lambson draw on/off allotment livestock conversion...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Lambson Draw On/Off Allotment Livestock Conversion Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Flaming Gorge/Vernal Ranger District, Ashley National Forest, Uintah County, Utah

February, 2017

Responsible Official: Rowdy Muir District Ranger

For Further Information: Garry Brown, Team Leader

Flaming Gorge/Vernal Ranger District

355 N. Vernal, UT 84078

Vernal, Utah

Phone: (435) 781-5168

Email: [email protected]

Fax: (435) 781-5142

i

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil

rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs).

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program

information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Front Cover Photo: Lambson Draw by Garry Brown

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

Flaming Gorge/Vernal Ranger District, Ashley National Forest

1

Introduction

Decision to be Made

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate an alternative method of managing the range

resources on the Lambson Draw On/Off Sheep and Goat (S&G) Allotment and to select for

implementation of an alternative that best reflects the current situation to meet the objectives of

the Forest Service. In addition the purpose is to allow the permittee to manage the private and

Forest System lands that compose this allotment according to a change in livestock ownership.

As a result of this assessment, the decision will provide management direction for an updated

Allotment Management Plan (AMP). These actions would be implemented on the Flaming

Gorge-Vernal Ranger District of the Ashley National Forest.

The Forest Service prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether

implementation would significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby

require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, the Forest

Service is fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). The Forest Service’s intent is to furnish enough site-specific information to

demonstrate consideration of environmental consequences of the proposed action, with a focus on

the issues identified by the public and the interdisciplinary team. For more details of the

proposed action, see the proposed action and alternatives section of this document.

Proposal Development and Background

As management and ownership of the Lambson Draw Allotment has changed over the past few

years, the permittee has requested to graze cattle and horses to comply with the term grazing

permit in the management of the allotment. The livestock management strategy described in the

Lambson Draw AMP allows for changes in “livestock numbers, class of livestock, season of use,

grazing systems, grazing management practices, or allotment improvements” but the proposed

change requires the proper analysis before modifications can be made (USDA, 2007).

The Lambson Draw Allotment is a relatively small grazing allotment consisting of approximately

1,741 acres, located in the extreme northeast portion of the Vernal Ranger District (Map 1, 2).

The allotment has a mixed land ownership including about 1,380 acres of National Forest System

(NFS) administered land and about 361 acres of private land. A special grazing permit provision

is made part of the grazing permit which allows the Forest Service administered lands and

adjacent private lands, controlled by the permittee, that form a natural grazing unit, to be grazed

together (USDA, 1992). As part of this provision the entire unit must comply with the terms and

conditions of the On/Off Term Grazing Permit and meet the objectives of the AMP and the Forest

Plan.

Several changes have been made to the allotment boundary and permitted numbers over the

years. Presently, the NFS portion of the allotment is under permit for 95 sheep from 6/10-6/20

and 9/8-9/25 under an “On/Off” provision mentioned above. This type of “On/Off” grazing has

occurred in this area since the formation of the Ashley National Forest in 1906. The split season

of use reflects the historic use of the allotment by grazing a band of sheep in the spring, trailing to

higher elevations of the Uinta Mountains and returning to the allotment in the fall as sheep were

moved to private land. In 2003 the sheep operation discontinued and the allotments that

supported sheep grazing (i.e. Grizzly Ridge, Cart Creek, Mckee Draw, Iron Springs, Marsh Peak,


2

Taylor Mountain) were converted to cattle allotments or changed to vacant/closed status. The

Lambson Draw Allotment was the only allotment that remained as a sheep allotment and with the

permittee. The adjacent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lambson allotment, was also

retained by the permittee from the original operation and is permitted for sheep or cattle from 5/1-

10/31.

Proposed Project Location

The project area is located on the Ashley National Forest in Uintah County, Utah. The allotment

boundary begins at a point on top of the ridge between Davenport and Lambson Draw near the

center of Section 3, Township 1 North; Range 23 East; Salt Lake Meridian. The allotment also

falls within sections 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16. The allotment is in the far north end of the Matt

Warner Reservoir watershed. The terrain is steep, rocky slopes with a basin in the middle made

up of mostly private land (Map 2). The allotment is in the Mckee Draw Management Area of the

Ashley’s Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1986).

Purpose and Need for the Proposal

The purpose of this proposal is to respond to the permittees request to change grazing

management strategies and convert the allotment from permitting sheep and goats to permitting

cattle and horses. As such, there is a need to analyze the proposed action for environmental

effects to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by evaluating a change in

management as requested by the permittee. This change is also required by the grazing permit

(USDA, 2009) which states:

“The permittee will immediately notify the Forest officer in charge of any change in control of

base property, ownership of livestock, or other qualifications to hold this grazing permit.”

As management and private land ownership of the Lambson Draw Allotment has changed over

the past few years, the permittee has requested a modification in the kind of livestock (i.e. sheep

and goat to cattle and horses) to the term grazing permit. The livestock management strategy

described in the Lambson Draw AMP allows for changes in “livestock numbers, class of

livestock, season of use, grazing systems, grazing management practices, or allotment

improvements” but the proposed change requires an environmental analysis before modifications

can be made (USDA, 2007).

