequent and would not constitute any substantial disturbance unless major and unanticipated repairs were required. This species is subject to high predation by raptors and carnivores that may be attracted to additional water sources, such as troughs. Increased livestock and human activity near active burrows may indirectly impact local populations through increased predation and noise disturbance. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Kit Fox Kit fox are known to be present throughout the project area and denning individuals may also be present in the project area. This species could be temporarily impacted during construction of the range improvements. Ground-disturbing activities, increased traffic, and noise could result in displacement of this species to adjacent habitats or could impact and/or collapse dens, if they are
47 February 2020
present in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, if dens are present in the vicinity of new water sources, they potentially could be impacted by livestock utilizing the new water sources. Further, kit fox are adapted to arid environments; the presence of new water sources could provide opportunities for species that compete with the kit fox for habitat to occupy the areas around the new water sources. Pre-construction surveys, and as appropriate, application of spatial and seasonal buffers, as described in the range improvement design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the construction phase. If active kit fox dens are found during the construction phase of the range improvement, a 200-foot no-disturbance buffer around the dens would be maintained until they are no longer occupied. Additionally, design features would apply (Table 2). Operation and maintenance of the Proposed Action would likely require periodic visits to fences, pipelines, and troughs for inspection and potential repairs, if necessary. These visits would be infrequent and would not constitute any substantial disturbance unless major and unanticipated repairs were required. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Dark Kangaroo Mouse Dark kangaroo mouse may occur in the project area. Ground disturbing activities as part of the construction phase of these range improvements may cause direct mortality, in addition to temporarily displacing individuals. Pre-construction surveys, and as appropriate, application of spatial and seasonal buffers, as described in the range improvement design features (Table 2), would minimize disturbances to individuals during the construction phase. Active burrows would be avoided by all construction/maintenance activities. Increased livestock use around range improvements may displace individuals of this species due to their relatively small home range. Studies on similar species (dark kangaroo rat) showed an increase in population numbers in grazed plots, however mortality was also higher (Kelt et al. 2005). This species is not known to use free water; therefore, potential for drowning in water developments is minimal. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Boreal Toad Boreal toad are known to be present and have breeding habitat in the project area. Keg Springs Pond is the only known breeding habitat with the project area but other ponds, riparian areas, and aquatic habitat within the project area may provide seasonal or migratory habitat. The Proposed Action in the Keg Springs allotment includes a pipeline and trough, totaling 0.7 acres of disturbance. The boreal toad could potentially be impacted by construction of the range improvements through direct mortality from increased foot traffic, vehicle traffic, and general ground-disturbing activities. Furthermore, where riparian, wetland, and/or streams are impacted by the Proposed Action throughout the project area, boreal toad could potentially be indirectly impacted. In total, approximately 0.1 acre of wetland (riverine and palustrine emergent wetlands)
48 February 2020
and 53.5 meters of stream would be impacted (Table 17 and Table 18). Given the relatively small area to be impacted by the Proposed Action, it would not be anticipated that boreal toad populations would experience measurable population declines. Design features (Table 2) would reduce impacts to boreal toad as a result of constructing and maintaining the range improvements. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Least Chub In the project area, Keg Springs in the Keg Springs allotment and Red Knolls in the Red Butte allotment are the two locations with least chub populations where changes to the water system are proposed. Additionally, increasing the number of wells pumping groundwater and development of springs have the potential to affect water levels in an aquifer. However, within the project area, the design features (Table 2) would be used to avoid water depletion (e.g., designing water developments to maintain water levels). Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout and Bluehead Sucker The Raft River (including Junction Creek) is the only watershed in Utah that provides habitat for the Yellowstone cutthroat trout. The proposed pipeline and troughs in the Junction Creek allotment would draw groundwater from an existing well. Pumping groundwater has the potential to affect water levels that contribute to Junction Creek and the Raft River. However, within the project area, design features (Table 2) would ensure that water levels are maintained. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Northern Leatherside Chub Similar to the bluehead sucker, the northern leatherside chub appears to be limited to the northwestern-most portion of the project area specifically near the Utah-Idaho border (UDWR 2009b), which overlaps with the Goose Creek allotment. Projects that affect the quality, quantity, or timing of water in the habitat may have an impact on this species. Range improvement activities, including the application of design features, may impact individuals; however, no substantial impacts are anticipated. Springsnails Springsnails have not been documented at or near any of the proposed range improvement projects. Any potential changes to water levels in spring systems that may impact these species’ habitat is not expected as a result of the currently proposed projects. Design features (Table 2) would ensure that water levels are maintained.
49 February 2020
4.2.2.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current impacts to the aforementioned species and their habitats would remain unchanged. Areas in the vicinity of current watering points would likely continue to experience impacts from livestock use over time, making these areas less desirable for forage, refuge, and nesting opportunities to special status species. 4.2.3 Greater Sage-Grouse 4.2.3.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The Proposed Action would directly impact a small acreage of the Box Elder PHMA. Improving distribution of livestock on the landscape would have an overall benefit to greater sage-grouse habitat by dispersing livestock across the upland and improving the condition of areas around current springs and riparian areas. The Proposed Action would likely have a positive effect on habitat objectives identified in the ARMPA (BLM 2015). The Proposed Action would more evenly distribute livestock on the landscape, decrease heavy utilization in mesic areas, improve the condition of mesic areas, and increase availability of preferred forbs and invertebrates for greater sage-grouse chicks. These benefits would outweigh the small-scale impacts of habitat loss, the temporary habitat disturbance, and the additional range infrastructure in greater sage- grouse habitat. The range improvement construction and installation would disturb approximately 17 acres in the PHMA, which represents less than 0.1% of the PHMA throughout the project area. The majority of this loss would be temporary. The temporary loss of habitat would occur as a result of cutting and/or removal of vegetation. Disturbance from troughs or wells would be permanent and there would be long-term impacts to vegetation from livestock trampling around new water troughs. Construction would be scheduled to avoid impact greater sage-grouse seasonal life cycle periods (Table 2). Livestock utilization of vegetation is assumed to be concentrated within one mile of water resources. Therefore, the installation of additional water developments increases water resources available to livestock and spreads livestock utilization over more acres. With livestock utilization spread across a larger area, the overall quality and resiliency of plant communities are expected to improve. As a result, natural mesic areas, in particular, are expected to improve in overall condition. Any improvements to mesic areas in greater sage-grouse nesting or brood-rearing habitats are anticipated to benefit greater sage-grouse because availability of preferred forbs and invertebrates are important for chick survival. Preferred forbs and invertebrates are frequently a limited resource in many drought-prone greater sage-grouse populations. The water development in Junction Creek would improve distribution of cattle in the northern portion of the allotment during the spring, where there currently is no water available. As a result, the condition of natural mesic areas are anticipated to improve and benefit greater sage- grouse with increased forb and invertebrate availability. There are multiple proposed range improvements in the southern, central, and northern portions of the Red Butte allotment and they all overlap with greater sage-grouse breeding, summer, and winter habitats, to varying degrees. In the southern portion of the Red Butte allotment, the Red Butte Corral pipeline, a new water tank and new water troughs are proposed. The estimated ground disturbance from this range improvement is 0.8 acre and overlaps with identified greater sage-grouse breeding and winter
50 February 2020
habitats; however, direct adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse are not anticipated due to the degraded state of the immediate area. Long term benefits are anticipated by dispersing livestock use in areas currently not utilized because of lack of water. In the central portion of the Red Butte allotment, range improvements include: the Keg Springs two-mile pipeline, Central Red Butte allotment new water troughs (2) and Red Butte Pasture fence. From an existing stock pond/spring, a new pipeline (2 miles) and two new troughs will disturb 0.7 acre in identified greater sage-grouse brood-rearing and winter habitats. Overall, the new infrastructure is anticipated to improve the condition of mesic areas and improve greater sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat. The Red Knolls Pipeline in the central Red Butte allotment would provide water into the western portions of the allotment and includes six miles of new pipeline and five new troughs. The pipeline project would occur in identified greater sage-grouse breeding, summer, and winter habitat. The north end of the proposed pipeline would overlap with identified greater sage-grouse summer habitat, whereas, the majority of the proposed pipeline overlaps with identified breeding habitat, and entirely overlaps with greater sage-grouse winter habitat. Some of the new water troughs could occur in identified greater sage-grouse breeding habitat, but all occur in identified winter habitat. Any short-term habitat impacts from pipeline installation would be minimized because the pipeline would be installed within existing roadways when possible. Overall, increasing livestock distribution in this allotment will benefit greater sage-grouse because the condition of springs and mesic areas in the area will improve. The proposed Red Butte allotment fence would result in approximately 8.5 acres of temporary disturbance in greater sage-grouse breeding and winter habitats, and a portion of brood-rearing habitat. The fence would be installed per the design features (Table 2). The last of the proposed Red Butte allotment range improvement projects is the North Red Butte well and pipeline. The proposed North Red Butte well and pipeline project includes an estimated 2.5 acres of disturbance by drilling a new well, installing a new water storage tank, installing 3.4 miles of new pipeline, and installing six new troughs. The proposed North Red Butte well range improvements overlap entirely with identified greater sage-grouse breeding, summer, and winter habitats. This area has previously received low levels of livestock use due to the lack of water. The proposed project will improve overall condition of vegetation in the Red Butte allotment. With the proposed range improvement projects, increased water availability in the Red Butte allotment would increase livestock use of upland areas that have previously not been regularly grazed. As a result, livestock utilization will be spread across the allotment more evenly, decreasing livestock impacts in mesic areas. Improved mesic habitat condition will benefit greater sage-grouse chick survival by increasing the quality and availability of preferred forbs and invertebrates, a limited resource in this landscape. In the Muddy Creek allotment, the proposed water trough and pipeline overlap with identified greater sage-grouse breeding and winter habitats. The proposed water trough would improve the distribution of spring and fall cattle grazing by decreasing livestock utilization levels in mesic areas. This would improve greater sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat quality and quantity, particularly in the mesic areas associated with Meadow Spring. The Owl Springs and the U & I allotments have greater sage-grouse breeding and winter habitats within their boundaries. The proposed water developments occur outside mapped greater sage-
51 February 2020 grouse habitat. Greater sage-grouse habitat could indirectly benefit with improved herbaceous understory vegetation condition and availability by livestock increasing utilization away from the important mesic areas in breeding habitat. There would be no direct impacts from the construction of the water developments. Across the allotments included in the proposed action, the disturbance associated with the infrastructure is a relatively small area compared to the amount of habitat available in the PHMA. There would be no measurable impacts to greater sage-grouse from the construction of the proposed range improvements. Compliance with the ARMPA The proposed action would comply with the management actions in the ARMPA (BLM 2015). The following section describes specifically how the proposed action complies with the ARMPA’s MA-SSS-3. Appropriate design features are included in Table 2. Net Conservation Gain (MA-SSS-3a): This management action is not applicable to the proposed action, as there would be no net habitat loss or degradation, as the proposed action would provide a net benefit to greater sage-grouse, as described above. Disturbance Cap (MA-SSS-3b): This management action is not applicable to the proposed action, as the types of disturbance caused by the proposed action are not included in the disturbance cap calculations as described in the ARMPA’s Appendix E (Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Cap Guidance). Density Cap (MA-SSS-3c): This management action is not applicable to the proposed action, as the types of disturbance caused by the proposed action are not included in the density cap calculations. Predation (MA-SSS-3d): Potential for increased predators in the project area as a result of the Proposed Action would be minimized through use of design features, including limiting the presence of waste (trash) and road-kill during construction and maintenance, and thereby reducing the likelihood of attracting predators that could impact greater sage-grouse, including common raven (Corvus corax) and coyote (Canis latrans). With these measures in place, increased numbers of predators would not be expected to occur during construction and maintenance activities. Noise Restrictions (MA-SSS-3e): Activities during construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Action could require machinery that would produce noise in excess of 10 decibels above ambient sound levels. To avoid adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse, the ARMPA directs management actions in PHMA to limit noise in excess of 10 decibels at active leks during the active strutting season during sunrise and sunset. No construction activities are anticipated to occur in close proximity to occupied leks. If necessary, daily timing restrictions or seasonal restrictions would be applied to avoid adverse noise impacts to the greater sage-grouse. Tall Structure Restrictions (MA-SSS-3f): This management action is not applicable to the proposed action, as the types of structures included in the proposed action are not considered to be tall. Seasonal Restrictions (MA-SSS-3g): In general, timing and distance restrictions would be in place for the following periods: nesting and early brood-rearing habitat (February 15 through June 15), brood-rearing habitat (April 15 through August 15), and winter habitat (November 15
52 February 2020
through March 15). In coordination with the UDWR, the need for site-specific seasonal restrictions would be evaluated by BLM and, if necessary, seasonal restrictions would be established to better protect greater sage-grouse from construction activities. Buffers (MA-SSS-3h): Greater sage-grouse leks are present throughout the project area. Per the ARMPA’s Appendix B (Applying Lek Buffer Distance), range improvements that provide a conservation benefit for greater sage-grouse, such as these range improvements, are considered to have met the lek buffer requirements. [MA-SSS-3(h)]. All of the lek locations are greater than one mile from the nearest Proposed Action area. Required Design Features (MA-SSS-3i): The only required design features in the ARMPA’s Appendix C (Required Design Features) that is relevant to the proposed actions related to West Nile Virus (WNV), a mosquito transmitted disease. While WNV is present in Box Elder County (Utah Department of Health 2017), no greater sage-grouse mortalities in the area have been attributed to the disease. At this time, we have no evidence that WNV is a substantial threat to greater sage-grouse in Box Elder County. No published literature exists that addresses how troughs specifically affect the occurrence of WNV. Therefore, it is assumed that the additional water would not measurably increase the likelihood of WNV occurrence in greater sage-grouse habitat. As appropriate, the require design features in the ARMPA for WNV would be applied to the proposed action (Table 2). The proposed action is also consistent and/or in support of the objectives identified in other management actions in the ARMPA, including MA-LG-8, MA-LG-9, MA-LG-10, MA-LG-11, MA-LG-14, MA-LG-15, MA-LG-16, MA-LG-17, MA-VEG-3, and MA-VEG-5. 4.2.3.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current impacts to the greater sage-grouse and their habitats would remain unchanged. Areas in the vicinity of current watering points would likely continue to experience impacts from livestock use over time, making these areas less desirable for forage, refuge, and nesting opportunities to greater sage-grouse. 4.2.4 Migratory Birds 4.2.4.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Construction activities within the project area associated with the Proposed Action would involve the crushing, cutting, and/or removal of vegetation, which would be expected to cause localized short-term impacts to individuals through disturbance and temporary displacement. The project area is largely undeveloped and encompasses contiguous habitats that can support a broad array of bird species. During construction activities, birds would likely be displaced to adjacent habitats to avoid the short-term disturbances. It would be expected that birds would return to the area, following completion of the Proposed Action. In general, any removed vegetation would be expected to return over time; however, in some instances, there would be a permanent loss of habitat – generally associated with new water troughs. The area of habitat loss would be minimal relative to the available habitat in the area (Table 11) at less than 0.1%.
