Environmental Agriculture Assessment December Sheep Creek2012 Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/... · Environmental United States Department

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service December 2012

Environmental Assessment

Sheep Creek Project

Spanish Fork Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Utah County, Utah

T9S R5E sec. 24-26, 35 & 36; T9S R6E sec. 13-36; T9S R7E sec. 19, 30, & 31; T10S

R5E 1, 2, & 12; T10S R6E sec. 1-15, 17, & 18; T10S R7E sec. 3-10, &15-20. Salt Lake

Meridian.

For Information Contact: Lans Stavast 44 West 400 North, Spanish Fork, UT 84660

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/uwc/ (801)342-5277

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment Sheep Creek Project

Table of Contents

Summary ........................................................................................................................ i

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 2 Document Structure .....................................................................................................................2 Background ..................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................3

Fuels Management ...................................................................................................... 3

Wildlife Habitat Management..................................................................................... 4 Road Management ...................................................................................................... 4 Travel Management ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Aspen Management .................................................................................................... 4 Current Management Direction ...................................................................................................4 Proposed Action ...........................................................................................................................6 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................6 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................6 Issues ............................................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ............................................. 9 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................9

Alternative 1................................................................................................................ 9 Alternative 2................................................................................................................ 9

Project Implementation Design Features .................................................................. 10 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ............................ 11

Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................................11

Chapter 3 Affected Environment AND ENVIRONMENTAL Consequences ............. 12 Prescribed Fire and Power Poles ................................................................................................12 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................19

Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................. 20

References .................................................................................................................. 22


i

SUMMARY

The Spanish Fork Ranger District is proposing to implement actions identified in the

Soldier Creek Watershed Assessment that would enhance watershed conditions. Actions

proposed include: 1) Mechanical removal on approximately 3,790 acres of Pinyon-

Juniper (P-J) within the Upper Spanish Fork Canyon Management Area on the Uinta-

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The mechanical treatments would include Bullhog

(Mastication) and lop and scatter treatments; 2) Aspen regeneration using prescribed fire

within a 5,800 acre area; 3) Connecting two existing ATV trails by adding 6.6 miles of

ATV Trail from the Highway 6 corridor up to Unicorn Ridge; 4) Changing the

maintenance level of the Old Sheep Creek Road (FS #691) from level 2 to level 1 and

install a gate on the road; 5) Restoring gullies that are currently eroding and producing

excess amounts of sediment in the Indian Creek area.

In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following

alternatives:

No Action- no treatment would be performed and the area would remain the same.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide which

alternative will best accomplish the desired conditions for the project area while meeting

the Forest Plan Goals and Objectives.

Sheep Creek Project Environmental Assessment

Page 2

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED

Document Structure ______________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws

and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and

alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:

Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal,

the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that

purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the

public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a

more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative

methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on

significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also

includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table

of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized

by issues to be analyzed in detail. Within each section, the affected environment is

described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a

baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the

analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

PLANNING RECORD

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may

be found in the project planning record located at the Spanish Fork Ranger District Office

in Spanish Fork, Utah. It contains planning records, Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) notes,

specialist reports, and maps.

Background _____________________________________

There has been a steady increase in the density of Pinyon-Juniper (P-J) trees throughout

the Upper Spanish Fork Canyon Management Area. This increase in tree density is

allowing the P-J to take over the sagebrush/grass areas. This infestation is causing

problems with riparian areas and wildlife habitat (sage grouse, mule deer), due to

decreased herbaceous vegetation and desirable shrubs. It is also increasing the fuel

loading of the area providing for the possibility of more intense and severe wildfire

effects on the ecosystem including loss of important wildlife habitat. There has been a

decrease in the number of young healthy Aspen stands as conifer encroachment has


3

increased in the area. There has been a desire to relocate roads and trails (e.g. FS Rd #

691) out of riparian areas to improve riparian and watershed conditions. The ATV trail

that would connect the top and bottom of Sheep Creek Canyon would meet that need

along with addressing erosion concerns and location of FS road #691. There are erosion

concerns in these canyons related to these conditions.

Purpose and Need for Action ______________________

The purpose of this project is to improve the conditions in the Upper Soldier Creek

Watershed, by improving wildlife habitat, improving recreational opportunities and

modifying fuels; through a reduction of juniper density, regeneration of aspen stands,

gully restoration, creation of a new forest system OHV trail and changing the

maintenance level of an existing forest system road within a riparian area.

The need for this project comes from the findings of the recently completed Soldier

Creek Watershed Assessment. The juniper in this area is invading from the steep, rocky

slopes, where it is most commonly found, into the sage steppe community, where

naturally occurring fire usually would have kept it out. This change from a sage steppe

community to a juniper thicket would increase the intensity/severity of a wildfire should

an unplanned ignition occur. This increased severity could lead to a loss of crucial mule

deer winter/spring range in the area. The encroachment of juniper is limiting the

diversity of plant and animal species within the area. The invasion of junipers excludes

other plant species by limiting resources (water, light and nutrients) available to the

understory vegetation. As other plant species are excluded, ground cover is decreased

and the potential for soil erosion is increased. The loss of plant species diversity limits

forage availability for animal species. Thick continuous canopy discourages use by many

wildlife species because of the lack of herbaceous understory forage production. Wildlife

species benefit from openings in the shrub/tree canopy and from a diversity of age and

structural classes of shrubs/trees. Mule deer are browsers that primarily eat shrubs and

other woody materials. Juniper out competes the understory vegetation and reduces the

amount of browse available to deer. Lack of understory vegetation can lead to increased

soil loss through soil erosion. As soil erosion is increased, stream sedimentation increases

and water quality decreases. The encroachment of juniper and the loss of ground cover

can also increase the potential for the spread of noxious weeds. Parts of the proposed

project area contain three of the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development

(UPCD) conservation focus areas (rangeland, riparian and forest).

Fuels Management

Fuels have been accumulating over the years due to human cultural practices and

changing climatic conditions. Spanish Fork Canyon, Sheep Creek and Soldiers Summit,

all nearby communities, are listed as some of Utah’s Communities at Risk (Utah Division

of Fire, Forestry and State Lands, 2009). The 2006 Northern Utah Regional Wildfire

Protection Plan (RWPP) designates this area as a moderate - high risk area for wildfire

(Utah Division of Fire, Forestry and State Lands, 2006). Hazardous fuels reduction


Page 4

treatments would help minimize the risks to private land, structures, and natural resources

(i.e. watersheds), from potential wildland fires.