Decision Framework

The District Ranger is the Responsible Official (RO) who will decide whether or not to authorize

a change in kind of livestock on the Lambson Draw Allotment and, if so, under what terms and

conditions to meet or move toward meeting the Forest Plan objectives in a timely manner. This

decision will be based on the environmental analysis, including any necessary design criteria and

monitoring requirements necessary to be consistent with the Forest Plan and to comply with

applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

This EA is not a decision document. This EA discloses the environmental consequences of

implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. The Forest Service decision will

be stated and explained in a Decision Notice (DN). The DN will disclose the rationale for

choosing the selected alternative; and disclose how the decision responds to the relevant issues.


3

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation

The Ashley National Forest invited public comment and participation for this project through the

following avenues: (1) The project has been listed on the Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions

(SOPA) since August of 2015, (2) the project is posted to the Forest projects website, and (3) a

scoping letter and request for comment was mailed on August 24, 2015 to the public, as well as

Tribal, State, local and Federal agencies. In addition, as part of the public involvement process,

the agency met with the permittees who are currently authorized to graze the allotments in the

analysis area. A complete list of agencies and persons consulted can be found at the end of this

document.

One entity submitted written comments. The BLM provided information about the adjacent BLM

allotment and the grazing schedule. See the project record for the comment.

Issues

Issues are defined as unresolved conflicts that could arise from the proposed action. No issues

were brought forth by the public, tribe, or Forest Service staff in response to the proposed action

that would lead to the development of additional alternatives.

Forest Plan Consistency

The project area is within the f and n Management Areas in the Forest Plan and is consistent with

the prescriptions and objectives. Appendix A describes the activity and management area

prescription identified in the Forest Plan. Specific Forest Plan objectives by resource, which are

consistent with the purpose and need of the proposed action can be found on pages IV-7, IV-10,

IV-32 of the Forest Plan.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Two alternatives were analyzed in detail: The proposed action and a no action alternative. The

proposed action was developed and analyzed to address the purpose and need described above.

A no action alternative was also analyzed that proposes no change to the current management as

permitted. This alternative helps to serve as a baseline and a comparison for how a grazing

management change would be different from the current condition. Since there were no issues

brought forward, a third alternative was not developed and analyzed.

Alternative 1- No Action

The no action alternative proposes to keep the current management as described in Table 1. This

alternative would follow the terms and conditions of the permit including following the current

grazing season and grazing system. The ten-year term grazing permit would remain the same and

the AMP would continue to be followed.


4

Table 1 - Current Grazing Schedule (Alternative 1-No Action)

Allotment Livestock Number-Kind Grazing Season Grazing

System

Lambson Draw On/Off 95 – ewe/lamb 6/10 – 6/20

9/8 – 925 On/Off

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

The proposed action alternative proposes to change the kind of livestock on the Lambson Draw

On/Off Allotment from sheep and goat use to cattle and horse use and issue a ten year term

grazing permit beginning in 2017. A new AMP would be developed according to Forest Plan

direction and any other laws or regulations. The proposed permitted use is listed in Table 2

below.

Table 2- Proposed Action Grazing Schedule (Alternative 2-Action Alternative)

Allotment Livestock Number-Kind* Grazing Season Grazing

System

Lambson Draw On/Off 5 – Cow/Calf On Portion

36 – Cow/Calf Off Portion June 15 – Sept 25 On/Off

*Five cow/calf pair would be permitted for the “on” portion of this permit. An additional 36 cow/calf pairs

would be allowed to graze the off portion (private land) of the allotment (121 HMs). Season of use,

kind/class of livestock and numbers can vary as long as no more than 140 head months for the “on and

off” portion of the allotment are used in a grazing season. A two week flexible on and off date would be

allowed at the discretion of the deciding official as long as head months were not exceeded. To determine

proper livestock conversion rates, suitable acres were reviewed and updated and the conversion rate of five

sheep to one cow was incorporated.

The activities proposed in the proposed action are common forest management activities for

which watershed conservation practices, allotment management plans, terms and conditions of

the grazing permit and Forest Plan standards and guidelines exist to provide resource protections.

To ensure sustainability of the Lambson Draw Allotment, modifications to the permit may

periodically occur based on evaluation of the desired conditions. This strategy was developed by

an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists and is a planning and monitoring process that

periodically evaluates desired resource conditions and establishes management benchmarks and

best management practices that maintain desired resource conditions, or move unsatisfactory

resource conditions toward desired conditions. The benchmarks listed below would form a basis

for monitoring and would be used to compare existing resource conditions to desired conditions.

These benchmarks and mitigation measures complement existing Forest Plan standards and

guidelines and other applicable laws, regulations, and higher level decisions and would be

incorporated in the Term Grazing Permit by reference to the Lambson Draw Allotment

Management Plan.