53 February 2020
Construction activities could potentially impact nesting birds in the vicinity of the Proposed Action if the Proposed Action occurred during the nesting period. Ground-disturbing activities, such as cutting and removal of vegetation could result in direct mortality of birds as well as abandonment of nests. Adult birds would likely be displaced from their nesting sites, while fledglings and eggs would be less mobile, possibly resulting in mortality. However, disturbance to nesting birds would be greatly reduced or eliminated by implementing the Proposed Action outside of the nesting season and implementing the design features (Table 2). Furthermore, biological clearance surveys would be required prior to implementation of the Proposed Action, if within prime nesting season. Active nests would be avoided by an appropriate distance. The introduction of water troughs can lead to bird mortality through entrapment. To mitigate this potential impact, all troughs would be installed with a ramp to allow wildlife to exit if they become trapped (BLM-IM-2016-047). Raptors could potentially be impacted by the increased disturbances associated with the installation/construction of the Proposed Action. Direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action to raptor habitat, occupancy, and nesting success may include: temporary displacement, minor loss of foraging habitat, direct mortality of raptors (due to collisions with vehicles), noise disturbance, and loss of nest sites or winter roost sites. Indirect impacts may include temporary noise disturbance and temporary displacement of potential prey. Due to the limited area of disturbance and the temporary nature of construction/installation of the Proposed Action, it would be anticipated that any potential impacts to raptors would be temporary in nature. Clearance surveys would be conducted prior to implementation to identify any nesting birds in the vicinity of the Proposed Action for construction during raptor nesting season. Based on the results of these surveys, the Proposed Action would be adjusted accordingly to limit disturbance to raptors (Table 2). Construction of the improvements could also result in the introduction and/or spread of invasive weed species in the project area. Clearing of areas carries the capacity to promote recruitment and proliferation of invasive/noxious weeds, which decrease the habitat value for many wildlife species, including migratory birds. Construction procedures would follow all best management programs and weed control measures to prevent invasive infestations (Table 2). The presence of new water troughs for livestock would bring an increased number of livestock to these areas, resulting in trampling, consumption, and disturbance of the habitat/vegetation in the vicinity of the trough and watering locations. During nesting season, this may result in increased mortality of nesting birds, including fledglings and eggs. Over time, it would be expected that repeated disturbance to the immediate vicinity of troughs/springs would result in a decrease of herbaceous cover, limiting the presence of nesting habitat in these areas. However, any potential impacts to bird populations would be negligible; additionally, adjacent habitats throughout the project area provide ample forage and nesting habitat for migratory birds that would not be impacted as a direct result of the Proposed Action. Operation and maintenance of the Proposed Action would likely require periodic visits to fences, pipelines, and troughs for inspection and potential repairs. These visits would be infrequent and not require any measurable disturbance unless major and unanticipated repairs were required. No measurable disturbances or impacts to migratory birds would be expected as a result of standard operation and maintenance. Design features to minimize impacts on migratory birds during construction and maintenance would be implemented as listed in Table 2.
54 February 2020
4.2.4.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current impacts to the migratory birds and their habitats would remain unchanged. Areas in the vicinity of current watering points would likely continue to experience impacts from livestock use over time, making these areas less desirable for forage, refuge, and nesting opportunities to migratory birds. 4.2.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species 4.2.5.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Big game, small mammals, and other non-game wildlife species in the vicinity of the Proposed Action may be temporarily displaced due to the increased noise from vehicles/equipment, human presence, and ground-disturbing activities. These impacts would be short-term and likely limited only to the vicinity of the construction activities. It would be expected that following completion of the range improvements, wildlife would return to the areas of disturbance. Wildlife in the project area are generally highly mobile species that would be able to avoid disturbance and utilize adjacent habitats, which are similar habitats as those present in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in cutting and/or removal of vegetation in the vicinity of the project area. A decrease in vegetative cover could potentially result in decreased forage for wildlife species; however, the Proposed Action would result in a decrease of less than 0.1% of the overall vegetative cover in the project area. Livestock grazing could potentially negatively impact small mammals that require high levels of litter and residual vegetation. No changes in the density and diversity of small mammals would be expected across the entire project area. Impacts to small mammals would be expected in the immediate vicinity of the areas where vegetation clearing would be required for construction activities; however, this would likely be limited to temporary displacement of individuals in the vicinity. It would be expected that displaced animals would be capable of utilizing nearby habitats where ground-disturbing activities would not influence their actions. Increased grazing in the vicinity of water troughs/springs could increase the potential for small mammal mortality; however, it is assumed that small mammals subject to this danger represent an unsubstantial number of the overall population throughout the project area, given that the Proposed Action encompass less than 0.1% of the project area. The Proposed Action involves installation of fencing within the project area that would impact approximately 8.5 acres of land. Fences installed would be “wildlife friendly” and constructed in accordance with the BLM Fencing Handbook H-1741-1 (Table 2). Properly constructed “wildlife friendly” fences do not present large obstacles for big game species. The presence of these new “wildlife friendly” fences are unlikely to affect the movement, distribution, or predation of big game species. The Proposed Action would impact approximately 20.9 acres, including important habitat for big game species (Table 5). Total impacts to all big game habitat would be 30.1 acres (some habitats overlap), relative to the total combined big game habitats of 1,286,296 acres available throughout the project area (some habitats overlap, Table 12). It would be anticipated that during any activities related to implementation of the Proposed Action, wildlife would be temporarily displaced from the immediate vicinity. The area of impact is not substantial relative to the available important habitat areas in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action, as well as the
55 February 2020
entire project area. As such, impacts to big game species would be minor and short-term. Additionally, the presence of new water sources would likely benefit big game species by providing new water sources for a broad array of wildlife species. Predation on big game is likely to remain unchanged; however, the addition of new water sources may attract wildlife to specific areas on a repeated basis, which could potentially provide new opportunities for predators such as cougar. Operation and maintenance of the Proposed Action would likely require periodic visits to fences, pipelines, and troughs for inspection and potential repairs, if necessary. These visits would be infrequent and not require any measurable disturbance, unless major and unanticipated repairs were required. No measurable disturbances or impacts to big game or other non-special status wildlife species would be expected as a result of standard operation and maintenance of the Project. 4.2.5.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, mammals with large home ranges, including mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, and moose would not be subject to disturbances or benefits related to the Proposed Action. Big game species would continue to utilize the project area in the same fashion as described in Section 3.2.5 and would be subject to any issues related to current grazing practices, as described in Section 3.2.1. Table 12. Impacts to important big game habitat relative to total habitat available in project area. Habitat Mule Deer Pronghorn Elk Moose Type Impact Available Impact Available Impact Available Impact Available (Proposed (Project (Proposed (Project (Proposed (Project (Proposed (Project Action) Area) Action) Area) Action) Area) Action) Area) Winter 5.7 309,135 N/A N/A 1.1 35,459 N/A N/A Summer N/A 51,035 9.7 250,306 N/A N/A 7.6 357,103 Yearlong N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.0 283,258 N/A N/A TOTAL 5.7 360,170 9.7 250,306 7.1 318,717 7.6 357,103
4.2.6 Fish Habitat 4.2.6.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Construction/maintenance of the range improvements may affect fish habitat within the analysis area. The main threats to fish habitat in the analysis area are the development of new wells and springs that could potentially deplete spring and stream flows and reduce available habitat. The magnitude of the depletion of stream and spring flows would determine whether these impacts would result in the degradation of fish habitat and/or water quality. The main fish habitat areas that could be impacted by the Proposed Action are Junction Creek, Raft River, Red Knolls, and Keg Springs. Impacts to these areas are described in the Section 4.2.9. Design features would be used to minimize impacts on fish habitats (Table 2). These measures would reduce impacts to the springs by decreasing disturbance to riparian areas and maintaining water levels at an appropriate level for fish habitat.