Wildlife Habitat Management

Part of this area is critical mule deer winter range. As housing development on private

land continues to increase, available mule deer winter range decreases and it becomes

more critical to have properly functioning big game winter range on National Forest

System lands. Winters with abundant snowfall also increase the need for proper

functioning winter range.

Road/Travel Management

The Old Sheep Creek Road (FS # 691) is a road that is positioned adjacent to Sheep

Creek that provides limited public access to NF Lands for approximately 2 miles and then

terminates or ends. This road is causing increases in the sediment yield into sheep creek

and then on into Soldier Creek because of its location with respect to the stream channel.

Soldier Creek is currently listed as 303d impaired water for sediment and total

phosphorus. This road is currently open to high clearance vehicles only and is not a safe

road for the general public to travel.

The proposed Sheep Creek OHV Trail is needed to provide a designated system trail for

better public access to NF lands and connections to other system trails while being

located outside of riparian areas and away from stream channels. Currently there is no

trail that allows ATV users to legally access the ATV trail system at the upper elevations

in the canyon from the highway 6 corridor. So ATV users are creating their own non-

system trails, causing impacts to wildlife habitat and promoting soil erosion. Having a

properly designed and legally designated system trail would curb the use of ATV’s on

non-system trails, thus improving overall watershed conditions.

Aspen Management

Many of the Aspen stands in the project area are in an old, decadent age class. Other

stands are being impacted by conifer encroachment. There is a need to have a variety of

age class aspen stands and regeneration of aspen to keep the aspen stands healthy.

Healthy aspen stands are important wildlife habitat.

Current Management Direction

This project is located in the Upper Spanish Fork Canyon Management Area. Small

portions of Strawberry Ridge, Diamond Fork, and Chipman Creek Roadless Areas and all

of the Tie Fork Roadless Area fall within the project area. The management prescriptions

for this area are: 3.1 Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources; 3.3 Aquatic and

Terrestrial Habitat; 4.4 Dispersed Recreation, 5.2 Forest Ecosystems-Vegetation

Management, 6.1 Non-Forested Ecosystems and 8.2 Utility Corridor/Communication

Sites. The three Recreation Opportunity Spectrum designations for the area are: Roaded

Modified, Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural.


5

The Desired Future Conditions (DFC) (as found in the 2003 Land and Resource

Management Plan Uinta National Forest) for the area include:

1) Habitat for the endangered clay phacelia, as identified by Harper and Armstrong

(1992), is managed to maintain its integrity. A habitat management strategy for

clay phacelia is in place.

2) Summer motorized use is permitted on designated routes throughout the

management area. Motorized loop trails are developed to enable users to travel

between this management area and the Diamond Fork Management Area.

Heavily-used dispersed recreation sites have been hardened and vegetation and

soil protection has been established. The Sheep Creek Road is managed as an

important forest access route. Dispersed recreation opportunities are available

throughout the management area; however, active management is focused along

the road corridors. The Great Western Trail is managed to maintain its

designation as a National Millennium Trail.

3) Livestock grazing activities continue to be permitted on the allotments within this

management area.

4) Fuels reduction treatments are focused along the utility corridors along U.S.

Highway 6.

5) When opportunities that are in the public interest for land transaction become

available, the Forest Service works towards acquisition to block up National

Forest System lands and protect public access. Utility corridors run the length of

the management area on the southern side. An electronic site serviced by an

underground cable is located on Teat Mountain. A utility corridor for the Deseret

Generating and Transmission line crosses the midpoint of the management area.

Vegetation management in these locations is limited to that consistent with the

installation and maintenance of the facility. Incidental dispersed recreation use

may occur in these areas.

6) The Indian Creek Road (#042) is reconstructed providing continuous passenger

car road access from State Highway 6 to Strawberry Reservoir.

Forest-wide Goals and sub-goals applicable to this project are found in Appendix A.

These goals and sub-goals were taken from Chapter 2 of the 2003 Uinta Forest Plan.


Page 6

Proposed Action _________________________________

The USFS is proposing to improve the conditions in the Upper Soldier Creek Watershed,

by improving wildlife habitat, improving recreational opportunities and modifying fuels;

through a reduction of juniper density, regeneration of aspen stands, gully restoration,

creation of a new forest system OHV trail and changing the maintenance level of an

existing forest system road within a riparian area. The proposed action is discussed in

detail in Chapter 2.

Decision Framework ______________________________

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the

other alternatives in order to make the following decisions:

Whether to implement the proposed action as is or modify;

Whether to take no action.

Public Involvement _______________________________

The proposal was listed in the Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions since April 2012.

The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during

scoping/request for comment with a letter sent on May 11, 2012. In addition, as part of

the public involvement process, the agency published a legal notice in the Provo Daily

Herald on May 15, 2012. Two responses were received, one from a grazing permittee,

and the other from a utility company. Using the comments received from the public and

from within, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.

Issues __________________________________________

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: issues to be analyzed in depth,

and issues not to be analyzed in depth. Issues to be analyzed in depth were defined as

those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Issues not to be

analyzed in depth were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2)

already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3)

irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or

factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations

require this delineation (40 CFR 1501.7) “…identify and eliminate from detailed study

the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental

review …” A list of issues not analyzed in depth and reasons regarding their

categorization as such may be found following the issues to be analyzed in detail.

The following issues were identified to be analyzed in depth pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.7

based upon internal and public scoping:

Issue #1 Prescribed fire and Power Poles: May impact power poles


7

Indicator: Burned power poles.

Issue #2 Air Quality: The proposed action may impact Air Quality.

Indicator: PM2.5 emissions

Issues considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis

Cultural Resources/Heritage: No Historic Properties would be affected by this

proposed action, because of the mitigation measures that are in place (Flanigan, 2012).

Fisheries/Aquatics: The proposed action “may impact individuals but is not likely to

cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability for the populations or

species” for Bonneville cutthroat trout, southern leatherside chub, Columbia spotted frog,

and boreal toads. Overall the proposed action should reduce sediment delivery to the

riparian areas in the project area, which should lead to improved habitat conditions for all

of these Forest sensitive species (Whitton, 2012).