Total ground cover equal to or greater than 85% of potential for all plant communities

grazed by livestock.

Native and selected non-native plant species of moderate to high value for watershed

protection are equal to or greater than 60% of the relative cover in all plant communities

grazed by livestock. Selected non-native species are those included in plantings in the


5

past based on their erosion control and other desired values. This includes both woody

and herbaceous species.

Manage livestock grazing in aspen stands to facilitate sprouting and sprout survival

sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of aspen clones. Crown cover of aspen

sprouts 40% or greater at five years post disturbance.

Stream bank stability is equal to or greater than 80% of potential.

Utilization of key forage species no greater than 50% of current year’s growth except

where long-term monitoring demonstrates a different allowable use level is appropriate.

Leave a four-inch or greater stubble height of herbaceous species at the end of the

grazing season between greenline and bank full of stream systems.

In goshawk habitat (forested lands, including transitory openings created by timber

harvest or fire), limit understory grazing utilization to an average of 20% by weight, not

to exceed 40% on any specific site. Average browse utilization would be limited to 40%

by weight, and would not exceed 60%. This guideline does not apply to non-forested

habitat types (USDA, 1986).

Implement grazing management practices that would not cause exceedances in state

water quality standards.

These benchmarks would continue to be evaluated by an interdisciplinary team and adapted based

on monitoring to determine if permitted livestock grazing is meeting desired resource conditions,

or satisfactorily trending towards desired resource conditions. Monitoring methods identified in

the Forest Plan and the decision for the Lambson Draw Allotment would continue to be utilized

unless other methods are identified by the best available science. Monitoring methods would

generally include determining ground cover, plant community composition, forage utilization,

riparian and stream bank conditions, water quality, key wildlife and aquatic species habitat

conditions, compliance with grazing management practices or other grazing permit and/or annual

operating instructions, and any other pertinent parameters as directed by the authorized officer.

The Lambson Draw Allotment may be monitored annually to determine grazing use and on a five

to ten year rotation to determine long-term condition and trend. If monitoring indicates that

conditions are not being maintained or are not trending towards desired resource conditions, then

management adjustments would be made in order to reach desired resource conditions. These

adjustments may include changes in livestock numbers, class of livestock, season of use, grazing

systems, grazing management practices, or allotment improvements. Changes in allotment

improvements may require NEPA analysis (USDA, 2007).

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

An alternative for the management of the Lambson Draw Allotment is to not authorize livestock

grazing on the allotment, which would cancel the term grazing permit. As the map indicates the

private land within the allotment is made up of small sections along the bottom of the draw

surrounded by the NFS administered lands (Map 1). The owner of the private land and current

permittee could continue to graze livestock on their private land at their discretion. Because there

are no fences separating private land from NFS administered lands, the private land owner would

be in violation of unauthorized livestock use of the NFS administered lands due to not having a

term grazing permit.

This alternative was also considered in the 1980 and 1993 decisions with similar conclusions

(USDA, 1980; USDA 1993). The intent of the on/off provision in the permit, mentioned earlier,


6

is to reduce unauthorized use issues related to mixed land ownership. In this case it would also

be beneficial to management of NFS lands in this area because these lands would be permitted to

livestock grazing and managed under an allotment management plan. In addition the Forest Plan

recommends considering livestock conversion in these situations (Forest Plan page IV-32).

Therefore, this alternative was considered but not analyzed further.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and

Alternatives

This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and the no action

alternative. An interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource specialists reviewed the

alternatives and assisted in evaluating resource effects. The effects (direct, indirect, and

cumulative) on all resources were found to be negligible or minor (with effects of limited extent,

duration, and intensity) and did not drive the development of another action alternative.

Environmental effects of the proposed action to the soil, water, heritage resources, range

resources, plant and wildlife resources and recreation resources would remain well within Forest

Plan desired conditions. Though considered and analyzed for this EA, environmental effects are

not discussed at length, pursuant to 40 CFR 1500.4(c). Complete copies of the resource reports

are available for public review at the Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District Office or by request.

Only those resources identified to have minor effects are briefly summarized below. The

following resources had no effects or effects were immeasurable and as such are not discussed

further: botany, fisheries and aquatic organisms and heritage resources. Complete copies of the

resource reports are available for public review at the Flaming Gorge-Vernal Ranger District

Office or by request.

Wildlife

Direct and Indirect Effects

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species

Allotment grazing history evaluations, current literature, existing wildlife habitat, wildlife

observations, anticipated grazing utilization, season of use, existing and anticipated human use

levels have all been reviewed and considered. The proposed action would not alter or increase

grazing utilization. Therefore, the determination is that there will be no effect to any of the 4

ESA species in Uintah County; Canada lynx, black-footed ferret, Mexican spotted owl, or yellow-

billed cuckoo (see Table 3 and Biological Assessment report in the project record).

Table 3 - Summary of impact analysis and determinations made for federally listed ESA

species.