56 February 2020
4.2.6.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative there would be no substantial impacts to fish within the analysis area. The existing wells and development on springs may have the potential to impact stream flows and subsequently fish, but they would continue to be managed to minimize any potential impacts. 4.2.7 Soils and Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species 4.2.7.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Soils The soil type that would experience the largest acreage of disturbance under the Proposed Action would be Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana, followed by Skumpah-Playas and Raftriver-Dahar- Codquin-Bullump. All soil types disturbed under the Proposed Action would experience surface disturbance affecting far less than one percent of the amount of each soil type in the project area. The estimated amount of disturbance in each soil type under the Proposed Action are listed in Table 13. The estimated amount of disturbance in each soil type from each Proposed Action feature are listed in Table 14. Table 13. Acres of soil type disturbance under Proposed Action. Soil Type Acres of Surface Disturbance Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) 11.8 Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) 4.3 Skumpah-Playas (s7775) 3.4 Declo-Darkbull (s1836) 0.6 Rock outcrop-Promo-Cliffdown (s7776) 0.5 Rock outcrop-Ola-Itca-Birchcreek-Arbone (s1844) 0.3 TOTAL 20.9
Table 14. Acres of soil type disturbance by range improvement under Proposed Action. Proposed Action Feature Soil Type Acres of Disturbance Declo-Darkbull (s1836) 0.6 Junction Creek Pipeline and Troughs Rock outcrop-Ola-Itca-Birchcreek-Arbone (s1844) 0.3 Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) 0.2 Keg Springs Pipeline and Troughs Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) 0.5 Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) 1.7 Red Knolls Pipeline and Troughs Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) 0.8 Muddy Creek Pipeline and Trough Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) 1.1 Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) 8.0 Red Butte Pasture Fence Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) 0.5 Red Butte Corral Pipeline and Troughs Lembos-Kunzler-Kawish-Acana (s7777) 0.8 North Red Butte Well and Pipeline Raftriver-Dahar-Codquin-Bullump (s7780) 2.5 Rock outcrop-Promo-Cliffdown (s7776) 0.5 Lucin Road Well, Pipeline, and Troughs Skumpah-Playas (s7775) 0.9 Highway 30 Pipeline, Troughs, and Well Skumpah-Playas (s7775) 2.5 TOTAL 20.9
57 February 2020
Construction impacts would occur due to increased soil exposure during vegetation stripping, topsoil salvage and stockpiling, and cut-and-fill operations. Exposed or stockpiled soils would be subjected to accelerated erosion due to higher runoff rates, lower infiltration rates, and greater exposure to wind. Disturbance of soils, especially within the Skumpah-Playas (s7775) and Rock outcrop-Ola-Itca-Birchcreek-Arbone (s1844) units, may result in moderate compaction and erosion, especially during summer storm events. Design features requiring revegetation of disturbances would be implemented to minimize impacts on soils (Table 2). Soil impacts due to maintenance would increase from those under the No Action Alternative because of the need to maintain the new improvements; however, these impacts would be short- term and localized. Topsoil Management A major consideration for construction on natural lands is to minimize mixing of the productive topsoil with the less productive subsoil. Topsoil in desert ecosystems is limited in depth and thus very valuable as a source of organic substrate, seeds, and propagules for cyanobiotic crust organisms. Vegetation The land cover type that would experience the largest acreage of disturbance under the Proposed Action would be Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, followed by Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland. All land cover types disturbed under the Proposed Action would experience surface disturbance affecting far less than one percent of the total amount of each land cover type in the project area. The estimated amount of disturbance in each land cover type under the Proposed Action is listed in Table 15. The estimated amount of disturbance in each land cover type from each Proposed Action feature are listed in Table 16. Table 15. Estimated vegetation disturbance under the Proposed Action. Estimated Surface % of Vegetation Type in Vegetation Type Disturbance (acres) Project Area Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 3.3 0.003% Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 3.6 0.003% Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 1.9 0.001% Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 1.4 0.002% Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.1 0.0003% Introduced Upland Vegetation-Annual Grassland 0.6 0.002% Other 0.7 0.003% Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 0.1 0.0008% Barren 0.4 0.004% Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 0.04 0.0008% TOTAL 20.9 0.0199%
58 February 2020
Table 16. Estimated vegetation disturbance by range improvement from the Proposed Action. Proposed Action Feature Vegetation Type Estimated Surface Disturbance (acres) Junction Creek Pipeline and Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 0.002 Troughs Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 0.4 Inter-Mountains Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 0.002 Introduced Upland Vegetation – Annual Grassland 0.02 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.03 Other 0.5 Keg Springs Pipeline and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 0.02 Troughs Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 0.2 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 0.4 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 0.002 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.02 Other 0.01 Red Knolls Pipeline and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 0.1 Troughs Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 0.73 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 1.1 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 0.0009 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 0.04 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 0.06 Introduced Upland Vegetation – Annual Grassland 0.4 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.03 Other 0.02 Muddy Creek Pipeline Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 0.4 Extension and Trough Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 0.6 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 0.007 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.03 Red Butte Pasture Fence, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 0.5 Pipeline, Trough, and Well Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 0.6 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 1.4 Inter-Mountains Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 0.02 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 0.06 Introduced Upland Vegetation – Annual Grassland 0.02 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.008 Other 0.03 Red Butte Corral Pipeline, Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 0.2 Trough, and Well Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 0.5 Introduced Upland Vegetation – Annual Grassland 0.05 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.008 North Red Butte Well Fence Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 0.09 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 0.008 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 0.1 Inter-Mountain Basins Sparsely Vegetated Systems 0.007
59 February 2020
Proposed Action Feature Vegetation Type Estimated Surface Disturbance (acres) Lucin Road Well Pipeline and Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 0.009 Trough Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 0.02 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1.2 Barren 0.07 Other 0.04 Highway 30 Pipeline, Trough, Inter-Mountain Basins Sparsely Vegetation Systems 0.1 and Well Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1.9 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 0.02 Introduced Upland Vegetation – Annual Grassland 0.06 Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 0.009 Barren 0.3 Other 0.04 TOTAL 20.9 Under the Proposed Action, one primary impact on vegetation would be the clearing of 20.9 acres of existing vegetation. Another primary impact is the long-term benefit to the vegetative community. There would be a more even grazing distribution of livestock, resulting in better grazing management, and overall improved vegetative and soil health. Secondary vegetation effects could include increased soil erosion, loss of topsoil, introduction and establishment of invasive weeds, increase in fugitive dust, and wildlife and livestock grazing habitat impacts. Direct impacts on vegetation and secondary impacts associated with the removal of vegetation would be minimized by limiting the clearing of vegetation to the construction areas. The disturbed areas would be revegetated according to BLM standards if determined necessary by the authorized officer. All reseeding would be done with a BLM-approved seed mix. The seed mixes would include species acclimated to environmental conditions in the project area and can successfully reduce fire risk and invasion by cheatgrass and other noxious weeds. The BLM would also monitor revegetation success, maintain erosion control measures, and conduct follow-up revegetation efforts as needed. Vegetation impacts due to maintenance would increase from those under the No Action Alternative because of the need to maintain the new improvements; however, these impacts would be short-term and localized. 4.2.7.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the effect of livestock grazing on soils and vegetation in the project area would be the same as the current conditions. Vegetation around existing water sources would continue to be highly utilized by livestock. Existing trends would continue. Under this alternative, maintenance of existing fences and water pipelines in the project area would be performed to ensure their serviceability. Maintenance would occur before each grazing year and then throughout the season as needed to ensure that range improvements are in working order.
60 February 2020
4.2.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds 4.2.8.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Construction/maintenance of the range improvements may result in the spread and establishment of noxious or invasive weeds, which often invade and persist in areas after a disturbance. Construction equipment traveling from infested to non-infested areas could spread noxious or invasive weed seeds or propagules. Livestock can also spread noxious or invasive weed seeds. Construction of the range improvements would result in an estimated 20.9 acres of disturbance throughout the project area. Design features would be used to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds (Table 2). The BLM and Box Elder County would cooperatively monitor for and treat noxious weeds and invasive species where needed. 4.2.8.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative there would be no construction activities to potentially increase invasive weed infestations; however, invasive weeds would continue to be prevalent in the project area. Existing traffic and livestock use would continue to transport seeds and propagules of invasive species at the current baseline level. Fire and soil disturbances would continue to provide areas for cheatgrass and other weed species to invade. 4.2.9 Water Resources/Quality 4.2.9.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action The Proposed Action has potential to affect water resources within the project area. The development of springs and pumping of wells could deplete groundwater and surface water resources, thus reducing water availability and potentially degrading water quality. A reduction in flow within springs and stream channels could cause water temperatures to increase and dissolved oxygen concentrations to decline. Development of springs and pumping of groundwater from wells would need to be done responsibly as to avoid depletion of the natural flows. Given existing water quality concerns in the valley portions of the aquifer, depletions of springs and pumping of wells could further concentrate contaminants within the aquifer. The North Red Butte Well and Pipeline are within the Level 2 groundwater protection zone as designated by the Utah Division of Water Quality; therefore, pumping would need to avoid potential impacts to this drinking water source. The current design of the Red Knolls development results in spilling of excess water from the trough onto the ground. The BLM anticipates that excess water could be piped to the troughs without affecting the pond water levels. Design features (Table 2) would be incorporated into construction/maintenance of the proposed range improvements to ensure sufficient water levels are maintained and water quality is not impacted. Refer also to the information presented in Section 4.2.1.1. 4.2.9.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative there would be no new impacts to water resources/quality within the project area. The existing wells and development of springs may have the potential to impact stream flows, which should be managed to minimize any potential impacts. Areas where livestock currently congregate around water sources may continue to be impacted and would continue to impact water quality.
61 February 2020
4.2.10 Wetland /Riparian Zones 4.2.10.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action Wetland and riparian zones may be impacted by Proposed Action. In total, roughly 0.1 acre of riverine and freshwater emergent wetland areas would be impacted by the Proposed Action (Table 17). The range improvements intersect roughly 49.2 or 68.2 m of stream channel (Table 18) and has the potential to increase the usage of adjacent wetland/riparian areas by livestock. Locating new watering troughs away from riparian areas would decrease the concentration of livestock in riparian areas, which would help alleviate impacts on wetlands and riparian areas. The depletion of springs and groundwater due to pumping from wells has the potential to deplete stream flows and dry out wetland areas. A reduction in flow and the drawing down of the water table could stress riparian vegetation, which is a critical component of stream ecosystems. At Red Knolls pond, a riparian area has become established in the area of the trough overflow. If the trough overflow is piped, this artificially-created riparian area would shrink and may no longer be present. Table 17. Acres of wetlands intersected by the Proposed Action. Project Name Wetlands Crossed (acres) Riverine Habitat Crossed (acres) Highway 30 -- 0.017 Keg Springs -- 0.006 Lucin Road -- 0.007 Muddy Creek -- 0.004 North Red Butte -- 0.019 Red Butte 0.002 0.006 Red Butte Corral -- 0.004 Red Knolls 0.002 0.023 Junction Creek -- 0.002 TOTAL 0.004 0.093
Table 18. Length of stream intersected by range improvements. Project Name Estimated Length of Streams Intersected (meters) Highway 30 10.1 Keg Springs 2.4 Lucin Road 5.0 Muddy Creek 4.1 North Red Butte 1.0 Red Butte 6.0 Red Butte Corral 3.2 Red Knolls 20.0 Junction Creek 1.68 TOTAL 53.48
62 February 2020
4.2.10.2 Alternative B – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the impacts associated with the Proposed Action would not occur. The beneficial effects of distributing livestock away from existing riparian areas would also not occur. The existing wells and development on springs may have the potential to impact stream flows and the groundwater table, and measures should be taken to minimize any potential impacts. 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those impacts resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. For this analysis, past actions are considered and included in the description of the affected environment. Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts to most resources generally include livestock grazing, hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments, wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatments, land tenure adjustments, mineral extraction permits or authorizations, the issuance of rights-of-way, invasive/noxious weed treatments, and recreation use. The Cumulative Impact Analysis Area (CIAA) for each resource is described below. 4.3.1 Livestock Grazing The CIAA for livestock grazing is the Federal grazing allotments that are included in the proposed action. Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could affect livestock grazing operations, but the changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health. Effects to livestock grazing could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatments if those actions resulted in needed to temporarily rest pastures or allotments. It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could remove or limit areas for livestock grazing, however the scope of these types of actions are usually relatively minor. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to livestock grazing, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to livestock grazing from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would compromise the overall availability of livestock grazing within the CIAA. 4.3.2 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Special Status Animal Species The CIAA for special status mammal species (pygmy rabbit, dark kangaroo mouse, and kit fox) includes habitat mapped as having critical7, high8, substantial9 and/or limited value10 within Box Elder County using the Utah Gap Analysis (Biotics Database 2005) for each species. The
7 https://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/Map.asp?Id=496. Critical Value Habitat - an area that provides for "sensitive" biological and/or behavioral requisites necessary to sustain the existence and/or perpetuation of a wildlife species. 8 High Value Habitat - an area that provides for "intensive" use by a wildlife species. 9 Substantial Value Habitat - an area that provides for "frequent" use by a wildlife species. 10 Limited Value Habitat - an area that provides for only "occasional" use by a wildlife species.