Recreation: The vegetation treatment portion of this project would have no long term

negative effects to recreation. The trail addition part of this project would enhance

recreation access by connecting three separate trail systems (Resare, 2012).

Migratory Birds: Although this project may result in an unintentional take if work is

accomplished during the breeding season, this project complies with the Fish and

Wildlife Service Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. In addition, this

project complies with Executive Order 13186 because the analysis meets agency

obligations as defined under the December 8, 2008 Memorandum of Understanding

between the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service designed to complement

Executive Order 13186. If new requirements or direction result from subsequent

interagency memorandums of understanding pursuant to Executive Order 13186, this

project will be evaluated to ensure it is consistent (Hartman, 2012).

Hydrology: This proposed project would reduce natural fuel build up while improving

native plant diversity, age class and vigor. These changes in vegetation composition and

fuel loads would improve the overall health of the watershed and reduce the potential for

a large-scale, high intensity wildfire that would have negative impacts to water resources

and water quality (Goodman, 2012).

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Plants: The only TES plant found

within the project area was Angelica Wheeleri, listed on the Forest Service Sensitive

Plants List, this project May Impact Individuals or their Habitat, but will not likely

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability. The project

would have no effect to other TES Plants (Leinbach, 2012).

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Wildlife: There are no Threatened or

Endangered species in the project area, so there will be No Impact to Threatened or


Page 8

Endangered Species. There are four Sensitive Species that may occur in the Project

Area: Bald Eagle, Flammulated Owl, Northern Goshawk and Northern Three-Toed

Woodpecker. The project is not likely to move them towards federal listing (Hartman,

2012).

Roadless/Wilderness Areas: There are 5 roadless areas that fall within the project

boundary. There will be no significant effects on unique features because there are none.

The project should not affect the areas suitability for wilderness designation (Stavast,

2012).

Soils: The effects to soils will be positive, as long as heavy machinery is not operated

when the soils are in a wet /saturated condition and as long as the prescribed fire is a low-

moderate severity underburn. Old Sheep Creek Road (FS # 691) follows Sheep Creek.

This road, because of its location with respect to the stream channel, is causing increases

in the sediment yield into Sheep Creek and then on into Soldier Creek. By closing this

road for use and gating it, erosion and sedimentation into Sheep Creek should decrease.

By creating a loop and building the trail to a standard; erosion potential is lessened

(Weems, 2012).

Range: It is recommended that junipers cut in the riparian area are left onsite to deter

cattle grazing in the riparian area. The area will need to be rested for two growing

seasons following prescribed fire. The ATV Trail needs to be located outside of the

gathering pasture and as far from the fence as possible to avoid conflicts with cattle

(Bragonje, 2012).

Fuels: Fuel loading will be modified and fuel models will change to reduce the effects

should a wildfire occur in the area (Stavast and Brown, 2012).

Climate Change: Climate change trends identified within the Sheep Creek Project

include; increased fuel build-up and risk of uncharacteristically severe and widespread

forest fire in traditionally fire-prone forest, woodland, and shrub types, longer fire

seasons; atypical fire seasons (e.g., winter, early spring), and higher-elevation insect and

disease and wildfire events (large fires already moving into true fir and subalpine forests).

The Sheep Creek project address effects to climate change by reversing the trends listed

above and creating conditions that would lead to; reduced fuel build-up and reduced risk

of uncharacteristically severe and widespread forest fire in traditionally fire prone forest,

woodland and shrub types, reduced potential for frequent fires and allowance for fires of

lighter intensity, reduced stresses caused by overcrowded and dense stands of trees that

lead to stressors (e.g. insect & diseases, high severity fire), and maintenance,

enhancement or promotion of native, diverse vegetative communities across the

landscape.


9

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Sheep Creek

Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section

also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences

between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the

decision maker and the public.

Alternatives _____________________________________

Alternative 1

No Action

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide

management of the project area. No activities would be implemented to accomplish

project goals.

Alternative 2

The Proposed Action

The USFS proposed to (Figure 1):

1) Reduce the density of junipers within 3,575 acres of the project area through

the use of a bullhog/masticator.

2) Change the maintenance level of the Old Sheep Creek Road (FS #691) from

level 2 to level 1 and install a gate on the road.

3) Connect two existing ATV trails by adding 6.6 miles of ATV Trail from the

Highway 6 corridor up to Unicorn Ridge. Approximately 5.5 miles of the trail

will be on abandoned road beds with the last 1.1 mile being new construction.

The designated use period for this trail is proposed as April 15 to November

15.

4) Remove Junipers from the riparian areas using chainsaws (approximately 215

acres).

5) Use prescribed fire to regenerate aspen and remove conifers within an

approximately 5,800 acres area.

6) Restore gullies that are currently eroding and producing excess amounts of

sediment in the Indian Creek area.


Page 10

Figure 1. Sheep Creek Project Proposed Action Map Alternative 2.

Project Implementation Design Features

In response to public comments on the proposal, mitigation measures were developed by

the IDT to ease some of the potential impacts the various alternatives may cause. The

mitigation measures may be applied to the action alternative.

All sites eligible to the National Register within the mechanical mastication

(bullhog) and road rehabilitation units will be protected using a 150 foot buffer

and treated using lop and scatter techniques in place of mastication techniques.

Roads scheduled for rehabilitation that are believed to be contributing features to

eligible mining sites should be treated with non-ground disturbing techniques

only.

Mitigation will be implemented to protect the eligible historic structures prior to

the implementation of fire treatment. This may consist of a buffer, fire break,

wrapping structures, etc.

No bullhog/masticator use will occur during saturated soil conditions.

No mechanical equipment operation within 100 feet of perennial drainages. Trees

immediately adjacent to stream channel will not be masticated.


11

Livestock grazing areas that are treated with prescribed fire will be rested for a

minimum of two growing seasons after they area burned.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis

No other alternatives were considered.

Comparison of Alternatives ________________________

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative.

Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of

effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives for the Sheep Creek Project

Key Issue to be Addressed in

Detail Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Impacts to Power Poles No effect to power poles. There is a slight possibility of

power poles getting burned,

There is very little

vegetation/fuels around the

power poles which greatly

reduces the risk, there is a road

that a fire would have to cross

to reach the power poles, which

would provide easy access for

fire crews to monitor the poles.

The ignitions would be done in

or near the aspen/conifer stands

which are quite a ways from the

power poles.