Species 2015 Status 2015 Determination

Bald Eagle Delisted 2007 Not Applicable

Black-footed ferret ESA Endangered No Effect

Canada lynx ESA Threatened No Effect

Mexican Spotted Owl ESA Threatened No Effect

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Listed Threatened 2014 No Effect


7

Sensitive Species

The proposed action was reviewed and evaluated for effects upon associated individual USDA

Forest Service Intermountain Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. The species reviewed and

pertinent biological and summary information are provided in Table 5. Because neither the

species nor their habitat occur in the project area, it is determined that there would be no impact

to: bald eagle, peregrine falcon, three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, yellow-billed cuckoo,

spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and North American wolverine.

However, for the boreal owl, sage-grouse, flammulated owl and Northern goshawk, it is

determined that the proposed livestock conversion may impact individuals but is not likely to

cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability because it is anticipated that the indirect

effects of the proposed action as described will maintain riparian areas, aspen stands and other

plant communities and habitat for these species to persist (USDA, 2015, Probasco, 2007).

Furthermore, it is determined that the project would have a beneficial effect for bighorn sheep.

Even though there are no big horn sheep in this area, a potential threat of disease transfer from

domestic sheep to big horn sheep would be eliminated (UDWR, 2008). For further information

see the project record for the specialist report which is incorporated into this document by

reference.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Wildlife Specialist

Report and Biological Assessment. Based on existing information, the best available science,

comments received from other agencies and the public, and the information provided by the

Forest Service wildlife biologist and the ID Team it was determined that the proposed action will

not have an effect on wildlife species and result in Forest Plan consistency under each of the

alternatives, including the proposed action. Effects to wildlife species are disclosed in Table 3 and

4 below.

Table 4 - Summary of impact analysis and determinations made for R4 Sensitive Species

2017

Sensitive Species

2017 Determination

Bald Eagle No Impact

Boreal Owl May Impact

Greater Sage-grouse1 May Impact

Peregrine Falcon No Impact

Flammulated Owl May Impact

Three-toed Woodpecker No Impact

Great Gray Owl No Impact

Northern Goshawk May Impact

Yellow-billed Cuckoo2 Not 2015 BE Applicable

Spotted Bat No Impact

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat No Impact

Wolverine No Impact

Bighorn Sheep Beneficial Impact

1. The ANF Land and Resource Management Plan was amended in 2015 to include sage-

grouse specific management considerations.


8

2. Yellow-billed cuckoo received ESA status as “Threatened” in 2014. This species was

evaluated in the 2017 BA for ESA status species and will not be evaluated further.

Cumulative Effects

There are no other projects that have occurred in the past, are ongoing, or are planned to happen

in the near future that occur in the project area that would contribute effects to the proposed

action. As such, there are no cumulative effects to wildlife.

Hydrology/Soils


The following two items were considered with respect to potential effects to hydrology and soils

from converting this allotment from sheep grazing to cattle grazing. These include the

modification of soil properties and riparian and wetland areas.

Modification of soil physical properties: The grazing of cattle/horses compared to sheep

may affect the productivity of soils primarily through the reduction of vegetative cover

(defoliation) and trampling of the soil surface.

Riparian Areas/Wetlands: Livestock management can affect the condition of riparian

areas and wetlands by trampling, utilization of vegetation for forage, and infrastructure

development in these areas.

Water may be affected by livestock directly through physical alteration of stream banks,

indirectly through vegetation use of streamside and meadow riparian zones, and through

impairment of stream water quality. Potential grazing induced water quality impacts include

increased sediment loads (Platts, 1991). Grazing animals can also increase pathogenic organisms

and organic contaminants in water (Tecle, 2003).

Rangeland water quality can be managed using certain range practices (Nader, 1998). Past

vegetation studies nearby have shown vegetative cover within the allotments as stable and

meeting or trending towards desired conditions. It can be assumed that under continued proper

management that this trend would continue.

Under the no action alternative any grazing impacts to springs, riparian areas, stream channel

stability and associated soils would continue as they have since grazing began. Sheep have grazed

this allotment since at least 1959 (USFS, 1959). Because the no action alternative would not

make any proposed changes to the existing livestock management strategy, which has been in

place for over 50 years, and because there no water resources in the immediate vicinity of the

project, there would be no effects contributed from the no action alternative.

The potential for related effects under the proposed action alternative on springs, riparian areas,

and stream channel stability on National Forest System lands is limited due to the lack of these

resources. The two intermittent streams appear to only run during the spring snow melt before the

grazing season is planned to begin on June 15 (Mower, 2015). Therefore, there would be no

measurable impacts to these resources.

Other sources of potential disturbance to riparian areas and stream banks may be caused by

wildlife in the area. Wildlife impacts would remain active in the area regardless of the

management decision on grazing within the allotment. The two intermittent streams flow into a

reservoir located on private property, and appears to dissipate on the adjacent private property,


9

and is not a tributary to other streams. As a result, there are no impacts to water resources

downstream.