63 February 2020
cumulative impact analysis for BLM special status bird species is addressed in Section 4.3.4 (Migratory Birds). The CIAA for special status aquatic species is HUC 12 subwatersheds intersected by the project area (961,553 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could improve habitat for special status species, as changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, and rangeland health includes consideration of special status species habitat. For example, concentrated livestock grazing around water developments near sagebrush islands that may support pygmy rabbits has potential to modify sagebrush through defoliation of leaves and compact soil to the point where habitat is unsuitable for the species; changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits to maintain or improve rangeland health would usually address this type of issue for pygmy rabbits. It is possible that future range improvement projects, associated with the grazing permits, in the CIAA could affect special status species, but those would typically be designed to protect special status species and would not usually cause a substantial impact, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures (e.g., seasonal restrictions, pre- implementation surveys, micro-siting of treatments, protection of species-specific sites). For example, the development of new spring sources has the potential to impact springsnail population and therefore any proposals to develop a springsnail-occupied spring would require appropriate mitigation. Conversely, some special status species, such as the boreal toad and the least chub utilize range improvements as habitat and could benefit from some types of additional range improvements. Effects to special status species could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments, but these actions would generally improve or be neutral on habitat quality, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. For dark kangaroo mouse, there would not be expected to be impacts for these types of projects, as their habitat is typically not in the same types of vegetation types as these treatments. Any impacts to kit fox and pygmy rabbits would be temporary and not substantial. These types of vegetation treatments have the potential to result in a temporary increase in water quantity due to the reduction in evapotranspiration. This increase is highly dependent on precipitation and water needs of other vegetation and may not result in a measurable increase in surface water output. Positive or negative impacts to aquatic special status species from these types of treatments are not expected. It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could result in development of special status species habitat, however the scope of these types of actions are usually relatively minor. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to special status species, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to special status species from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would compromise the overall availability of habitat or population viability within the CIAA.
64 February 2020
4.3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse The CIAA for greater sage-grouse for this project is the Box Elder PHMA (1,135,700 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could improve habitat for greater sage-grouse, as changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, and rangeland health includes consideration of special status species habitat, including for greater sage-grouse. It is possible that future range improvement projects, associated with the grazing permits, in the CIAA could affect greater sage-grouse, but those would typically be designed to protect the species and would not usually cause a substantial impact, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. Effects to greater sage-grouse habitat could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions would generally improve habitat quality. For example, the vegetation treatments would generally benefit greater sage-grouse by expanding suitable open sagebrush area. It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could result in development of greater sage-grouse habitat, however the scope of these types of actions are usually relatively minor. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to greater sage-grouse habitat, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would compromise the overall availability of habitat or population viability within the CIAA. 4.3.4 Migratory Birds The CIAA for migratory birds is the project area (494,412 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could improve habitat for migratory birds, as changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, and rangeland health includes consideration of migratory birds. It is possible that future range-related water development projects, associated with the grazing permits, in the CIAA could affect migratory birds, but those would typically be designed to protect the species and would not usually cause a substantial impact, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. Effects to migratory birds could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions would generally improve habitat quality from migratory bird species. Yet, in some cases, treatments could displace species if the habitat type they use is the habitat that is being treated (e.g., species that use juniper woodlands could be displaced by treatments that remove juniper trees); however, these impacts would not be expected to be substantial, due to the generally small scope of these treatments and the typical application of design features and mitigation measures (e.g., seasonal restrictions, pre-implementation surveys, micro-siting of treatments, protection of nesting sites). It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could result in development of
65 February 2020 migratory birds habitat, however the scope of these types of actions are usually relatively minor. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to migratory bird habitat, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to migratory birds from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would compromise the overall availability of habitat or population viability within the CIAA. 4.3.5 Wildlife, Excluding Special Status Species The CIAA for wildlife, excluding special status species, includes crucial and substantial habitats within Unit 1 (UDWR 2016). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could improve habitat for wildlife as changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, and rangeland health includes consideration of wildlife habitat. It is possible that future range improvement projects, associated with the grazing permits, in the CIAA could affect wildlife, but those would typically be designed to protect the species and would not usually cause a substantial impact, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. Effects to wildlife habitat could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions would generally improve habitat quality. For example, the vegetation treatments would generally improve forage availability for wildlife. These treatments also typically include invasive/noxious weed treatments, which would address one of the biggest threats to wildlife in Unit 1: the proliferation of weeds (UDWR 2016). It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could result in development of wildlife habitat, however the scope of these types of actions are usually relatively minor. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to wildlife habitat, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to wildlife habitat from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would compromise the overall availability of habitat or population viability within the CIAA. 4.3.6 Fish Habitat The CIAA for fish habitat is the HUC 12 subwatersheds intersected by the project area (961,553 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could affect fish habitat, but the changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, including for water resources and sensitive species. It is possible that future range-related water development projects, associated with the grazing permits, in the CIAA could affect fish habitat, but those would typically be designed to protect water resources and applicable habitat. Effects to fish habitat could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions would generally improve water availability and quality, which would benefit fish habitat. It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could result in development of water resources and thus impact fish habitat, however the scope of these types of actions are
66 February 2020 usually relatively minor and compliance with applicable Federal and State law would be necessary. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to fish habitat, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to fish habitat from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would result in impact to fish habitat within the CIAA. 4.3.7 Soils and Vegetation, Excluding Special Status Species The CIAA for soils and vegetation is the project area (494,412 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could affect soils and vegetation, but the changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, including maintaining/improving soils and vegetation. Effects to soils and vegetation could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions generally are designed to benefit soils and vegetation, or at minimum, mitigate the impacts to these resources. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to soils and vegetation, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to soils and vegetation from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would result in a substantial impact to soils and vegetation within the CIAA. 4.3.8 Invasive Species/Noxious Weed Species The CIAA for invasive species and noxious weed species is the project area (494,412 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could affect invasive/noxious weed species, but the changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, including minimizing invasive/noxious weed species. Effects to invasive/noxious weed species could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions would generally include appropriate treatments for invasive/noxious weed species. The continual application of invasive/noxious weed treatments in the CIAA would help prevent the spread of these species. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to invasive/noxious weed species, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to invasive/noxious weed from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would result in a substantial new spread of invasive/noxious weed within the CIAA. 4.3.9 Water Resources/Quality The CIAA for water resources/quality is the HUC 12 subwatersheds intersected by the project area (961,553 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could affect water resources/quality, but the changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, including for water resources/quality. It is possible that future range- related water development projects, associated with the grazing permits, in the CIAA could
67 February 2020
affect water resources/quality, but those would typically be designed to protect water resources/quality and compliance with applicable Federal and State law would be necessary. Effects to water resources/quality could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions would generally improve water availability and quality. It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could result in development of water resources, however the scope of these types of actions are usually relatively minor and compliance with applicable Federal and State law would be necessary. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to water resources/quality, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to water resources/quality from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would result in a loss of existing water sources or an unacceptable impact on water quality within the CIAA. 4.3.10 Wetland/Riparian Zones The CIAA for wetlands/riparian zones is the HUC 12 subwatersheds intersected by the project area (961,553 acres). Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Section 4.3. Reasonably foreseeable changes to the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits in the CIAA could affect wetlands/riparian zones, but the changes would be done to maintain or improve rangeland health, including for wetlands/riparian zones. It is possible that future range- related water development projects, associated with the grazing permits, in the CIAA could affect wetlands/riparian zones, but those would typically be designed to protect these areas and would be designed to support proper functioning condition of the wetlands/riparian zones. Effects to wetlands/riparian zones could also result from reasonably foreseeable hazardous fuels and habitat restoration treatments and wildfire stabilization and rehabilitation treatment, but each of these actions would generally improve the condition of wetlands/riparian zones. It is possible that reasonably foreseeable future land tenure changes (e.g., Federal or SITLA to private ownership) or mineral extraction permits or authorization could result in development of wetlands/riparian zones, however the scope of these types of actions are usually relatively minor and compliance with applicable Federal and State law would be necessary. Other types of reasonably foreseeable actions identified in Section 4.3 would not usually cause a substantial impact to wetlands/riparian zones, especially considering the typical application of design features and mitigation measures. While there may be some impacts to wetlands/riparian zones from the proposed action and reasonably foreseeable actions, these impacts would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would compromise the wetlands/riparian zones within the CIAA.
68 February 2020
CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5.1 Introduction This chapter summarizes the public outreach conducted, the preparers, and associated appendices (IDT checklist, literature cited, figures/maps, and comments/responses) used in preparing this EA. 5.2 Persons, Agencies, and Organizations Coordination/Consulted Table 19 lists the persons, agencies, and organizations consulted, or coordinated with during the preparation of this EA. Table 19. List of persons, agencies, and organizations consulted. Purpose and/or Authorities Name for Consultation or Findings and Conclusions Coordination Utah’s Public Lands Policy Coordination with state PLPCO participated as a Cooperating Agency. A scoping period Coordinating Office (PLPCO) government letter was sent in December 2017. The recipients were notified of a 15-day scoping period and were provided the link to the EA and the NEPA register. An interested public letter was sent and a comment period on the EA and unsigned FONSI was provided in February 2019. Additional information is summarized in Section 5.3. Box Elder County Commission Coordination with county Box Elder County Commission participated as a Cooperating Government Agency. A scoping period letter was sent in December 2017. The recipients were notified of a 15 day scoping period and were provided the link to the EA and the NEPA register. An interested public letter was sent and a comment period on the EA and unsigned FONSI was provided in February 2019. Additional information is summarized in Section 5.3. State of Utah, Division of State Consultation as required by Multiple Class III intensive pedestrian inventories were conducted History, State Historic NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470) within the Area of Potential Effect for a series of grazing permit Preservation Office renewals in 2015. The BLM made a determination of “No Adverse Effect” to historic properties within the Owl Springs and Red Butte allotments that considered the proposed action, and the Utah SHPO concurred with this determination in July 2015. New, surface-disturbing activities within the Keg Springs, Muddy Creek, Junction Creek allotments will require additional inventory and SHPO consultation. Design features, including the avoidance of historic properties, would be applied. Pueblo of Jemez, Confederated Consultation as required by the Invitation to consult letters were sent on 11/7/2017. Comments or Tribes of the Goshute American Indian Religious concerns were not received. Reservation, Skull Valley Band Freedom Act of 1978 (42 of the Goshute Tribe, U.S.C. 1996) and NHPA (16 Northwestern Band of Shoshone U.S.C. 470). Nation, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Project Mailing List Coordination with interested A scoping period/interested public letter was sent in December Grazing Permittees and public 2017. The recipients were notified of a 15-day scoping period and Interested Publics. were provided the link to the EA on the NEPA register. A comment period/interested public letter was sent and a comment period on the EA and unsigned FONSI was provided in February 2019. Additional information is summarized in Section 5.3. State of Utah Division of Coordination with state Discussed level 1 and level 2 groundwater protection zones. Drinking Water regulatory division
69 February 2020
Purpose and/or Authorities Name for Consultation or Findings and Conclusions Coordination State of Utah, Division of Coordinate with state wildlife Discussed range water developments placements with big and Wildlife Resources agency upland game biologists. Discussed if and how these developments may benefit or impact wildlife species. Discussed water development impacts on springsnails, boreal toad and least chub. State of Utah, Utah Geological Coordinate with state agency Discuss potential impacts of water developments on ground and Survey surface hydrology. State of Utah, Utah Grazing Coordinate with state agency Discussed alternative water sources and reroute of pipelines for Improvement Program proposed waters. Conducted numerous site visits in summer of 2019 with UGIP staff. 5.3 Summary of Public Participation Scoping Period The BLM conducted internal scoping on identifying issues/alternatives and completed an IDT checklist in December 2017. Issues/alternatives identified by the IDT were incorporated into this EA for analysis (Sections 1.7 through 1.7.2 and 2.2 through 2.4). The grazing permittees and interested public were notified of BLM’s intent to prepare an EA and an associated scoping period through a scoping letter as well as a posting on the BLM’s NEPA Register in December 2017. The BLM provided a public scoping period, beginning on December 14, 2017 and ending on December 29, 2017, on the issues and the alternatives to be considered. The BLM received three comment letters from two organizations and one agency during the scoping period. While most issues had been identified through the internal review or were beyond the scope of this EA (e.g., suggested additional range improvements not associated with this project or outside the project area), scoping comments identified some new issues and suggested new aspects of those previously identified. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance suggested an alternative to the originally proposed Keg Springs trough locations and pipeline alignment. In response to this comment, the BLM fully incorporated the recommended changes into the Proposed Action (Sections 2.2 and 2.4). Refer to the information contained in Table 20 and Sections 1.7 through 1.7.2 and 2.4. Comment Period The grazing permittees and interested public were notified of the comment period through a letter as well as a posting update on the BLM’s NEPA Register. The BLM provided a public review and comment period, beginning on February 15, 2019 and ending on March 4, 2019. The comment period was extended to March 14, 2019. Copies of the EA and unsigned FONSI were available on the BLM’s NEPA Register during the public review and comment period. The BLM received five comments from two grazing permittees, one organization, and two agencies during the comment period. Refer to the information contained in Table 21, Section 5.3.2, and Appendix D. 5.3.1 List of Commenters Table 20 lists agencies, organizations, and individuals who provided comments during the public scoping period. Their comments were used to identify the issues and alternatives considered in this EA (Sections 1.7 through 2.4).