Air Quality

None-there would not be a Rx

fire and therefore no smoke

emissions. However, if a

wildfire were to occur the

amount of smoke emissions

would exceed that of the Rx

fire.

Air quality standards would not

be exceeded for PM2.5. The

maximum concentration of

PM2.5 would be 34 ug/m3,

which does not exceed the EPA

standard of 35 ug/m3.


Page 12

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of

the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to

implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for

comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.

Affected Environment

Wildlife:

The project area contains identified corridors for the Canada lynx, a threatened species.

No endangered species or their habitats are found within the Project Area. While the

Forest Plan has identified lynx corridors within the Upper Spanish Fork Management

Unit, it is highly unlikely that they would be found in the Sheep Creek and Soldier Creek

watersheds. The vegetation cover in that area is primarily pinyon/juniper and sagebrush

(USDA 2003). The project also contains habitat for four sensitive species; bald eagle,

flammulated owl, northern goshawk, and the northern three-toed woodpecker. Two of

these species, goshawk and bald eagle, are found within or adjacent to the project area.

The three management indicator species, northern goshawk, northern three-toed

woodpecker and beaver, are found within or adjacent to the project area.

The following bird species are considered either FWS Birds of Conservation Concern or

Partners in Flight priority species and have been found in surveys within or near the

project area over the last ten years; golden eagle, flammulated owl, broad-tailed

hummingbird, Virginia’s warbler, black-throated gray warbler, and Brewer’s sparrow.

The project area is home to mule deer, elk and occasionally moose.

Hydrology:

The project area is within the following HUCs: Lower Soldier Creek 160202020107

(36,987 acres), Middle Soldier Creek 160202020105 (11,018 acres), Tie Fork

160202020103 (12,500 acres), and Upper Soldier Creek 160202020102 (25,115 acres).

The Forest Service 2011 Watershed Condition Framework rated three of the watersheds

as Functioning at Risk: Lower Soldier Creek, Middle Soldier Creek and Tie Fork. The

fourth, Upper Soldier Creek was rated as Functioning Properly. The 2012 Soldier Creek

Watershed Assessment identified projects that would move the watershed toward desired

conditions. These projects include juniper treatments, road improvements, OHV

connector trail, and closure of unauthorized OHV trails. Field visits to the project area

were conducted on May 2 and June 21 2012.

Soils:

Information about the type of soils in the Sheep Creek project area can be found in the

Hobble Creek, Diamond Fork, White River Soil Survey (1976). Soil characteristics are


13

described in a very general sense due to the large mapping scale and the wide variety of

site characteristics (see Soil Resource Report, Table 1, pg 4). Approximately 218 acres

within the soil analysis area are located on low or moderate erosion hazard if disturbed.

The remaining acres are located on high to very high surface erosion hazard landtypes.

An inter-agency team completed an inventory of stream bank erosion for Soldier Creek

and its tributaries which included Sheep Creek and Tie Fork drainages. In Sheep Creek

drainage bank erosion was estimated to contribute to sediment exceeding 2,000

tons/mile/year to Sheep Creek (Forest Service, 2012). The erosion rate for the main

channel of Sheep Creek was estimated at 268 tons/mile, Sheep Creek tributaries

estimated at 2,079 tons/mile, and Tie Fork estimated at 1,747 tons/mile.

Ground cover and organic matter are indicators that relate to the long-term productivity

of the soil resource by providing cover and nutrient supplies. Ground cover is cover that

will dissipate the erosive forces of water and wind and consists of vegetation canopy,

vegetation surface litter, and rocks >3/4 inch. Ground cover estimates ranged from 90 to

100% within the project area. Organic matter is the vegetation surface litter and acts as a

reservoir for several nutrients and is the source of most available phosphorous, sulfur,

and nitrogen. Organic matter estimates range from 90 to 100%. Measured duff layers in

Aspen stands along Willow Creek Ridge ranged from about ½ inch to 4 inches.

The Old Sheep Creek Road (FS # 691) is a road that is positioned adjacent to Sheep

Creek that provides limited public access to NF Lands for approximately 2 miles and then

terminates or ends. This road is causing increases in the sediment yield into sheep creek

and then on into Soldier Creek because of its location with respect to the stream channel.

Soldier Creek is currently listed as 303d impaired water for sediment and total

phosphorus.

Cultural/Heritage Resources

Archaeological materials associated with the Native American occupation of the Wasatch

Mountains consist of surface and buried deposits indicative of Native American cultures,

in open air sites and rock shelter contexts. The Project area falls within the Soldier creek

watershed and the original 1864 boundary of the Uintah and Ourary Ute Indian

Reservation and was a known area of importance to the tribe. In 1905 and 1909, the

boundaries of the reservation were modified and the Strawberry Valley later became a

mix of private, State and Federal land. Historic resources within the project area are most

commonly associated with agricultural activities, including water retention and

conveyance systems. Other historic resources in the area relate to numerous episodes of

historic U.S. Army training with the greater Strawberry Valley, and the Soldier Creek

Watershed, hence its name.

Range

The project area contains portions of 4 grazing allotments, three sheep and one cattle. Of

the acres within the project area, approximately 67% are grazed and 33% are not grazed


Page 14

by sheep or cattle. The range status is expressed in terms of condition rather than

ecological status because it has been seeded. The range status is considered to be in good

condition. There is an abundance of plants both native and non-native and there is

sufficient ground cover for the project area.

Fuels

The majority of the vegetation conditions within the mastication units can be represented

by fuel models SH2 (moderate load dry climate shrub) and SH5 (high load dry climate

shrub) (Scott and Burgan 2005). Fuel model SH2 best represents sagebrush areas with

low tree densities. Fuel model SH5 represents areas of high tree and shrub densities. The

majority of the vegetation conditions within the aspen-conifer stands can be represented

by the Scott and Burgan (2005) fuel models TU1 (low load dry climate timber-grass-

shrub), TU5 (very high load, dry climate timber-shrub), and TL3 (moderate load conifer

litter). Fuels and vegetative conditions in this area represent a FRCC 2, where there is a

moderate departure from reference conditions. Due to the continuous, dense canopy of

juniper and gambel oak over much of the project area, wildfire is more likely to be a

relatively severe crown fire. This has implications for firefighter and Forest visitor safety,

and for the ability of the plant community to recover post-fire. Higher severity fires leave

little ground cover, causing increased erosion, and making the area more susceptible to

cheatgrass invasion. Areas dominated by cheatgrass have a high flashy fuel loading and

are subject to fast-moving, frequently recurring fires.