The proposed action of changing the use from sheep to cattle grazing would have little to no

impacts on hydrological or soil resources on NFS lands. Lambson Draw has limited water

resources and the resources that occur on the forest appear to not be sensitive due to vegetation,

timing of the intermittent flow, and proximity to suitable range. During the field visit no signs of

soil erosion, sheet erosion, pedestalling, or loss of soil due to livestock grazing were documented

(USDA, 2060 files). For further information see the project record for the specialist report which

is incorporated into this document by reference.

Cumulative Effects

In order to have cumulative effects, there must first be measurable direct and indirect effects from

the proposed action. Because the effects are immeasurable to minor in extent, there are no

cumulative effects that would result from this project.

Rangeland Vegetation and Management


The following two items were considered with respect to potential effects to rangeland resources

from converting this allotment from sheep grazing to cattle grazing. These include the numbers of

livestock grazed, and condition of the forage and vegetation.

Change in numbers of available Animal Unit Months (AUMs) to be grazed. An AUM is

the amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” (AU) grazing for one month. The

quantity of forage needed is based on the cow's metabolic weight, and the animal unit is

defined as one mature 1,000 pound cow and her suckling calf.

Potential changes to condition and trend of rangeland vegetation with a grazing permit

issued for sheep compared to foreseeable impacts from cattle/horse grazing.

Current rangeland conditions on the Lambson Draw Allotment are meeting or exceeding

standards outlined by the AMP (USDA, 2060 files). Under the proposed alternative the same

amount of AUMs will be available for cattle grazing as the current management.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Rangeland

Vegetation and Management Report. Based on existing information, the best available science,

comments received from scoping and the information provided by the Forest Service rangeland

management specialist the ID Team determined that the proposed action would not have an

effect AUMs or rangeland vegetation on NFS lands.

Following the standards and guidelines in the term grazing permit and maintaining the current

condition of the Lambson Draw Allotment is adequate to minimize effects of rangeland resources

and management and result in Forest Plan consistency under each of the alternatives, including

the proposed action. For further information see the project record for the specialist report which

is incorporated into this document by reference.


10

Cumulative Effects

In order to have cumulative effects, there must first be measurable direct and indirect effects from

the proposed action. Because the effects are immeasurable to minor in extent, there are no

cumulative effects that would result from this project.

Recreation Management


The following two items were considered with respect to potential effects to recreation

management from converting this allotment from sheep grazing to cattle grazing.

Potential impacts to roadless characteristics.

Potential impacts to visual quality objectives.

Roadless characteristics were considered with respect to potential effects to recreation

management. The project area falls within designated roadless area 0401032. The proposed

project is located in designated Visual Quality Objective (VQO) zones: Partial Retention (PR)

and Modification (M). Approximately 60 areas (i.e., 9 acres on Forest Service administered land

and 51 acres on private land) are located in Partial Retention and 1681 acres are in Modification.

Below are the definitions of these visual quality objectives.

Partial Retention (PR) - Under the Partial Retention (PR) VQO, management activities are to

remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line,

color, or texture common to the characteristic landscape but changes in their qualities of size,

amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., remain visually subordinate to the characteristic

landscape. Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or texture, which are found

infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but they should remain visually

subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape. (USDA, 1974).

Modification (M) - Under the modification (M) VQO, management activities may visually

dominate the original characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and land form

alterations must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and

at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the

surrounding area or character type. Additional parts of these activities such as structures, roads,

slash, root wads, etc., must remain visually subordinate to the proposed composition. Activities

which are predominantly introduction of facilities such as buildings, signs, roads, etc., should

borrow naturally established form, line, color, and texture so completely and at such a scale that

its visual characteristics are compatible with the natural surroundings. (USDA, 1974).

The project area falls within Semi-Primitive Motorized class of recreation with no access by road

from the public without going through private land and a locked gate. The proposed project will

not affect inventoried roadless area because there will be no alteration to the landscape; no road

construction, reconstruction, improvement, or realignment are proposed as part of this project and

there will be no effect to the roadless area characteristics.


11

The proposed project also will not require mitigation or specific design features related to VQO’s

because there will be no alteration to the landscape and changing from sheep grazing to cattle

grazing will not affect visual qualities.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Recreation

Management Report. Based on existing information, the best available science, comments

received from scoping and the information provided by the Forest Service Recreation Manager

the ID Team determined that the proposed action will not have an effect on Recreation

Resources including roadless characteristics and visual quality objectives on NFS lands. For

further information see the project record for the specialist report which is incorporated into this

document by reference.

Cumulative Effects

No direct or indirect effects are anticipated from the proposed action to recreation resources.

Because of this, there can be no cumulative effects.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The Forest Service consulted with individuals, Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies during

the development of this environmental assessment, which are presented in Tables 5-7 below.