70 February 2020
Table 20. Entities providing public comments during the scoping period. Name Topic of Comments Kathleen Clarke Office of the Governor, Public Lands Process, Range and Livestock, Wildlife, Socioeconomics, Water Rights Policy Coordination, State of Utah Luke Henry Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Darcy Helmick Comment of support for proposed range improvement projects and provided information on various Simplot Land and Livestock proposed range improvement projects from 2015. Table 21 lists agencies, organizations, and individuals who provided comments during public comment period on the EA and unsigned FONSI. Their comments were reviewed and used to refine the issues and alternatives considered in this EA (Sections 1.7 through 2.4). Table 21. Entities providing public comments during the comment period. Name Topic of Comments Kathleen Clarke Livestock industry and grazing, socio-economics, water rights/policy, project Office of the Governor, Public Lands construction/flexibility versus restrictions, and vegetation. Policy Coordination, State of Utah Improving grazing infrastructure/practices, utilizing the greater sage-grouse guidelines, viability of Commissioners Stan Summers, Jeff agricultural industries, vegetation management and forage availability, livestock grazing as a tool to Scott, and Jeff Hadfield manage the landscape, flexibility in livestock management practices, and utilizing the least Box Elder County restrictive measures to maintain the land and meet objectives. Tony Frates Plants identified as noxious and invasive weeds, specific sensitive species, and listing of species Utah Native Plant Society under the ESA. Jay Tanner Letter of support. Range improvement proposals located inside and outside of the project area, water as a limiting Darcy Helmick factor, projects within the Red Butte and Owl Springs allotments, projects not considered (juniper Simplot Land and Livestock treatments), clarification requests, and compliance with the greater sage-grouse guidelines. 5.3.2 Modifications Based on Public Comment and Internal Review The public comment period and corresponding internal review identified necessary corrections or clarifications to this EA. All sections within this EA were reviewed and some were modified to add clarity, to remove redundancies, or to update results (such as concluding consultation). When warranted, corrections to grammar, sentence structure, and formatting were made throughout the EA. In general, these changes were made without further clarification. Examples include updates to the Table of Contents, changes in font size, pagination or formatting style. The current month/year was replaced on the title page and the page headers to distinguish from the comment period version of the EA. 5.4 List of Preparers The BLM staff specialists and consultants who contributed to the preparation of the EA and provided review comments on the EA are listed in Table 22 and Table 23, respectively. Table 22. SLFO preparers and reviewers. Name Title Responsibilities Dylan Tucker Rangeland Management Specialist Project Lead, Livestock Grazing, Soils and Vegetation, Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Stephanie Graham Assistant Field Office Manager EA Technical Review Bruce Schoeberl Renewable Resources Mellissa Wood Cassie Mellon Aquatic Ecologist Fish habitat, Water Resources/Quality, Sensitive Species, Riparian/Wetlands
71 February 2020
Name Title Responsibilities Emily Jencso Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Migratory Birds, and Sensitive Species Mary Higgins Realty Specialist Lands and Access Mark Williams Natural Resources Specialist Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Michael Sheehan Archaeologist NHPA Compliance Pamela Schuller Planning and Environmental Coordinator NEPA Compliance Refer also to the specialists as identified on the IDT checklist (Appendix A). Table 23. SWCA preparers and reviewers.
Name Title Document Responsibilities
Reid Persing Project Manager Project management, document preparation
Jenny Addy Environmental Specialist Document preparation
Joseph Carlo Environmental Specialists Resource author David Epstein Jeremy Eyre
Kari Chalker Managing Editor Technical editing
Debbi Smith Desktop Publishing and Production Coordinator Document formatting and production
Rachel Johnson GIS Specialist GIS and mapping
5.5 Appendices A. Interdisciplinary Team Checklist B. Literature Cited C. Figures (Maps) 1. Project area covering twenty-two grazing allotments in Box Elder County. 2. Owl Springs and U and I allotments proposed range improvements. 3. Keg Springs and Red Butte allotments proposed range improvements. 4. Junction Creek allotment proposed range improvements. 5. Muddy Creek allotment proposed range improvements. 6. Greater sage-grouse habitats within the project area. D. Comments and Responses (Comment Period) E. Acronyms/Abbreviations
72 February 2020
A – Interdisciplinary Team Checklist DETERMINATION OF STAFF: NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for relevant impact that need to be analyzed in detail in the EA.
Determin Assigned Resource Rationale for Determination ation Date Resources And Issues Considered (Includes Supplemental Authorities Appendix 1 H-1790-1)
The project area occurs within an attainment area airshed. The construction and maintenance Pamela activities associated with the rangeland improvements would not conflict Utah Division of NI Air Quality Schuller Air Quality’s State Implementation Plan. The EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards would not be exceeded. Design features would be applied. 11/6/19 The Central Pacific Railroad Grade Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is in Areas of Critical close proximity to the area of the range improvements. Construction/maintenance activities Roxanne Tea NI Environmental would avoid the grade and any associated feature (including trestles). Design features would Concern 11/20/19 be applied. Multiple Class III intensive pedestrian inventories were conducted within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for a series of grazing permit renewals in 2015. The BLM made a determination of “No Adverse Effect” to historic properties within this APE for the Owl Springs and Red Butte allotments, that considered the proposed action, and the Utah SHPO Michael NI Cultural Resources concurred with this determination in July 2015. Sheehan New, surface-disturbing activities within the Keg Springs, Muddy Creek, Junction Creek 11/6/19 allotments will require additional inventory and SHPO consultation. Design features, including the avoidance of historic properties, would be applied to ensure historic properties are not adversely affected.
As defined in EO 12898, minority, low-income populations and disadvantaged groups may Pamela use or live within or adjacent to the project area. The range improvements would not cause NI Environmental Justice Schuller any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low income populations. Hunting opportunities in accordance with Utah law would not change. 11/6/19 Farmlands (Prime or Soil map units that qualify as prime or unique farmlands could intersect the project area. Dylan Tucker NI Unique) These soils would not be irrigated and would remain as part of the BLM grazing allotments. 11/6/19
Least chub are present at Keg Springs. Fish habitat exists in the Raft River drainage which Cassie Mellon PI Fish Habitat potentially could be impacted by range improvements in the Junction Creek allotment. Design features would be applied. 10/20/17 Floodplains, as defined by EO 11988, FEMA, HUD, Corps of Engineers and the Land Use Plan, are not present. These range improvements would not affect a county’s ability to Cassie Mellon NI Floodplains obtain and/or maintain Federal flood insurance. Refer to the discussions contained in 11/7/19 wetlands/riparian zones. There would be no change/no impact to fire and fuels management. The Fuels/Fire Randy Kyes NI construction/maintenance of range improvements would not conflict with the objectives of Management the Fire Management Plan. Standard fire prevention stipulations would be applied. 10/30/17 Geology / Mineral Angela There are no known mining operations in the vicinity of the proposed range improvements. NI Resources/ Energy Wadman Should new mining activity be proposed, existing range improvements would be avoided. Production 12/21/18 Pamela Greenhouse Gas It is anticipated that greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction/maintenance of NI Schuller Emissions the rangeland improvements would be negligible. 10/16/17 Invasive Disturbance of areas during construction/maintenance may cause the spread of invasive Mark Williams PI Species/Noxious species and noxious weeds. Design features would be applied. Weeds (EO 13112) 10/25/17 Construction of the Proposed Action would result in disturbance along the proposed new Michael pipelines and fence lines. Linear disturbance can be mistaken by public lands users for a Nelson road, and once used as such could quickly become a user-created route. To prevent impacts, 11/7/17 linear disturbances would be reclaimed in a way to prevent future unauthorized use. NI Lands/Access Mary Higgins Existing roads should be used during construction/maintenance activities. No new routes 11/7/17 would be created, neither by construction nor by cross-country travel along new fences or pipelines. The proposed developments may intersect other buried ROWs. Design features Allison Gin would be applied. 1/13/20
73 February 2020
Determin Assigned Resource Rationale for Determination ation Date Livestock distribution and use patterns may be altered with the addition of range improvements. Approval or denial of various range improvements are being considered for Dylan Tucker PI Livestock Grazing the following allotments: Muddy Creek, Junction Creek, Owl Springs, Red Butte and Keg 1/9/18 Springs. Design features would be applied. The project area serves as habitat for a variety of migratory birds and is within the Great Emily Jencso PI Migratory Birds Basin Bird Conservation Area. Design features would be applied. 11/7/17 National Historic Roxanne Tea NP Resource is not present. Trails 11/2/17 The following Tribes were invited to consult via certified letter on 11/7/2017: Pueblo of Jemez, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Pamela Native American NI Tribe, Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, and Schuller Religious Concerns the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation. Comments or concerns were not 12/21/17 received.
There are no known paleontological resources within/adjacent to the project area. If Angela paleontological resources are discovered during construction or maintenance activities, NI Paleontology Wadman permittees or their agents would need to protect the site and immediately contact the authorized officer. Specimens should not be removed. Design features would be applied. 11/7/17 When range improvements are located in close proximity to State, Private Federal, or other Mary Higgins ownership and jurisdiction, BLM’s Cadastral Survey or Force Account Crew would survey 11/07/17 Property Boundary NI the improvement’s design/layout prior to construction. Boundary conflicts would be Evaluation Pamela minimized/avoided by layout adjustments. All land survey monuments must be protected Schuller during construction/maintenance activities. Design features would be applied. 11/18/19 Construction and maintenance activities may cause the casual user to be temporarily displaced but long-term access would not be limited. Use of the areas by the general public Roxanne Tea NI Recreation would not be altered over the long-term. These grazing allotments do not contain any SRMAs, nor any known popular destination areas. Refer also to the ACEC and 11/20/19 Travel/Transportation discussions. Emily Jencso Greater Sage-Grouse Project area is within greater sage-grouse PHMA and the majority of proposed new waters 11/7/17 PI Habitat are within nesting and brood-rearing habitat. Design features would be applied. Renee Chi 12/6/19 No quantifiable additional or decreased economic impact to the local area would be caused by the range improvements. Additional information is provided in EPS 2017. Range improvements are investments and enhance livestock grazing management within an allotment. In its scoping and comment period letters to BLM, PLPCO notes the importance of rangelands to local communities and that they continue to be grazed. The grazing allotments continue to support the agricultural industry within the County. This industry supports employment opportunities and businesses from local farms and ranches that rely on Pamela NI Socio-Economics these grazing allotments. These improvements can provide short and long term local/county Schuller benefits. Refer also to Livestock Grazing and Appendix D. 11/6/19 Construction/maintenance of range improvements complies with WO IM 2018-062 (Addressing Hunting, Fishing, Shooting Sports, and Big Game Habitats, and Incorporating Fish and Wildlife Conservation Plans and Information from Tribes, State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Other Federal Agencies in BLM NEPA Processes). As governed by State of Utah property access laws, the alternatives would not limit hunting, shooting, etc. or associated activities in or in proximity to the project area. Dylan Tucker Soils and Vegetation Construction/maintenance activities are surface disturbing. Construction should not occur 10/17/17 PI Excluding Special during soil saturation or when the soil is excessively wet. Site reclamation would need to Status Species address erosion and reseeding disturbed areas. Design features would be applied. Mark Williams 11/13/17 Threatened, No known populations are present in the project area. For new surface disturbance, some Endangered, surveys for BLM-sensitive species would be required. Mark Williams NI Candidate or Special Range developments would avoid TE and C/SSS populations. Design features would be 11/6/19 Status Plant Species applied. Aquatic sensitive species: least chub, springsnail species, northern leastherside chub, Cassie Mellon Threatened, bluehead sucker, and boreal toad are present within the project area. Terrestrial sensitive 3/29/19 PI Endangered, species: kit fox, golden eagle, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, pygmy rabbit, ferruginous Emily Jencso Candidate or Special hawk, dark kangaroo mouse, and long-billed curlew, have been documented within the project area. Breeding habitat for the grasshopper sparrow may exist within the project area. 11/7/17
74 February 2020
Determin Assigned Resource Rationale for Determination ation Date Status Animal Range improvement construction/maintenance activities have the potential to affect BLM Species sensitive species. Design features would be applied.