Botany

Field surveys for TES plants within portions of the project area were conducted by

botany crew members in 2010, 2011 and 2012 for Clay phacelia, and by the botany crew

and botanist for other TES plants within the project area in 2012. Currently there is no

known occurrence of the Ute ladies’-tresses within the Sheep Creek Project Area

however there is some potential habitat present. One R4 sensitive species has been

located within the project area, (Wheeler’s Angelica, Angelica wheeleri), in the Tie Fork

and Indian Creek areas since the 2003 Revised Forest Plan was written, (during the 2012

botanical surveys).

Fisheries/Aquatics

Bonneville cutthroat trout and southern Leatherside chub are the only TES aquatic

species known to inhabit the management and/or project area, however, as mentioned

previously the project area contains suitable habitat for a variety of amphibian species

including boreal toad and Columbia spotted frog. Because there is potential habitat for

boreal toad and Columbia spotted frog, the ensuing analysis will consider impacts to

these species as if they were present in the project area. Bonneville cutthroat trout is a

management indicator species (MIS) for aquatic habitats on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache

National Forest were historically present in Tie Fork and Soldier Creek. To my

knowledge, no cutthroat trout have been captured in Tie Fork since 1997 when they were


15

captured in Timber Canyon, a tributary; however, it is possible they are still present

somewhere in the drainage.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The following table summarizes the effects from the two alternatives carried forward for

this project and disclose the direct and indirect effects, if any, to the resources evaluated

as part of this environmental analysis.

Table 2. Summary of Direct and Indirect effects to key resource indicators within the

Sheep Creek Project Area.

Resource Area Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Wildlife Big game winter range: expected

to decrease in quantity and quality

over time

TES: no effect to TE or TE

habitats, no listed species are

present. Four sensitive species will

not be impacted.

MIS: No impacts to 3 MIS species.

Migratory Birds: no effect to

migratory birds.

Big game winter range: expected to

increase in quantity and quality as

treatments are implemented

TES: this alternative will have no effect on

the Canada Lynx or its habitat. No other

listed species are present within the project

area. Four sensitive species and their

habitats may be impacted, but the species

are not likely to trend toward federal

listing.

MIS: Three management indicator species

and/or their habitats may be impacted.

These impacts are minor and will not lead

to a change in Forest trend.

Migratory Birds: Take may occur if work

occurs during the breeding season,

however project is consistent with USFWS

Order 131 and Executive Order 13186.

Hydrology Watershed Condition: watershed

conditions (ground cover, soil

stability, water quality) would not

improve under this alternative.

Watershed Condition: watershed

conditions (ground cover, soil stability,

water quality) would improve under

proposed vegetation treatments and travel

management actions.

Soils Soil Erosion: erosion is expected

to continue as a result in

decreasing ground cover,

proximity of FS Rd 691 to sheep

creek, and additional proliferation

of user created routes.

Soil Erosion: erosion is expected to

decline as a result of proposed vegetation

treatments and travel management actions,

and by the incorporation of project design

features that will protect soils during the

implementation of the proposed actions.

Cultural/Heritage Sites: No effect to sites since no

actions would occur under this

alternative.

Sites: No effect to sites as a result of

implementing project design features.


Page 16

Range Rangeland Management: Ongoing

range management would occur as

shown on Allotment Management

Plans (AMPs). Juniper would

continue to encroach upon

rangelands reducing available

forage in the long term.

Rangeland Management: Ongoing range

management would occur as shown on

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs).

Available forage is expected to increase as

vegetation treatments improve rangelands.

Rangelands would be rested for 2 years

post prescribed fire.

Fuels Fuel Loading: fuels would

continue to build up over time,

increasing the risk of catastrophic

wildfire. Juniper encroachment

would continue to invade winter

range, resulting in loss of key

winter range browse and loss of

ground cover.

Fuel Loading: fuels would be reduced

under the actions proposed, mechanical

and prescribed fire. Juniper would be

removed on winter range, improving both

the availability of browse and increase in

ground cover by grasses and forbs.

Botany TES Plants: no effect to TES

Plants

TES Plants: no T&E (listed) plants will be

affected by the actions proposed. One

Sensitive species, Angelica Wheeleri may

be affected, but the effects will not lead to

a trend towards federal listing.

Fisheries/Aquatics TES Aquatic Species: no effect to

TES aquatic species.

TES Aquatic Species: no T&E Fish or

Amphibians are found within the project

area. Four sensitive aquatic species,

Bonneville cutthroat trout, southern

leatherside chub, Columbia spotted frog,

and boreal toads may be affected, but the

effects will not lead to a trend towards

federal listing.

Climate Change Trends: increased fuel build-up and

risk of uncharacteristically severe

and widespread forest fire in

traditionally fire-prone forest,

woodland, and shrub types, longer

fire seasons; atypical fire seasons

(e.g., winter, early spring), and

higher-elevation insect and disease

and wildfire events (large fires

already moving into true fir and

subalpine forests)

Trends: reduced fuel build-up and reduced

risk of uncharacteristically severe and

widespread forest fire in traditionally fire

prone forest, woodland and shrub types,

reduced potential for frequent fires and

allowance for fires of lighter intensity,

reduced stresses caused by overcrowded

and dense stands of trees that lead to

stressors (e.g. insect & diseases, high

severity fire), and maintenance,

enhancement or promotion of native,

diverse vegetative communities across the

landscape.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Each resource section includes a discussion of cumulative effects focused on evaluating

the effects of the proposed action in context with relevant effects from past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions. Past, present, and foreseeable future actions considered in

the cumulative effects analyses will vary for each resource. Relevant actions are those


17

expected to generate effects on a specific resource which will occur at the same time and

in the same place as effects from the proposed action. Past and present activities are

considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the “Affected Environment

(Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section under each resource.

The analysis of cumulative effects is consistent with the direction provided in the 36 CFR

220.4(f). There is a summary in the next paragraph about the recently past, present (or

ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable activities within or near the general area of the

Sheep Creek Project that could contribute relevant effects (i.e., effects that overlap in

space and time with effects of the proposed action). The analysis for each resource may

not consider all actions listed below or it may consider additional actions not listed.