Table 5 - Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Last Name First Name Agency or Entity

McKee Michael Uintah County Commissioner

Stringer Bill Uintah County Commissioner

Mueller Kevin WildEarth Guardians

Slaugh Clyde Daggett County Commissioner

Lytle John Daggett County Commissioner

Perry Karen Daggett County Commissioner

Winterton Ron Duchesne County Commission Chair

Todd Greg Duchesne County Commissioner

Burdick Kent Duchesne County Commissioner

Raymond Mark Uintah County Commissioner

Blackwell Boyde Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Northeastern Region

Merritt Christopher Utah State Historic Preservation Office

USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Uintah and Ouray Agency

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office

USDI Bureau of Land Management


12

Table 6 – Tribal Contacts


Chapoose Shaun Ute Indian Tribe, Natural Resources

Chapoose, Jr. Robert Ute Indian Tribe, Fish & Wildlife

Willie S. Elaine Ute Indian Tribe, Environmental Coordinator

Chapoose Betsy Ute Indian Tribe, Director of Cultural Rights and Protection

Ute Indian Tribe, Business Committee

Ute Agricultural Products - Cattle

Table 7 – Other Contacts


Horrocks Keith & Taline

Lindsay Ena Ra

Park Renee & Robert

Reynolds Ellen B.

Rivas Rodolfo Rivas Logging LLC

Thompson Terry Thompson Logging

McCoy Paul C.W. McCoy Sheep Co.

Womack Paige Siddoway Limited Partner Trust

Siddoway John Siddoway Livestock & Investment Co.

Hacking Mitch Hacking Land & Livestock

Merkley Lorin

Chivers Dave Chivers Ranch Inc.


13

Finding of No Significant Impact

As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the

definition of significance established by the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ)

Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the Environmental Assessment

(EA) and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that the Lambson

Draw Allotment proposed action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human

environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for

this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited

above.

Context

Disclosure of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in the EA demonstrate analysis of the

proposed action primarily in the context of the analysis area (i.e., effects within the Lambson

Draw Allotment analysis area) and the locality (e.g., effects beyond the boundaries of the project

area, including downstream and to adjacent landowners). Effects to the geographic region (e.g.,

the Ashley National Forest, extent of specific animal and plant populations) were also considered.

Both short-term and long-term effects of the proposed action were found to be of limited extent

and are not expected to affect national resources or the human environment (EA page 6-11).

Intensity

Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this

project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to

concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental

effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained

from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and

intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

The interdisciplinary team analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the

proposed action on biological, physical, and cultural resources in and around the Lambson

Draw Allotment analysis area. The analyses documented in the Environmental Effects chapter

of the EA (page 6-11) state that there are no direct or indirect effects to the proposed action

and therefore no cumulative effects are expected in the context of the analysis area. However,

beneficial effects are expected for big horn sheep as well as a benefit to range management as

it relates to the grazing permit. The project record also includes detailed analyses of the

effects of the alternatives to range management and vegetation; soil/hydrology; recreation,

threatened, endangered, sensitive, and candidate species; fisheries and aquatics; botanical

resources and heritage resources. These analyses contribute to my understanding of the

effects of the alternatives and confirm that there will be no significant effects to those

resources.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

The proposed action is not expected to significantly affect public health or safety. Access to

the Lambson Draw area is limited by private land and has no public access road (Map 2).


14

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural

resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas.

The analysis area does not include parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic

rivers, or ecologically critical areas. A survey of cultural resources was conducted in 2007. It

was determined that the change from sheep to cattle grazing will have similar potential

effects as those reviewed in 2007. No other unique characteristics have been identified

within the project area.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

The activities proposed in the alternatives are common forest management activities for

which watershed conservation practices, allotment management plans, terms and conditions

of the grazing permit and Forest Plan standards and guidelines exist to provide resource

protections. Because of the small scale of the project area and lack of public access, there

were no unresolved or highly controversial issues identified by the ID Team or from public

scoping (EA page 3, 11, 12).

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks.

The effects analyses documented in the EA and in the project record incorporated the best

available scientific literature, reliable data, field review, and the judgment of qualified

professional resource specialists. Neither these analyses nor public comments identified

highly uncertain effects or unique or unknown risks associated with the alternatives (EA

pages 6–11).

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The activities associated with the Lambson Draw Allotment analysis area are similar to many

that have previously been implemented and will continue to be implemented by Forest

Service line officers on National Forest System lands. The activities are within the scope of

the Forest Plan and are not expected to establish a precedent for future actions.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively

significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action

temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

The analysis completed for the EA demonstrates that there are no significant cumulative

effects on the environment when project impacts are combined with the effects of past and

reasonably foreseeable future projects and the effects from natural changes taking place in the

environment (EA pages 6–11).

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

No historic properties were identified during the 2007 survey. One isolated artifact (IA

062707-01, an aspen inscription dated 1937) was noted (Loosle, 2007).


15

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Biological Assessments and Evaluations were prepared for botanical and wildlife resources in

compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The project will have “no effect” on sensitive

plants on the Ashley National Forest or threatened and endangered wildlife species. It is

determined that the proposed livestock conversion may impact individuals but is not likely to

cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the following sensitive species: boreal

owl, sage-grouse, flammulated owl, and goshawk. Because neither the species nor their

habitat occur in the project area, it is also determined that there would be no impact to the

following sensitive species: bald eagle, peregrine falcon, three-toed woodpecker, great gray

owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and North American

wolverine. The proposed project was determined to be a “beneficial effect” on bighorn sheep

(see BE/BA for sensitive plant species and wildlife in the project record and EA page 6-8).