Construction and maintenance activities may cause the casual user to be temporarily Travel / Roxanne Tea NI displaced but long-term access would not be limited. Design features would be applied. Transportation Land use plan allocations for OHV designations would not be affected. 11/20/19 Installation of range improvements would not be substantially noticeable on the landscape and would be similar to other range improvements or other infrastructure in the project area. Roxanne Tea NI Visual Resources Contrast with the characteristic landscape would be low. The project area is classified as a 11/02/17 Visual Resource Management Class 4 area. Design features would be applied.
Hazardous wastes would not be created by the construction or maintenance of range Pamela Wastes improvements. Any fluids (gasoline or otherwise) used to fuel the vehicles/equipment must NI Schuller (hazardous or solid) be stored in approved or original containers. Any spills must be reported. Design features would be applied. 10/25/17 Water Resources / Water resources are present within the project area. Water rights, diversion and quantity Cassie Mellon PI Quality (drinking / could be altered. Design features would be applied. surface / ground) 10/20/17 Wetlands/riparian zones are present within the project area and could be altered due to Wetlands / Riparian construction/maintenance activities of range improvements. Range improvements could Cassie Mellon PI Zones change livestock distribution and alter the forage/water access and timing of use within these 11/6/19 zones. Design features would be applied. Wild and Scenic Roxanne Tea NP Wild and Scenic Rivers are not present. Rivers 10/19/17 Roxanne Tea NP Wilderness/WSA Wilderness or WSAs are not present. 10/19/17 There are no BLM-identified lands with wilderness characteristics in the project area. Range improvements are generally recognized as an example of human-made features that may be considered substantially unnoticeable (BLM 2012). The proposed Muddy Creek pipeline and troughs are located on the boundary of the Warm Springs (UT-020-017) inventory unit, which was inventoried and determined not to contain Roxanne Tea wilderness characteristics (BLM 2016b). Lands with 1/12/18 NI Wilderness During the scoping period for this EA, the BLM reviewed information regarding the Grouse Allison Ginn Characteristics Creek Mountains South citizen’s proposed wilderness characteristics unit and redesigned the Keg Springs troughs and pipeline layout to avoid areas nominated as potentially containing 1/13/20 lands with wilderness characteristics. Design features for recreation, travel and transportation management, vegetation, and visual resources, which would also benefit the wilderness characteristics resource, would be applied. Wild Horses and Tami Howell NP Wild horse and burro HMAs/HAs are not present within the project area. Burros 11/18/19 The project area is within UDWR cougar management units (MUs) 1a-1c, moose habitat, Wildlife Excluding crucial winter mule deer habitat, substantial summer pronghorn habitat, and crucial yearlong Emily Jencso PI Special Status elk habitat. Proposed water developments within big game and upland bird habitat may Species 11/7/17 affect foraging and distribution of species. Design features would be applied. Access to or use of woodland product sale areas within the project area would not be Mark Williams NI Woodland / Forestry limited. 11/13/17
75 February 2020
B – Literature Cited Biotics Database. 2005. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, NatureServe, and the network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers. BLM. 1986. Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the Box Elder Resource Management Plan. April 1986. BLM. 1989. H-1741-1 Fencing. December 1989. BLM. 1990. H-1741-2 Water Developments. November 1990. BLM. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah. BLM. 1998. Decision Record for the Proposed Box Elder Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment (UT-020-94-07), Bear River Resource Area, Salt Lake City, Utah. January 1998. BLM. 2007. Herbicide Use Standard Operating Procedures, Appendix B of the Record of Decision for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. September 2007. BLM. 2012. BLM Manual Section 6310. Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (Public). BLM. 2015. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada, and Northeastern California Oregon, Utah, Washington, D.C and the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) Attachment 4. BLM. 2016a. Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. August 2016. BLM. 2016b. Lands with wilderness characteristics inventory for Warm Springs (UT-020-017). BLM. 2019. Record of Decision and Approved Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendment (March 2019). BLM. 2019. Utah BLM Sensitive Species Instruction Memorandum M UT-2019-005. March 2019. BLM, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, National Park Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, The Nature Conservancy, Utah Division of Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service. 2017. Conservation Agreement for Springsnails in Nevada and Utah. Bock, C. E. and B. Webb. 1984. Birds as grazing indicator species in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife. Management. No. 48:1045-1049. Box Elder County. 1998. Box Elder County General Plan, County Goals, Objectives, and Action Steps, (Updated 2011). Resolution No. 11-03. Accessed online at: http://media.rainpos.com/65/bec_general_plan.pdf Box Elder County. 2017. Box Elder County Resource Management Plan. Accessed online at: https://le.utah.gov/interim/2017/pdf/00005361.pdf
76 February 2020
Connelly, J.W., C.A. Hagen, and M.A. Schroeder. 2011. Characteristics and dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, pp. 53–67. Studies in Avian Biology Vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley. Dobler, F.C. Dixon K.R. 1990. The pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis. Pp. 111–115 in Rabbits, hares, and pikas: status survey and conservation action plan (Chapman J. A. Flux J. E. C., eds.). IUCN/SSC Lagomorph Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. EPS. 2017. Socioeconomic Reports. Memorandum prepared by Pamela Schuller. Salt Lake Field Office-Bureau of Land Management. West Valley City, Utah Graham, S.E. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Selection and Use Patterns in Response to Vegetation Management Practices in Northwestern Utah. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, USA. Green J. S.; Flinders J. T. 1980a. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. Journal of Range Management 33:136–142. Green, Gregory and G. Anthony, Robert. 1989. Nesting Success and Habitat Relationships of Burrowing Owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor. 91. 10.2307/1368313. Green, J. S., and J. T. Flinders. 1980b. Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammalian Species No. 125. 4pp. Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management Principles and Practices. 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Holmes, Aaron L.; Green, Gregory A.; Morgan, Russell L.; and Livezey, Kent B. (2003) "Burrowing Owl nest success and burrow longevity in north central Oregon," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 63: No. 2, Article 11. Howard, R.P. 1975. Breeding ecology of the ferruginous hawk in northern Utah and southern Idaho. MS Thesis, Utah State University. Logan, Utah, USA. Kelt D.A., Konno E.S. & Wilson J.A. (2005) Habitat Management for the Endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat: The Effect of Mowing and Grazing. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 424-429 Knerr, J.S. 2007. Greater sage-grouse ecology in western Box Elder County, Utah. Thesis, Utah State University, Utah, USA. Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors. Studies in Avian Biology 38. LANDFIRE. 2008. Existing Vegetation Type Layer, LANDFIRE 1.1.0, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Available at: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. Accessed May 22, 2018. LANDFIRE. 2016. LANDFIRE/GAP Land Cover Map Unit Descriptions. Available at: https://landfire.gov/documents/LF-GAPMapUnitDescriptions.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2018. Manier, D.J, Z.H. Bowen, M.L. Brooks, M.L. Casazza, P.S. Coates, P.A. Deibert, S.E. Hanser, and D.H. Johnson. 2014. Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review. Open-File Report 2014-1239, U.S. Geological Survey.
77 February 2020
McGrew, J.C. 1977. Distribution and habitat characteristics of the kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) in Utah. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT. Muth, R.T., and D.E. Snyder. 1995. Diets of young Colorado Squawfish and other small fish in backwaters of the Green River, Colorado and Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 55(2): Article 1. NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 13, 2020). NRCS. 1997. Soil Survey of Box Elder County Utah, Western Part. Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/utah/UT601/0/Box_Elder.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2018. Pardieck, K.L., D.J. Ziolkowski Jr., M. Lutmerding, V. Aponte and M-A.R. Hudson. 2019. North American Breeding Bird Survey Dataset 1966 - 2018, version 2018.0. U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9HE8XYJ. Parrish, J.R., F.P. Howe, and R.E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Poulin, R. G., L. D. Todd, E. A. Haug, B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.61 Restani, M. 1991. Resource partitioning among three Buteo species in the Centennial Valley, Montana. Condor 93:1007-1010. Romin, L.W., and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. January 2002 update. Slater, S. J., K. W. Frye Christensen, R. N. Knight, R. MacDuff, and K. Keller. 2012. Great Basin Avian Species-at-risk and Invasive Species Management through Multi-Agency Monitoring and Coordination Final Report. Department of Defense, Legacy Resources Management Program (Project #10–102). Slater, S. J., K. W. Frye Christensen, R. N. Knight, K. Keller, and R. MacDuff. 2013. Great Basin Bird Species-at-risk and Invasive Species Management Partnership Final Report – Phase 3. Department of Defense, Legacy Resources Management Program (Project #10– 102). Thacker, E.T. 2010. Greater sage-grouse seasonal ecology and responses to habitat manipulations in Northern Utah. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Travsky, A., and G.P. Beauvais. 2005. Species assessment for the Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) in Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, WY. UDWR. 2005a. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Least Chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis) in the State of Utah. Publication Number 05-24, Salt Lake City, Utah. UDWR. 2005b. Boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas Conservation Plan. Publication Number 05-37, Salt Lake City, UT.
78 February 2020
UDWR. 2006a. Conservation and Management Plan for Three Fish Species in Utah. Publication Number 06-17, Salt Lake City, UT. UDWR. 2006b. Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Roundtail Chub Gila robusta, Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus, and Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis. Publication Number 06-18, Salt Lake City, UT. UDWR. 2009b. Rangewide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Northern Leatherside Lepidomeda copei. Publication Number 09-11, Salt Lake City, UT. UDWR. 2013a. Deer Herd Unit Management Plan Deer Herd Unit #1 (Box Elder). UDWR. 2014. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan. UDWR. 2015a. Utah Elk Statewide Management Plan. UDWR. 2015b. Utah Cougar Management Plan V.3, 2015 – 2025. UDWR. 2016. Utah Big Game Range Trend Summaries 2016 – Wildlife Management Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18A, 18B and Northern Region Treated or Disturbed Summary. UDWR. 2016a. Three Species Monitoring Summary. Statewide 2016. Publication Number 16- 14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, UT. UDWR. 2017. Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan. UDWR. 2017a. Utah Sensitive Species List. Available at: https://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/ViewReports/SS_List.pdf. Accessed May 2018. UDWR. 2017b. Utah Moose Statewide Management Plan. USDA. 2016a. Ola Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/O/OLA.html. Accessed May 21, 2018. USDA. 2016b. Itca Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/I/ITCA.html. Accessed May 21, 2018. USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation- concern.php. Accessed June 1, 2018. USFWS. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. February 2013. Utah Department of Food and Agriculture. 2018. Noxious plant list. Available at: http://ag.utah.gov/divs-progs/50-plants-and-pests/hay-grain-seed/599-noxious-weed- list.html. Accessed June 11, 2018. Utah Department of Health. 2017. Bureau of Epidemiology West Nile Virus Seasonal Summary Reports. Available at: http://health.utah.gov/epi/diseases/WNV/surveillance/. Accessed on February 11, 2019. Utah Division of Water Quality. 2016. Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report. Salt Lake City, Utah. Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Available at: https://documents.deq.utah.gov/water-quality/monitoring-reporting/integrated- report/DWQ-2017-004941.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2018. Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWRe). 2001. Section 19: West Desert Basin, Utah State Water Plan. State of Utah Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources. Available at: https://water.utah.gov/Planning/SWP/WestDes/WestDes2001.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2018.