Past and Present Actions

Grazing- In the project area, cattle grazing occurs on approximately 9,000 acres of the

Sheep Creek drainage and sheep grazing occurs on a combined 13,104 acres in the

headwaters of Tie Fork drainage and most of the Indian Creek drainage. Cattle likely

have a greater impact to riparian areas due their tendency to be attracted to riparian areas.

Heavy use of riparian areas can lead to bank compaction and destabilization (i.e., loss of

fish and amphibian habitat), loss of riparian vegetation (i.e., fish and amphibian cover

and source of food), and the introduction of sediment to streams, which can impact fish

spawning grounds and aquatic insect production. No grazing occurs in the lower part of

Tie Fork the primary fish-bearing stream in the project area, but as grazing occurs in the

headwaters there is likely some sediment that is delivered to riparian areas and streams

which flow down into areas where hand removal project activities will occur. Any

sediment delivered to riparian areas from juniper removal will be short-term and should

lead to improved vegetative conditions in riparian areas. According to Leonard et al

(1997) prescribed burning may enhance forage production, palatability, and upland use;

therefore, grazing in Indian Creek should be evaluated or closely monitored following

prescribed burning in order to prevent additional impacts until the vegetation recovers.

Overall the Sheep Creek project should lead to an overall reduction in the amount of

sediment delivered to riparian areas.

Roads and Trails – Road and trail maintenance is occurring and will continue to occur in

the project area. Direct impacts from roads and trails to water resources include

interception/ concentration of stream or overland flows, increased erosion and stream

sedimentation, and encroachment on streams/floodplains/wetlands. Most of the roads in

the project area are found almost entirely in the RHCA’s; therefore, they will continue to

contribute sediment to nearby streams. Activities associated with the proposed action

may contribute additional sediment initially, but overall there should be a reduction in

sediment delivery. In particular, the gating of the Sheep Creek Road and restoration of

gullies in Indian Creek should lead to reductions in sediment.

Tie Fork Stream Crossings – This project proposes to replace and/or harden seven stream

crossings in the Tie Fork drainage with a primary goal to reduce sediment delivery to Tie

Fork Creek. The impact area for this project will be minimal (1-2 acres/crossing), and

although there may be some initial increase in sediment, eventually the project will

reduce sediment delivery to Tie Fork. Any overall reductions in sediment delivery will


Page 18

benefit Soldier Creek, which is currently on the state 303b list for excess sediment and

total phosphorous.

Juniper Lop and Scatter- During the last 4 years lop and scatter of juniper has occurred

off and on over 450 acres in Tie Fork. This activity has likely had little to no impact to

aquatic species in Tie Fork. Junipers have been left in place providing some additional

ground cover. Lop and Scatter has also occurred on 1,020 acres in the Tank Hollow

watershed. Tank Hollow is an intermittent stream; therefore, this activity should lead to

improved vegetative conditions, particularly in riparian areas. It will also have reduced

the risk of a stand replacing fire, which would have led to increased sediment delivery to

Soldier Creek.

Prescribed Fires – In 2007, 2,150 acres of prescribed burning was implemented in

portions of the Diamond Fork drainage (1st-4

th Water). The impacts of this activity were

likely short-term and would likely have had long-term beneficial impacts to vegetation.

In addition, due to the distance (stream miles) between this activity and the current

project area it is unlikely there would be cumulative impacts to aquatic species and their

habitats.

Dispersed Recreation – Dispersed recreation such as camping, hunting, fishing, and

hiking continue to occur throughout the project area. Impacts associated with these

activities include soil compaction and de-vegetation at camp sites or parking areas and

impacts associated with road/trail use for access. Generally, the percentage of the

analysis area affected by dispersed camping is minimal, resulting in negligible impact to

water and watershed resources. Impacts from motorized use are discussed above.

Transwest Transmission Lines – The proposed transmission lines would cross portions of

the Project Area, but impacts to aquatics would be limited as new lines would likely be

installed in in current transmission corridors and there should be little or no modifications

or impacts to riparian areas.

Timber Extraction – The White River Timber Sale (~220 acres) has been sold, but not yet

cut. There would be no cumulative impacts to aquatic species or their habitats in the

Soldier Creek drainage from this project as any sediment produced during timber

extraction would be delivered to the White River drainage.

Activities associated with private lands – The analysis area also includes limited privately

owned lands. Activities that occur on these lands include grazing, agriculture, road and

railroad construction/maintenance, and building construction/operation/maintenance.

These activities impact stream, floodplain, and wetland resources through groundwater

extraction, surface water diversion, and land use/vegetation conversion from

floodplain/riparian/native communities to agricultural or other uses. The proposed

action will not contribute to these impacts.

Prescribed Fire and Power Poles ___________________



19

There is a Utility Corridor/Power Lines that runs through the project area, near the

prescribed fire treatment area.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

The no action alternative would have no effects on the power poles.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The power poles in the area of the prescribed fire are along the border of the prescribed

fire unit. These power poles have very little vegetation around them and are not at risk

from the prescribed fire. The prescribed fire will not be ignited in the proximity of the

powerlines because the vegetation in that location is not what is desired to be treated to

regenerate aspen. Should the prescribed fire be in the vicinity of the power poles, their

proximity to the road would make them easily defensible from the fire.

Cumulative Effects

There are no other treatments that would affect power poles.

Air Quality ______________________________________


When fire burns, smoke emissions occur; PM10 and PM2.5 are two of the emissions that

occur during fires. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10 is 150 µg/m3

and PM2.5 is 35 µg/m3 within a 24 hour period (EPA, 2010). The annual arithmetic mean

standard for PM2.5 is 15 µg/m3

(EPA, 2010). The EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard,

because available evidence does not suggest a link between long-term exposure to PM10

and health problems (EPA, 2010).

The Sheep Creek Project area is located within Utah County which has been designated

as a non- attainment area, for air quality, for PM2.5 (Utah DEQ, 2007). There are no Class

I areas near the project area. The project area lies within Utah Smoke Management

Airshed 6 for Utah.

All Prescribed fires must follow the prescribed fire requirements in the Utah Smoke

Management Plan (2006).