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

The proposed action complies with Federal, State, and local laws and requirements imposed

for the protection of the environment. These include the Clean Water Act, Wetlands and

Floodplains Executive Orders, the Endangered Species Act, The National Historic

Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Forest

Management Act. The alternatives comply with all Forest Plan desired conditions, objectives,

standards, and guidelines (EA pages 3 and Appendix A and see specialist reports in project

record).

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 USC 1600 ET SEQ.)

The National Forest Management Act and accompanying regulations require that specific

findings be documented at the project level. Findings applicable to this project include:

Consistency with the Forest Plan

The Lambson Draw Livestock Conversion Project is consistent with the Ashley’s Forest Plan.

The project area is located within Management Areas “f” – “Dispersed Recreation Roaded”, and

“n” – Range of Resource Areas and Outputs”. Specific forest plan objectives by resource, which

are consistent with the purpose and need of the proposed action can be found on pages IV-7, IV-

10, IV-32 of the Forest Plan (pg. 3 of the EA, and Appendix A of this document).

The effects analysis and project record demonstrates the project is consistent with Forest Plan

standards and guidelines. I have determined the actions are appropriate and required to remain

consistent with the Forest Plan. I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

The project record for this project includes biological evaluations for terrestrial, aquatic, and plant

species identified as Regional Forester Sensitive Species, which are known or expected to occur

on the Ashley National Forest. A determination of “No Impact” was made for sensitive aquatic

plant, and terrestrial species (pg. 2 of the Fisheries Resource Report, pg. 2 of the Botany BE, and

pgs. 8-10 of the Wildlife BE, respectively).


16

I have reviewed the analysis and projected effects on all Regional Forester Sensitive plant and

animal species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on the Ashley. There is no indication that

implementing the proposed action will cause effects different than those disclosed in the

Biological Evaluations prepared for this project. I concur with the findings and determinations

summarized above.

Management Indicator Species

Specialist reports were prepared for this project, to consider impacts to Management Indicator

Species (MIS), including both terrestrial and aquatic, as well as migratory birds considered under

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. There were 12 species in total that were considered for this project

(both aquatic and terrestrial). These specialist reports are located in the project record. For MIS, it

was concluded that this project will have “No Effect” (pg. 1 of the Fisheries Resource Report,

and pg. 9-10 of the Wildlife Resource Report). For migratory birds, it was concluded that the

project will have “No Effect” to US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern

(Migratory Birds) or Utah Partners in Flight Priority Species (pg. 9-10 of the Wildlife Resource

Report).

I have reviewed the analysis and projected effects on all MIS animal species listed as occurring or

possibly occurring on the Ashley, as well as migratory birds. There is no indication that

implementing the proposed action will cause effects different than those disclosed in the Wildlife

and Fisheries and Aquatic Species specialist reports. I concur with the findings and

determinations summarized above.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

The NHPA gives the direction on protecting and preserving our heritage and archeological sites

that are a reflection of our nation’s history. No historical sites will be adversely impacted by

implementing this project (See the State Historic Preservation Office concurrence letter dated

August 3, 2007 and correspondence dated November 16, 2015 in the project record, and page 3 of

the Heritage Resource Report). Therefore, I have determined that this project will not

significantly impact important cultural resources, and is consistent with the NHPA.

The Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act provides direction for protection of water quality. Field review verified that

the Lambson Draw Allotment includes headwaters for two unnamed intermittent streams which

briefly flow across United State Forest Service (USFS) lands, but do not appear to be tributaries

to other local streams. The Pot Creek drainage contains two reservoirs in the State of Utah’s 303

(d) listing of water bodies with impaired water for the parameter of water temperature, Matt

Warner and Calder reservoirs (State of Utah, 2014). Water from the intermittent streams located

on NFS lands appear to rarely if ever contribute water to Pot Creek which feeds the two impaired

reservoirs. There are no wetlands and no municipal watershed in the project area (pg. 6 of the

Hydrology Resource Report). Since the project will not result in any effects to hydrology, I have

determined that the Clean Water Act requirements will be met.

Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898

Public involvement occurred for this project, and the results did not identify any adversely

impacted local minority or low-income populations. I have considered the effects of this project

on low income and minority populations and concluded that this project is consistent with the


17

intent of this Executive Order. The local community was notified of this project through the

public participation process (see pg. 3 of this document, and the Project Record).

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that Federal agencies solicit public involvement,

consider the effects of Federal actions, and disclose those effects to the public. The entirety of this

project has been in compliance with this act. Public participation is described on pg. 3 of this EA,

and environmental consequences are summarized on pg. 6 of this document and contained within

the resource specialist reports that are available on the Forest’s website and in the project record.


