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 (801)524-3900 Responsible Official: Robert A. Cruz Logan Ranger District 1500 East Highway 89 Logan, Utah 84321 (435) 755-3620 For Futher Information Contact: Evelyn Sibbemsen Logan Ranger District 1500 East Highway 89 Logan, Utah 84321 (435) 755-3620 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