Alternative 1 - No Action

There would be no change in air quality due to smoke emissions because there would be

no management actions. However, by not treating the area the risk of more emissions

from a wildfire would increase, because a wildfire would most likely occur during the


Page 20

heat of the summer which would allow for more consumption of fuels and a longer burn

period which would increase the amount of emissions created.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Smoke emissions would have a temporary impact on air quality, visibility and human

health within the West Vernon Project Area. Smoke emissions would occur only during

the prescribed fire portion of the proposed action. Using the Smoke Modeling software

(SASEM4), the predicted maximum smoke emissions concentration of PM2.5 would be

34 ug/m3, which does not exceed the EPA standard of 35 ug/m

3. Smoke emissions would

only have a temporary effect on visual quality in the area. The prescribed fire portion of

the project is located near Soldiers Summit. Smoke from the prescribed fire is not likely

to affect the Price or Utah Valley areas.

While preparing the burn plan, prescriptions are put in place to limit the quantity of

smoke emissions. One of the options include burning before new fuel appears (Smoke

Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire (NWCG 2001); this will be in the

burn plan since this burn will occur before new growth appears for the year. Another

option is to reduce the area burned (NWCG 2001); this will also be used since we will be

burning only in a portion of the project area and doing mechanically treatment in other

sites not the entire area. We want to have a mosaic pattern in the burn area, not one large

burned area. Inversions are not as common in the spring, which would help with smoke

dispersal. In order to be able to implement a prescribed fire the clearing index needs to

be above 500 this ensures that smoke will be mixed and dispersed into the atmosphere

and not concentrated in an area.

Cumulative affects

There would not be any cumulative effects. Smoke impacts are short-lived a few days to

a week. There are no other treatments that would be implemented within the area that are

currently planned, that would fall within that short timeline.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this

environmental assessment:

ID TEAM MEMBERS:

Tom Flanigan- Archaeologist;

Renae Brajonje- Rangeland Management Specialist;

Christine Brown- Fire Ecology and Fuels;


21

Stacey Weems- Soil Science;

Kellie Whitton- Fisheries Biologist;

Duane Resare- Recreation;

Billy Preston- Recreation Trails

Jana Leinbach- Botanist;

Jim Gibson- Silviculturalist;

William Goodman- Hydrologist;

Karen Hartman- Wildlife Biologist;

Lans Stavast- ID Team Leader & Fire/Fuels Specialist;

George Garcia- Agency Administrator

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Were given the opportunity to

provide input to the project. However, no agencies provided input.

TRIBES: Were given the opportunity to provide input to the project. However, no

tribes provided input.

STATE: Were given the opportunity to provide input to the project. However, no state

agencies provided input.


Page 22

REFERENCES

Bragonje, Renae. 2012. Vegetation and Range Report for the Sheep Creek EA.

Climate Project Screening Tool. October 2009. Developed by: Connie Millar, Sharon Yeh,

Nikola Smith, and Toni Lyn Morelli Product of the Westwide Climate Initiative (WWCI) Climate

Toolkit Project U.S. Forest Service

Climate Change and Site-specific Range Allotment Analysis. White Paper – July 1, 2009. Uinta-

Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Prepared by Reese Pope.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. PM Standards.

http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/standards.html

Last updated August 06, 2010.

Forest Service (1976). Hobble Creek, Diamond Fork, White River Soil Survey.

Goodman, William. 2012. Sheep Creek Fuels Project Hydrology Report.

Flanigan, Tom. 2012. Cultural Resources Report.

Harper, K. T. and L. Armstrong. 1992. Report for 1991 challenge cost share project,

Uinta National Forest. Target species: Phacelia argillacea Atwood (clay phacelia).

February.

Hartman, Karen. 2012. Biological Assessment Sheep Creek Project.

Hartman, Karen. 2012. Biological Evaluation Sheep Creek Project.

Leinbach, Jana. 2012. Sheep Creek Project Botany Report and Biological Assessment/Evaluation

for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants.

Leonard, S., G. Kinch, V. Elsbernd, M. Borman, and S. Swanson. 1997. Riparian area

management. DOI-Bureau of Land Management and USDA-Forest Service Technical Report

1737-14. Denver, Colorado.

National Wildfire Coordination Group. 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and

Wildland Fire. PMS 420-2. Boise, ID. 226 pages. December 2001.

Resare, Duane. 2012. Sheep Creek Recreation Comments.

Scott, J. H. and Burgan, R. H. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A comprehensive Set

for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. USDA Forest Service Technical Report

RMRS-GTR-153. June 2005.


23

State of Utah. 2007. Climate Change and Utah: The Scientific Consensus September 2007.

(from http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_Climate/docs/Final_Report/Sec-A-

1_SCIENCE_REPORT.pdf).

Stavast, Lanson. 2012. Prescribed Fire Report, Sheep Creek Project.

Stavast, Lanson. 2012. Roadless/Wilderness Report, Sheep Creek Project.

Stavast, Lanson and Christine Brown. 2012. Fuels and Fire Ecology Specialist Report, Sheep

Creek Project.

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 2012. Soldier Creek Watershed Assessment.

Internal Document. 61 pp. February.

USDA Forest Service 2003. Uinta National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.Uinta-

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Provo, Utah.

Utah Department Environmental Quality. 2007. Utah-Area Designation Recommendations for

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Division of Air Quality, Salt Lake City, UT. 46 pages. December 18,

2007.

Utah Division of Fire, Forestry and State Lands. 2009. 2009 Utah Communities at Risk List.

http://ffsl.utah.gov/firemgt/wui/comatrisk/CommunitiesAtRisk.php

Utah Division of Fire, Forestry and State Lands. 2006. Northern Utah Regional Wildfire

Protection Plan.

http://www.utahfireinfo.gov/CWPP/northernutah/FINAL_Northern_UT%20RWPP.pdf

Weems, Stacey. 2012. Soils Specialist Report, Sheep Creek Project.

Whitton, Kellie. 2012. Aquatic Species BA/BE for the Sheep Creek Project.

Whitton, Kellie. 2012. Sheep Creek Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Technical Report.

http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_Climate/docs/Final_Report/Sec-A-1_SCIENCE_REPORT.pdf

http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_Climate/docs/Final_Report/Sec-A-1_SCIENCE_REPORT.pdf

http://www.utahfireinfo.gov/CWPP/northernutah/FINAL_Northern_UT%20RWPP.pdf


Page 24

APPENDIX A – Forest-wide Goals and Sub-goals.

Forest-wide Goals that are applicable to this project are:

FW-Goal-1 Soil, air, and water resources provide for watershed health, public health

and safety, long-term soil productivity, and ecosystem sustainability, and

meet applicable laws and regulations.