79 February 2020
Utah (PLPCO). 2019. Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse. State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Utah Wildlife Action Plan Joint Team. 2015. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: A plan for managing native wildlife species and their habitats to help prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act. Publication number 15-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Utah. 2018. State of Utah Resource Management Plan. January 2018. Editors Brianne Emery and Redge Johnson. Commission for the Stewardship of Public Lands and Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. Salt Lake City, Utah. Accessed online at: https:https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ddzc3I5_jDmugC40OQ2Fe5xjLM9wmja/view. Utah State University (USU). 2017. Interim greater sage-grouse seasonal use areas. Unpublished spatial data. Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Woods, A.J., D.A. Lammers, S.A Bryce, J.M. Omernik, R.L Denton, M. Domeier, and J.S. Comstock. 2001. Ecoregions of Utah (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,175,000), Reston, Virginia.
80 February 2020
C – Figures/Maps
Figure 1. Project area covering twenty-two grazing allotments in Box Elder County.
81 February 2020
Figure 2. Owl Springs and U and I allotments proposed range improvements.
82 February 2020
Figure 3. Keg Springs and Red Butte allotments proposed range improvements.
83 February 2020
Figure 4. Junction Creek allotment proposed range improvements.
84 February 2020
Figure 5. Muddy Creek allotment proposed range improvements.
85 February 2020
Figure 6. Greater sage-grouse habitats within the project area.
86 February 2020
D – Comments and Responses (Comment Period)
Commenter Comment BLM Response Sindy Smith [1] The State of Utah has reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the West Box Elder Range Improvement Projects, and appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback. The State [1 &3] Background information regarding the local livestock industry and partnership efforts, Public Lands Policy commends the BLM for taking active measures to improve the rangeland for grazing allotments in western Box Elder County. The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) provided the including a letter of support. Response is not warranted. Coordinating Office attached technical comments for your consideration. [2 & 4] BLM acknowledges the comment and agrees that livestock grazing is an important [2] Livestock grazing is an essential component of Box Elder County’s economy and culture, and the State accordingly supports all of the range improvement projects proposed under Alternative A, component and economic foundation in Box Elder County, Utah. PLPCO’s concerns and the Proposed Action, in the EA. Western Box Elder County is an exceptionally remote and sparely populated area of Utah with limited economic opportunities. The implementation of critical range information has been fully incorporated into the IDT Checklist (Appendix A; Socio-Economics) improvement projects is key to the survival and future success of the area’s livestock operations and small communities such as Grouse Creek. Livestock producers in western Box Elder County have and is referenced in Section 1.7.2 (Issues Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail). BLM’s a long track record of successful stewardship of resources on BLM-managed land, and the BLM should seek to continue and enhance its partnership with livestock producers by approving the range rationale includes an acknowledgement of regional socio-economics. BLM addresses livestock improvement projects proposed in Alternative A. The State appreciates the dedication of the BLM in moving this project forward and looks forward to future coordination to advance sustainable distribution and active AUM use in Section 4.2.1.1. livestock grazing in western Box Elder County. Please contact the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office with any questions or concerns. [5] BLM has included additional discussion regarding alternatives conformance with the State of [3] TECHNICAL COMMENTS Utah’s RMP at Section 1.6.3. BLM has also included information from Box Elder County’s plans [4] The EA fails to consider any socio-economic impacts, and the BLM’s response to previous socio-economic comments dismisses the project’s potential for impact. Improved rangeland in Section 1.6.4. infrastructure clearly has the potential for positive future economic impacts by increasing the number of active AUMs and consequently, the economic benefits that permittees and local communities [6] The State of Utah water right policy and BLM water right policy were reviewed and water receive from increased livestock numbers. Multiple studies throughout the west show that active AUMs provide a conservative average of $100 in economic benefits per year to local communities. [1] right design features are included in Section 2.2.2/Table 2. BLM policy is outlined in BLM Utah Furthermore, the potential for increased active AUMs further solidifies the stability of agriculture in the region, which is a vital way of life for communities near the project area. The BLM should at IM No-2015-UT-019. Until rescinded or changed, SLFO is required to follow this policy. least include a short analysis of the potential economic benefits the projects will have on the socio-economics in the region. [7] BLM has removed, North Bedke Spring from further analysis. See Sec 2.4. [5] Page 6, Section 1.6.2.1 State of Utah Plans [8] BLM has updated its standards to allow the option of a storage tank to be placed on a solid The EA should note that the proposed action is in conformance with and supports the policies of the State of Utah as outlined in the State Resource Management Plan:[2] packed and leveled gravel base with a steel tank. “The state supports prompt approval by land management agencies of all range improvements, increased water infrastructure, and vegetation treatments to benefit domestic livestock, wildlife, and [9] BLM has reviewed and updated all relevant sections of the EA to incorporate the consequently the health of federal lands” (p. 149). requirements in be consistent with the most recent land use plan amendment. See Footnote 5, [6] Page 6, Section 1.6.2.1. State of Utah Plans regarding a preliminary injunction against implementing the 2019 sage-grouse plans. This EA lacks a discussion of which entities hold the water rights for the proposed water developments. The State has a clear policy that it opposes federal agencies obtaining water rights within the [10] BLM will commit to coordinate with the permittees or their agents proper/reasonable timing state through coercion or by requiring water rights as a prerequisite to the approval of a project or permit. The State Resource Management Plan outlines these policies: of any approved construction activities. As stated in the Utah Greater Sage-grouse ROD/ARMPA (2015), under MA-SSS-3 (G) Seasonal Restrictions, “Specific time and distance determinations “Privately-held water rights should be protected from encroachment and/or coerced acquisition” (p. 202). will be based on site specific conditions and may be modified due to documented local “Oppose federal agencies conditioning any permit, lease, or other land use agreement on the permanent transfer, relinquishment, or other impairment of any water right” (p. 202). variations….in coordination with the appropriate State of Utah agency.” Therefore, BLM can Furthermore, Utah Code prohibits federal land use agencies from conditioning the transfer or issuance of water rights to approve permit renewals or projects. [1] BLM should clarify who holds the work with the range improvement proponent and the local wildlife agency to evaluate whether to water rights for these projects and prioritize agreements with private water right holders to utilize their water rights rather than seeking to obtain water rights. modify seasonal restrictions at each proposed range improvement installation location, in [7] Page 9, Section 2.2. North Bedke Spring accordance with the ARMPA BLM should replace the barbed wire fence with a fence made up of either wooden posts or metal paneling to be maintained by the Salt Lake City BLM Field Office. Experience shows that barbed wire [11] BLM is the water right (WR 13-793) holder for Keg Springs. fences break down with time and are inefficient in keeping Elk and even cattle out of spring areas. [12] At Section 4.2.1.1., BLM states “With the addition of new troughs and watering points, [8] Page 11, Section 2.2.1.4. Storage Tanks livestock distribution would be more dispersed, resulting in better utilization of available forage The requirements that a corrugated galvanized storage tank be built and that cement trucks deliver concrete on site to pour a base at the foot of the tanks are unrealistic. A concrete truck is impossible throughout the allotment and better livestock productivity, while also decreasing the impact to to get to these sites and the standards do not match how the Grazing Improvement Program (GIP) and its partners have successfully completed projects throughout Northern Utah. BLM should alter forage around each watering point.” the storage tank requirements to allow for 10-20,000-gallon steel tanks to be placed on a solid packed and leveled gravel base. Steel tanks on gravel bases are much more realistic for the project area. [13] BLM has added information that addresses the benefits to the vegetative community in [9] Page 14, Greater Sage Grouse Habitat and Pages 49-51 Section 4.2.7.1. With the current sage-grouse plan amendments being finalized, BLM should be consistent with the amended sage-grouse plan. The sage-grouse requirements, thresholds, and responses in this EA should be no more restrictive than those in the amended sage-grouse plan. [10] Page 12-16, Table 3. Design Features of the Proposed Action Between all of the seasonal restrictions, the dates where actual construction can occur is only between August 15th and November 15th. UDAF personnel have dealt with similar restrictions in other areas of the state and these shortened time periods have proven almost impossible to accomplish all of the needed tasks. Consequently, BLM should provide more flexible dates in which construction of these range projects can occur. Furthermore, the small window of time that does not violate a habitat restriction timeframe is during the driest season in Utah, which increases the risk of wildfires starting from heavy machine use. In addition to more flexible timeframes, a site-specific assessment of each construction site would be helpful in properly planning for the construction of different projects within habitat restriction timeframes. [11] Page 40, Section 3.3.10. Water Resources and Water Quality In the third paragraph the BLM discusses the development of Keg Springs as a livestock pond prior to the BLM’s acquisition of this area. BLM should clarify the water rights situation on Keg Springs. If the area was held by a private land owner and developed for a beneficial use prior to the BLM’s acquisition then the water rights should remain with the private individual. BLM should identify the owner of the water right. [12] Page 42, Section 4.1.1.1. Alternative A – Proposed Action In the second paragraph BLM should include a brief summary of the benefits that the more uniform and moderated grazing patterns within allotments will have on vegetative communities. [13] Pages 58-59 Vegetation In this section BLM fails to discuss the benefits to vegetative communities of a more even grazing distribution throughout allotments. Although new construction will have temporary disturbances, long-term these projects will result in better grazing management, improved wildlife habitat, and overall improved vegetative and soil health. [14] [1] Utah Code §73-3-31 1. Alevy, J., Fadali, E., and Harris, T. R. 2007. Analysis of Impacts on Public Land Grazing on the Elko County Economy, Jarbridge and Mountain City Management Area: Economic Impacts of Federal Grazing in Elko County. University of Nevada Reno. Fletcher, R. R., Borden, G. W., and Grumbles, R. 2006. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing and Recreation on the Arizona Strip. University of Arizona. Lewin, P. A., Rimbey, N. R., Brown, A ., Jensen, S. K., and Wulfhorst, J. D. 2014. Regional Economic Impact Model of Owyhee County. University of Idaho. Taylor, D. T., Coupal, R. H., and Foul ke, T. 2005. The Economic Impact of Federal Grazing on the Economy of Park County, Wyoming. University of Wyoming.
