Final environmental impact statement : North rich cattle allotment : Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Logan Ranger District, Cache and Rich counties, Utah

2004·25.2 MB·English

by  Cruz, Robert A

Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

aTDl94
.5
F56
.
2004
United States North Rich Allotment
Department of
Agriculture
Environmental
Final
Forest
Service
Impact Statement
Intermountain
Region
Wasatch-Cache
National Forest
February 2004
United States
Department of
Agriculture
National Agricultural Library
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
NORTH RICH CATTLE ALLOTMENT
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Logan Ranger District
Cache and Rich Counties, Utah
February 2004
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Wasatch Cache National Forest
8226 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
[phone]
Responsible Official:
Robert A. Cruz
Logan Ranger District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, Utah 84321
[phone]
For Futher Information Contact:
Evelyn Sibbemsen
Logan Ranger District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, Utah 84321
[phone]
MAR
0 8 2004
ABSTRACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement documents the analysis offour
alternatives developed for possible management ofthe 27,000-acre North Rich Cattle Allotment
administered by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Alternative A is the “No Action”
alternative and can be described as the “continuation ofcurrent management under direction of
the Revised Forest Plan”. Alternative B is the proposed action and includes a reduction in
number oflivestock grazed, implementation ofa rest rotation grazing system, vegetation
treatments in aspen, sagebrush, and tall forb communities, and fencing ofthree riparian areas.
Alternative C is a “no grazing” alternative under which grazing would be eliminated from the
A
North Rich Allotment after three years. Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released
for public comment in June 27, 2003. Based on comments received on the draft, an additional
alternative and new information were added. Alternative D, the additional alternative, includes a
two-pasture, deferred rotation grazing system.
TheU.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) prohibits discriminationin all its programs and activities
onthe basis ofrace, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,
and marital orfamily status. (Not all prohibitedbases applyto all programs.) Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means forcommunication ofprograminformation (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)
should contactUSDA'sTARGET Centerat (202)-720-2600 (voice andTDD).
To file a complaint ofdiscrimination, write USDA, Director, Office ofCivil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building, 1400 IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 orcall (202)-720-5964 (voice orTDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity providerand employer.
NORTHRICHALLOTMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
Summary
Introduction
This summary presents an overview of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
prepared for the management of the North Rich Allotment. The information includes the
issues brought forward in the analysis and a summary of the effects of the four
alternatives.
The Logan District ofthe Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) proposes to authorize
grazing on the North Rich Allotment at a level and in a manner consistent with direction
set forth in the Revised Forest Plan, the Rangeland Health EIS, and other applicable laws
and regulations.
The proposal includes vegetation treatments and structural improvements designed to
improve unacceptable resource conditions on the allotment and move vegetation and
watershed conditions within the North Rich Allotment toward desired conditions.
According to historic records for the allotment (available in the project file), unacceptable
resource impacts have occurred during the more than 100-year history of domestic
grazing within the North Rich allotment. Although there has been some improvement,
existing resource conditions in many areas are still unsatisfactory and not moving toward
desired conditions.
Decisions to be Made
In consideration ofthis analysis, the Forest Service will decide whether or not to
authorize grazing on the North Rich Allotment. The decision could involve the proposed
action or any of the other alternatives in their entirety, or could include specific portions
of the proposed action or any alternative. If the decision is made to authorize grazing, the
decision may include the grazing system, season ofuse, utilization standards and
guidelines, ground cover standards, associated improvements, mitigation measures, and
monitoring to be included in the revised AMP.
The decision will be made by the Logan District Ranger and will be documented in a
Record ofDecision, subject to public review and appeal.
Issues
The following are the issues identified through internal (Forest Service) and external
(public) scoping.
Summary
- 1
NORTHRICHALLOTMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
Aquatic and Semi Aquatic Species
• How would cattle grazing under the proposed action or any of the alternatives