Sub-goal-1-1

(G-1-1)

Forest Service activities, including those permitted by the Forest Service,

maintain or enhance the long-term productivity and physical, chemical, and

biological processes and functions of the soil.

Sub-goal-1-2

(G-1-2)

Long-term soil productivity is maintained on at least 85 percent of all activity

areas.

Sub-goal-1-3

(G-1-3)

Sufficient vegetation and litter are left on site to prevent soil movement and

maintain soil productivity.

Sub-goal-1-4

(G-1-4)

Ecological and soil conditions are meeting or moving towards desired future

conditions on 75 percent of the uplands and 80 percent of the riparian areas

classified as suitable for grazing.

Sub-goal-1-5

(G-1-5)

Sufficient vegetation is left on channel banks to catch sediments necessary for

streambank maintenance and floodplain development.

Sub-goal-1-7

(G-1-7)

Management activities do not cause exceedances of National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) (this monitoring is required by law).

Sub-goal-1-8

(G-1-8)

Activities on the Forest do not impede attainment of state clean air standards.

Sub-goal-1-9

(G-1-9)

Watersheds and their associated stream processes, channel stability, riparian

resources, and aquatic habitats are maintained or restored to a functional

condition.


25

Sub-goal-1-11

(G-1-11)

All activities on the Forest comply with state and federal clean water

standards and applicable permitting processes. To the extent practical through

management of activities on the Forest:

Water chemistry is maintained in all surface water where the alkalinity

will not be reduced more than 10 percent of baseline, and

Management activities do not cause exceedances of State of Utah

water quality standards (this monitoring is required by law) or

increases in the listing of 303(d) streams.

FW-Goal-2 Biologically diverse, sustainable ecosystems maintain or enhance

habitats for native flora and fauna, forest and rangeland health,

watershed health, and water quality.

Sub-goal-2-1

(G-2-1)

The fuel management aspect of the fire management program is emphasized

through application of hazard reduction activities.

Sub-goal-2-2

(G-2-2)

Fire is managed in an economically efficient manner, based on resource

values and risks to human life and property.

Sub-goal-2-3

(G-2-3)

Fire is reintroduced as an ecosystem function to move landscapes toward

desired conditions.

Sub-goal-2-8

(G-2-8)

Ecosystem resilience is maintained by providing for a full range of seral

stages and age classes (by cover type) that achieve a mosaic of habitat

conditions and diversity to meet a variety of desired resource management

objectives. Recruitment and sustainability of some early seral species and

vegetation communities in the landscape are necessary to maintain ecosystem

resilience to perturbations.

Sub-goal-2-10

(G-2-10)

Management actions maintain ecosystem health and encourage conditions that

are within the historic range of variation. Management actions remain within

the variability of size, intensity, and frequency of native disturbance regimes

characteristic of the subject landscape and ecological processes.

Sub-goal-2-11

(G-2-11)

Key shrubs and/or trees are maintained to a level that allows adequate

recruitment to maintain or recover the woody component. Specifically, the

Forest is managed for more plants in the combined sprout and young

categories than in the combined mature and dead categories.


Page 26

Sub-goal-2-23

(G-2-23)

Areas identified as being of special concern for habitat such as big game

winter range, big game natal areas, Canada lynx denning areas, and greater

sage grouse breeding areas in the Vernon and Strawberry Reservoir

Management Areas are maintained and, where potential exists, improved or

expanded. Disturbances in these areas are limited during critical periods for

wildlife.

Sub-goal-2-24

(G-2-24)

Adequate amounts and distribution of big game hiding and thermal cover are

maintained. Adequate amounts of hiding cover for wildlife is retained around

created openings and along roads where vegetative management activities are

implemented.

Sub-goal-2-25

(G-2-25)

Maintain stable and upward conditions in big game winter range habitats and

improve downward trend sites.

Sub-goal-2-26

(G-2-26)

Wildlife travel corridors, riparian corridors, and key linkage routes are

maintained and, where feasible, restored. Connections among large,

contiguous blocks of suitable habitat are provided (e.g., key linkage routes for

Canada lynx within and between Lynx Analysis Units [LAUs] and big game

summer and winter range movements). Wildlife movement is facilitated

within key linkage areas, considering highway crossing structures when

feasible. Unified management direction is established through cooperation

with other ownerships via habitat conservation plans, conservation easement

or agreements, and land acquisitions.

Sub-goal-2-38

(G-2-38)

Healthy, self-sustaining riparian communities, habitat for viable populations

of aquatic life, and conditions for natural stream dynamics exist on the Forest.

Sub-goal-2-42

(G-2-42)

Recreation facilities (including trails and dispersed sites) are designed,

constructed, and operated in a manner that does not retard or prevent

attainment of aquatic Forest Plan management direction.


27

Sub-goal-2-45

(G-2-45)

Reclamation activities:

a. Stabilize the area,

b. Protect the aesthetics of the area,

c. Prevent water from off-site sources from impacting the disturbed area,

d. Control surface runoff to minimize erosion,

e. Trap sediment to enhance establishment of vegetation,

f. Restore and stabilize all unnecessary roads,

g. Include revegetation seeding or planting of local native species, and,

where needed, fertilization and replacement of topsoil on all disturbed

areas,

h. Provide maintenance of repeat applications where initial treatments do

not achieve objectives, and

i. Prevent subsequent pollution from the site.

FW-Goal-6 Diverse and suitable recreational opportunities are provided responsive to

public demand while maintaining ecosystem health and contributing to social

and economic sustainability.

Sub-goal-6-9

(G-6-9)

A comprehensive, motorized trail system(s), to include use by non-street legal

vehicles, is identified and designated on the Forest Travel Map and signed on

the ground. Classified roads may be part of the all-terrain vehicle trail system.

FW-Goal-8 Forest infrastructure, including facilities and transportation systems, is

safe and responsive to public needs and desires; has minimal adverse

effects on ecological processes and ecosystem health, diversity, and

productivity; and is in balance with needed management actions.

Sub-goal-8-4

(G-8-4)

Non-beneficial and/or unauthorized roads and trails are

decommissioned, obliterated, or rehabilitated if they do not meet

resource objectives or provide necessary access to facilities or

inholdings.

Documents

Environmental Agriculture Assessment December Sheep Creek2012 Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/... · Environmental United States Department