87 February 2020
Commenter Comment BLM Response [2] https://publiclands.utah.gov/current-projects/resource-management-plans/ [Note: Paragraph numbering was added.] Box Elder County [1] The Box Elder County Commissioners have reviewed the proposed renewal for the 5 grazing allotments in Box Elder County under Alternatives A or B. Box Elder County Commissioners support [1, 3, & 9] As applicable to this EA, this is background information and a letter of support. and commends the BLM for taking active measures to improve public land grazing infrastructure alongside the renewal of these permits, which will provide opportunity for improved domestic Response is not warranted. livestock grazing practices. The following are Box Elder County Commissioners concerns regarding the draft Environmental Assessment (EA): [2] Refer to BLM’s response to PLPCO, items 9 and 10. [2] Box Elder County Commissioners support using the 2018 Sage Grouse guidelines instead of the 2015 guidelines. It will be coming out very soon. It only makes sense to use the current rules and [3-8] BLM has incorporated Box Elder County’s General Plan and RMP (Section 1.6.4). not be tied to old data and out dated rules. [3] Box Elder County’s primary objective is to encourage activities on public lands that have positive effects on agriculture and other closely associated private industries. The goal is to support the viability of these industries. Vegetation on public lands should be managed to provide maximum sustainable production of forage for livestock, which is an important component of agriculture in the county. We continue to support responsible use and development of public land resources. [4] Box Elder County’s objective is continued access to grazing lands, grazing permits, and support maximum sustainable animal unit months. [5] Box Elder County Commissioners maintain the objective to encourage vegetation management to support maximum sustainable forage growth and implementing forage improvements along with increased management flexibility in regard to grazing on public lands. [6] Box Elder County desires that public lands continue to provide livestock grazing. The county desires grazing to be used as a tool to improve resource and watershed health, forage productivity, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities while reducing invasive weed species and the risk of wildfire. [7] Box Elder County’s objective is to encourage range vegetation management to support maximum sustainable forage growth, implement forage improvements and increase management flexibility on public lands with regards to grazing. Box Elder County supports working with the BLM, USFS, and individual grazing permittees to implement changes in permit terms and conditions necessary to allow efficient use and maintenance of forage resources. [8] Box Elder County encourages the maximum sustainable use and the least restrictive measures to maintain the range and meet the objectives. [9] Thank you for your continued work for and on the behalf of the valuable resources in Box Elder County, we respectfully ask you to take our concerns into consideration. [Note: Paragraph numbering was added.] Tony Frates [1] Cicuta douglasii is listed as a noxious and invasive weed in Table 11. That is not the case. While toxic, so are many plants, native and non-native. You should not be allowing any cattle grazing [1] Cicuta douglasii has been removed from the list in Table 9. Utah Native Plant Society where wetland plants like C. douglasii grow: not only for the safety of grazing animals, but also to protect delicate riparian/wetland systems where cattle should not be allowed in the first place. [2] There is no habitat for Astragalus anserinus in the analysis area. USFWS’s process for listing [2] We are also concerned about the lack of consideration for specific sensitive species such as Astragalus anserinus, a species that we feel should be have been listed under the ESA and where grazing of species under the ESA is outside the scope of this action and BLM jurisdiction. Closing areas is a primary threat. No grazing should be allow within a wide radius of habitat involving A. anserinus and provisions of its conservation agreement should be incorporated, and as but one example. To to livestock grazing is also outside the scope of this action. just state that pre-constructions survey will be conducted is inadequate. As stated in Table 2, in addition to preconstruction surveys, BLM also commits to avoiding [Note: Paragraph numbering was added.] populations by redesigning the range improvement(s). The Utah Native Plant Society does not offer any other information to which the BLM can consider in more detail. Jay Tanner [1] I am very pleased to see this project EA going forward. I support the included livestock water development and livestock water distribution projects. [1] Comment of support. A response is not warranted. [Note: Paragraph numbering was added.] Darcy Helmick [1] Simplot Land & Livestock Division ("Simplot ") owns the "base property" for a USDI BLM Grazing Preference within the Owl Springs and Red Butte Allotments within the Salt Lake Field [1-5, 11-13] Background information, letter of support, and permit administration preferences Simplot Land and Livestock Office, West Desert District Office, Utah, BLM. This Grazing Permit remains effective through October 27, 2021. This grazing permit also contains the Dry Canyon, U and I, Grouse Creek, and provided. The allotments of concern (Dry Canyon, U and I, Grouse Creek, and Hardesty Creek) Hardesty Creek Allotments, which are not included within this rangeland improvement project EA, though we have previously applied for range improvements within these allotments as well. We are included within the scope and project area of this EA. Additional response is not warranted. submitted scoping comments to your office in December of 2017, which are referenced in the EA at page 67. Such comments are appended hereto as Attachment #2 and incorporated herein. [4 & 6] The BLM only partially addressed the North Red Butte well and pipeline and has now [2] The EA appropriately analyzes the benefits of range improvements. Water has been a limiting factor in managing these allotments. Adding water sources will result in better cattle distribution and incorporated additional miles of pipeline and troughs in Section 2.2/Table 1. BLM has removed, utilization patterns, as well as wildlife management. North Bedke Spring from further analysis. See Sec 2.4. [3] This EA was released simultaneously with a permit renewal EA, DOI-BLM-UT-W0l0- 2014-0027-EA, dated February, 2019, for the Dry Canyon, Lynn, Red Butte, Owl Springs, and Kimball [7 & 8] Juniper treatments are outside the scope of this action. BLM will consider vegetation Creek Allotments (aka "Western Box Elder 5 Allotment") ("Permit Renewal EA"). Simplot holds a grazing permit within three (3) of these allotments; namely, Dry Canyon, Owl Springs, and Red treatments in the future as time/funding permits. Vegetation treatments were not warranted at this Butte Allotments. See Attachment #1 - Maps. Some of the management proposed within the Permit Renewal EA requires installation of some of the improvements within this EA. BLM should first time based on the information currently before the BLM. finalize this EA, and then move forward with the Permit Renewal EA, or in the alternative, simultaneously do both. In either case, BLM should move forthwith in issuing a decision to authorize the [9] In order to address the concerns identified, BLM is considering multiple potential water range range improvements discussed below - subject to issuance of the Record of Decision on the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse, Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental improvements in the northern and middle (central) portions of the Red Butte allotment. Impact Statement dated November 2018 ("2018 Utah ARMPA"). See 2018 Utah ARMPA at page 2-42 (wherein the 2018 Utah ARMPA did not carryforward from the 2015 Utah ARMPA, MA-LG- [10] Range improvements would be funded through the normal routes; such as BLM 8100 funds. 14,1 15,2 17,3 as related to "new structural range improvements" and "existing range improvements"); 2018 Utah ARMPA at page App-8-2 (which states that "Range improvements that do not affect Also, BLM would work with any partners that would be willing to contribute funds such as the Greater Sage-Grouse or range improvements that provide a conservation benefit to Greater Sage-Grouse, such as fences for protecting important seasonal habitats, are exempt from the lek buffer Utah Grazing Improvement Program and 7121 funds. requirement"); 2018 Utah ARMPA at pages App-2-164 to 165 (which speaks of necessary refinements to the 2015 Utah ARMPA as to "2.4.17 Prioritization of Grazing Permits", particularly as related to "range improvement project[s]"); 2018 Utah ARMPA at pages App-2-165 to 166 (which speaks of necessary refinements to the 2015 Utah ARMPA as to "2.4.18 Water Developments for Maintenance would be through assignment of cooperative range improvement agreements. BLM Livestock"). maintenance of riparian area exclosures would be conducted. [4] I. Improvements BLM should move forward to a proposed or final decision. Under the Proposed Action, there are no required or associated timelines to construct these range improvements or an established priority list. [5] OWL SPRINGS ALLOTMENT BLM would follow (comply with) the Utah IM No-2015-019 UT or its successor. BLM failed to include or analyze extending the existing pipeline at Rabbit Springs. BLM instead proposes drilling two wells, which we do not object to. The proposed Highway 30 Well would replace this extension project. BLM holds the water right at Keg Springs. BLM would complete the application to extend the place of use. Our scoping document comments proposed: Extend pipeline to the south, east and northeast from existing line. This will provide additional water sources for better distribution and utilization across the allotment. [3 &14] The previous comments submitted by Simplot regarding the greater sage-grouse ARMPA were reviewed. Refer to BLM’s response to PLPCO, items 9 and 10. BLM adequately and appropriately addressed the drilling a new well on the Lucin pass along the powerline and road, placing the well on the pass and piping water to the north and south, identifying the project as the Lucin Road Well. [Map insert/figure not reproduced here.] [6] RED BUTTE ALLOTMENT BLM adequately and appropriately addressed extending a pipeline from the Owl Springs/ Red Butte dividing fence (the Grouse Creek well) approximately 2 miles north or half way into the Si's pasture. This will help distribution and even utilization, identifying the project as the Red Butte Corral Pipeline. [Map insert/figure not reproduced here.] BLM analyzed a variation of the proposed extension of the North Bedke Waterline in the North Bedke Spring project. This project proposal includes a barbed wire spring exclosure. It is critical that BLM have maintenance responsibility over this portion of the project. We request the opportunity to be present at the time of flagging for construction in order to insure exclosure design will be
88 February 2020
Commenter Comment BLM Response effective at excluding cattle. It is important to note that the change in layout of this pipeline reduces the amount of water that was proposed to be placed within the "north" pasture of the Red Butte Allotment BLM adequately and appropriately analyzed the proposal to Pipe water NW from Keg Springs to provide water in the Red Butte Allotment, under the project name of Keg Springs Pipeline. [Map insert/figure not reproduced here.] BLM only partially considered the proposal for additional water in the "North" pasture of the Red Butte Allotment, under the North Red Butte Well project. The proposal was to "Develop a Well on the State section in northern portion of allotment, and then pipe this water so that both the middle and north pastures can access it." The importance of this difference is the amount of water proposed in the "North" pasture is significantly reduced from our proposal. [7] II. Improvements BLM failed to cover under this EA that still need addressed. [8] RED BUTTE ALLOTMENT BLM failed to analyze the Treatment of Juniper within the Red Butte Pasture and Pine Creek pastures. Our scoping comments proposed: Both of these areas are adjacent to existing Sage Grouse habitat and if treated will provide additional habitat, allowing the birds an easier transition from wintering to brood rearing habitat. Secretary Jewell's Order No. 3336 dated January 5, 2015, relating to "Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration", emphasizes the need for restoration of areas impacted by invasion of invasive species including juniper. These projects would meet the needs in SO 3336, and should be a priority to the permit holders and the Secretary. [9] III. Improvements BLM should not move forward to a proposed or final decision. BLM proposes the Red Butte Pasture Fence which would create 3 pastures within the Red Butte Allotment. There are multiple issues with this proposed project, and we request that it not be carried forward into the proposed decision. This would also impact the proposed decision for the permit renewal EA. Without full implementation of our proposed projects, there is not adequate water within the northern portion of the allotment to serve as an independent pasture. The forage is also limiting in that area - without the additional water it will be best to leave the northern and middle portions of the allotment as one pasture, so livestock can utilize all existing and newly proposed developments when utilizing the northern area. [10] IV. Clarification questions - BLM should address in its proposed and final decision: • How will these improvement construction be funded? • Who will maintain the improvements? • Is there a required timeline associated with the projects? • Is there a priority list for the order in which the projects are completed? • Will the water rights associated with new wells and pipelines be in the name of the Bureau of Land Management or permittees or others, and will the BLM be completing all the associated paperwork with acquiring those rights? • Who holds the current water right at Keg Springs? Who will complete paperwork to extend the place of use? [11] We look forward to working with you through laying out and the construction of these projects, [12] Attachment #1: Maps (2 pages) [Attachment #1 not reproduced here.] [13] Attachment #2: Simplot's Scoping Comments dated December 28, 2017 (3 pages) [Attachment #2 not reproduced here.] [14] Footnotes: 1 The 2015 Utah ARMP A currently prescribes in MA-LG-14 that "In PHMA, design new structural range improvements to have a neutral effect or conserve, enhance, or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat through an improved grazing management system relative to Greater Sage Grouse objectives. Structural range improvements, in this context, include but are not limited to: cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including moveable tanks used in livestock water hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels and spring developments. Potential for invasive species establishment or increase following construction must be considered in the project planning process and monitored and treated post- construction." However, the 2018 Utah ARMPA contains "No similar action". 2 The 2015 Utah ARMPA currently prescribes in MA-LG-15 that "In PHMA, evaluate existing structural range improvements to make sure they have a neutral effect or conserve, enhance or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat". However, the 2018 Utah ARMPA contains "No similar action". 3 The 2015 Utah ARMPA currently prescribes in MA-LG-17 that "In PHMA, monitor for and treat noxious weeds and treat invasive species where needed, associated with existing range improvements." However, the 2018 Utah ARMPA contains "No similar action". [Note: Paragraph numbering was added.]
89 February 2020
E – Acronyms/Abbreviations ACEC Area of Critical MU Management Unit Environmental Concern NAGPRA Native American Graves ACS Avian Conservation Strategy Protection and Repatriation ARMPA Approved Resource Act of 1990 Management Plan NEPA National Environmental Amendment Policy Act of 1969 BCC Birds of Conservation NHPA National Historic Concern Preservation Act of 1966 BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle NISIMS National Invasive Species Protection Act of 1962 Information Management BLM Bureau of Land Management System CEQ Council on Environmental NRCS Natural Resource Quality Conservation Service CFR Code of Federal Regulations PHMA Priority Habitat Management CIAA Cumulative Impacts Analysis Area Area PLPCO Public Lands Policy COT Conservation Objectives Coordinating Office Team PRIA Public Rangelands DOI Department of Interior Improvement Act of 1978 EA Environmental Assessment RINS Raptor Inventory Nest EO Executive Order Survey EPA Environmental Protection ROD/RMP Record of Decision and Agency Resource Management Plan ESA Endangered Species Act of SFA Sagebrush Focal Areas 1973 SGMA Sage-Grouse Management FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Area Management Act of 1976 SITLA School and Institutional Trust GHMA General Habitat Management Lands Administration Area TGA Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 GIP Grazing Improvement UDAF Utah Department of Program Agriculture and Food H Handbook UDWQ Utah Division of Water HUC Hydrologic Units Codes Quality IB Information Bulletin UDWR Utah Division of Water IDT Interdisciplinary Team Resources IM Instruction Memorandum UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife MA Management Action Resources MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of UPIF Utah Partners in Flight 1918 USFWS United States Fish and MLRA Major Land Resource Area Wildlife Service MOU Memorandum of WNV West Nile Virus Understanding WO Washington Office
90