affect aquatic habitat and aquatic species found to exist within the waters of the
North Rich Allotment?
• How would cattle grazing affect Bonneville cutthroat trout populations and how
would the provisions ofthe Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout be carried out?
Measurement indicators used to compare alternatives:
a. The degree to which potential aquatic habitat is provided or protected through
restoration of degraded riparian areas.
b. The extent ofprotection afforded to Bonneville cutthroat populations.
Heritage Resources
• How would implementation ofthe proposed action or any of the alternatives
affect heritage resources within the North Rich Allotment?
Measurement indicator used to compare alternatives:
a. The degree ofprotection provided for known and unknown archaeological
sites.
Recreation
• How would the proposal or any of the alternatives affect summer and winter
recreation experiences in the area within the North Rich Allotment (referred to as
the Sinks Road vicinity)?
Measurement indicator used to compare alternatives:
a. The degree to which summer and winter recreation experiences in the Sinks
Road vicinity are affected by the presence of livestock and by fences constructed
for range management under the proposed action or alternatives to it
Socioeconomics
• What positive or negative socioeconomic impacts would occur under
implementation of the proposed action or any ofthe alternatives?
Summary - 2
NORTHRICHALLOTMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
Measurement indicator used to compare alternatives:
a. The relative degree to which North Rich permittees and Rich County are
affected by the proposed action or alternatives to it
Vegetation
• How would implementation of the proposed action or any of the alternatives
affect upland and riparian vegetation condition and trend?
• How would implementation ofthe proposed action or any ofthe alternatives
affect Threatened, Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive plant species?
Measurement indicators used to compare alternatives:
a. The rate ofchange and degree to which ground cover and species composition
are improved through the proposed action or alternatives to it
b. The degree to which sensitive or rare plants are affected by the proposed action
or alternatives to it
Water and Soils
• How would the proposal or any of the alternatives affect riparian and wetland
vegetation, soil and water conditions such as wetland function, soil productivity,
stream channel and bank stability, and water quality?
• How would the alternatives affect soil productivity ofuplands within the
allotment?
Measurement indicators used to compare alternatives:
a. The amount and rate of improvement ofdegraded soil, water, and riparian
conditions where they exist, through implementation ofthe proposed action or
alternatives to it
b. The rate and degree to which soil productivity is improved by the proposed
action or alternatives to it
Wildlife
• How would the proposed action or any ofthe alternatives affect wildlife species
or their habitat? This includes USFWS-listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed
USDA
and Candidate species, Forest Service Intermountain Region-listed
Summary - 3
NORTHRICHALLOTMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT
Sensitive species. Management Indicator Species (MIS), and general species of
local concern.
Measurement indicators used to compare alternatives:
a. The degree to which threatened or endangered wildlife species and their
habitats found in the North Rich Allotment are affected by the proposed action or
alternatives to it
b. The rate and degree to which sensitive wildlife species and their habitats found
in the North Rich Allotment are affected by the proposed action or alternatives to
it
c. The degree to which neo-tropical migratory birds are affected by the proposed
action or alternatives to it
Issues Dismissed
The following issues were identified by the ID Team as not within the scope of analysis,
not pertinent to the development ofa reasonable range of alternatives, and not necessary
for the evaluation ofenvironmental effects:
• The “suitability” of grazing on the North Rich Allotment or other portions of the
Logan District.
WCNF
Rangeland suitability determinations for the are made at the forest planning level.
Forest planning regulations, found at 36 CFR 219.20 regarding the grazing resource,
require a determination ofrangeland suitability in forest plans. Criteria for assessing
rangeland capability and suitability are identified in the Intermountain Region Planning
Desk Guide (R-4 Grazing Protocol, 2/20/98). The suitability ofthe North Rich Allotment
was established in the Revised Forest Plan (US Forest Service 2003).
The scope ofthis analysis is limited to determining if and at what level grazing is
appropriate and acceptable to be consistent with laws, regulations, standards and
guidelines for the North Rich Allotment (determined to be “suitable” in the forest
planning process).
• What are the costs to the government for implementing the proposed action or any
of the alternatives?
Forest Service Range Project Effectiveness Analysis Handbook 2209.1 (USDA Forest
1
Service 1998), effective April 1, 1998, noted that following a Washington Office and
Regional review the direction to complete an economic effectiveness analysis was no
longer applicable at the project level.
Summary - 4