18

Map 1 – Project Area

Users of this map should exercise caution regarding the

accuracy of these data. The source, scales, and vintage

can vary. The USFS provides no warranty, nor accepts

any liability from any incorrect, incomplete, or

misleading use of these data. These data may be

updated at any time without notice.

GB February 2017


19

Map 2 - Lambson Draw On/Off Grazing Allotment Boundary

Users of this map should exercise caution regarding the

accuracy of these data. The source, scales, and vintage

can vary. The USFS provides no warranty, nor accepts

any liability from any incorrect, incomplete, or

misleading use of these data. These data may be

updated at any time without notice.

GB February 2017


20

Appendix A

Table A-1: Forest Plan Management Areas F and N

MANAGEMENT AREA F (DISPERSED RECREATION ROADED-AREAS RECEIVING A

VARIETY OF USES IN A VARIETY OF LANDFORMS AND VEGETATION TYPES LOCATED

THROUGHOUT THE FOREST IN A ROADED ENVIRONMENT)

ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT AREA PRESCRIPTIONS

Recreation

VQOs at inventoried standards. Dispersed recreation is favored over

other resources. Travel plan will be used to protect resources while

permitting access. Standard service level.

Wildlife Improvements designed to enhance recreation opportunities and

optimize species diversity. Key or critical areas will be emphasized.

Range Travel (or recreation) conflicts may require expensive controls. Forage

not required for wildlife will be allocated to permitted livestock.

Timber Harvest designed to enhance recreation, wildlife, and visual

opportunities. Transitory range allocated to wildlife.

Minerals No restrictions other than what’s in the Standards and Guidelines.

Facilities Construction allowed as needed. Maintenance at high levels (3 or 4) on

main roads.

Protection Prescribed burning used to manage resources but aggressive prevention

and suppression to protect resources under heavy use levels.

Riparian Maintain. Control as needed to protect streambank stability, minimize

sedimentation, prevent compaction, and maintain visuals.

MANAGEMENT AREA N: RANGE OF RESOURCE USES AND OUTPUTS. COMMODITY

PRODUCTION MODIFIED FOR AMENITY PRODUCTION-RESOURCE PROTECTION AS

NEEDED OUTSIDE OF NRA. LOW INVESTMENT.

ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT AREA PRESCRIPTIONS

Recreation

Resource protection as needed, covered in Travel Plan. Developed

recreation at less than standard service level except in Alternative J

where standard service level is used. VQOs as inventoried.

Wildlife

Access may be controlled to enhance wildlife habitat. Improvements

allowed in a low investment basis. Habitat diversity would remain

fairly stable.

Range Improvements coordinated with wildlife and recreation.

Timber Harvest coordinated with wildlife and recreation. Some old growth

retained. Low investment.

Minerals No restrictions other than what’s in the Standards and Guidelines.

Facilities Construction as needed to meet management objectives. Maintenance

as required.

Protection Prescribed fire allowed.

Riparian Maintain and restore.


21

Literature Cited

Brown, G. 2016. Capability and Suitability Summary. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger District, Vernal UT

Loosle, B. 2007. Cultural Resource Summary Report. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger District, Vernal UT

Mower, R. 2015. Field Visit Summary. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger District, Vernal UT

Nader, G., Tate, W.T., Atwill, R., Bushnell, J., (1998) Water Quality Effect of Rangeland Beef

Cattle Excrement, Rangelands, Vol. 20, No. 5 pp. 19-25

Platts, W.S. 1991. Chapter 11: Livestock Grazing, In Influences of Forest and Rangeland

Management on Salmonoid Fishes and Their Habitats, W.R. Meehan, editor

Probasco, Diane. 2007. Wildlife Resources Technical Report for Vernal Ranger District On/Off

Allotments. USDA USFS Ashley National Forest unpublished report. August 13, 2007.

Probasco, Diane. 2007. Biological assessment and biological evaluation for Vernal District on/off

grazing allotments. USDA USFS Ashley National Forest unpublished report. August 13,

2007.

Tecle, A. Neary, D. G., Folliott, P., Baker Jr., M.B. (2003) Water Quality in Forested Watersheds

of the Southwestern United States, Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science,

Vol. 35, No. 1 pp. 48-57

UDWR. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2008. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Statewide Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Salt Lake City, Utah. Effective April 2008-April 2013.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision, Idaho, and

Southwest Montana, Nevada, Utah.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Lambson Draw Allotment Management Plan. On file at:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger

District, Vernal UT.


U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Flaming

Gorge/Vernal Ranger District, Vernal UT.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Handbook 2209.13. 1992. On file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger


U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan. On file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger





U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. National Forest Landscape Management. Vol 2. On file at:




22

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2060 Monitoring Files. On file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Vernal Ranger District, Vernal UT.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2210 Allotment Files. On file at: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, Flaming Gorge/Vernal Ranger


Valentine, John F. 2000. Grazing Management. Pgs. 368-372

lambson draw on/off allotment livestock conversion...

Documents