Attachment 3- 2023_Upper Weber Draft.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture

Upper Weber Watershed Restoration

[DRAFT] Environmental Assessment

[replace photo]

Forest Service

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest – Heber-Kamas Ranger District August 2022

Upper Weber [DRAFT] Environmental Assessment

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: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name: Upper Weber Watershed Restoration Project

Project Initiation Date: Click here to enter a date.

Line Officer: Daniel P. Jauregui

District: Heber-Kamas Ranger District

County(ies): Summit

Anticipated Implementation: Spring 2024

Signing Authority: David Whittekiend, Forest Supervisor

PALS Tracking #: Following project initiation by FS

Project File: Link to Pinyon where project documentation should be filed

GIS Info: Link to T: where project GIS info is located

Project Webpage: Provided following project initiation and posting on PALS

General Location: Weber River Drainage

Applicable Management Areas: Applicable Management Areas from Land Management Plan

Legal Description: Legal Description of Project Location

Elevation Range: Elevation Range of Project

Watersheds: Weber River

PURPOSE & NEED AND PROPOSED ACTION

INTRODUCTION

The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF) proposes to reduce potential wildfire effects, restore forest stand structural and species diversity, and increase forest resistance and resilience to insect and disease effects by completing a variety of vegetation treatments and fuels reduction activities to support the management of 73,000 acres in the Upper Weber watershed on the Heber-Kamas Ranger District.

The proposed Upper Weber Watershed Restoration Project would support the Wildfire Crisis Strategy by strategically treating vegetation to support the management goal to improve watershed resilience in a portion of the western Uinta Mountains. This is part of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy in the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service’s Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

BACKGROUND

The Weber River is a vital water source for Utah, providing culinary and secondary use as it meanders through many communities on its way to the Great Salt Lake. The head waters of the river occur in Summit County, Utah and within the boundary of the Uinta-Wasatch- Cache National Forest. There are many communities adjacent to the forest in the Weber River drainage and the headwaters of the Upper Weber Watershed occur on federal lands. Past management has not focused on overall watershed health, but vegetation treatments adjacent to some communities to address wildfire concerns. Wildland Urban Interface communities at Alpine Acres and Holiday Park are found near the project boundary.

LOCATION AND SETTING

The Upper Weber Watershed Restoration Project includes a 73,000-acre project area located in and above the headwaters of the Weber River, on the Heber-Kamas Ranger District of the Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest ( Table 1).

Table 1 Legal distribution of proposed Upper Weber Watershed Restoration Project on the Heber-Kamas Ranger District, Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah

Township Range Sections

Figure 1. [Vicinity map if needed]

Figure 2. [Project map if needed]

PURPOSE AND NEED

The project is being proposed because existing conditions of vegetation are not currently meeting the desired future conditions of _______ Management Areas as outlined in the 2003 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan [for the] Wasatch-Cache National Forest, as amended through 2015 (“Forest Plan”). Management Areas identify a desired future condition with a greater prevalence of aspen and a mosaic of vegetation structure, species composition, and age classes that would be similar to what fire historically created (Forest Plan 4-181-182, 4-195).

In order to address these issues, the purpose and need for this project is to:

-bullet points of specific project goals

The project is necessary to meet watershed resiliency goals and address concerns with Wildland Urban Interface communities. This is because there is a need to strategically implement land management treatments throughout the drainage including evaluating areas where natural occurring fire ignitions can be managed and where prescribed fire can be used. The project would vegetation treatments as well as means of controlling fire such as fuel breaks to allow fire managers the ability to manage growth, size, and duration of fire within the watershed.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B (Proposed Action) are the two alternatives analyzed in detail.

Alternative A—No Action Alternative

The “No Action” alternative, Alternative A, provides a baseline against which management direction and environmental consequences of the Proposed Action can be measured and compared. The No Action Alternative describes the action of continuing the present management operations and conditions. It does not imply or direct discontinuing the present action or removing existing uses, development, or facilities.

If the No Action Alternative were to be selected, the Forest would respond to future needs and conditions without substantial action or policy change.

Alternative B- Action Alternative

The “Action” Alternative, the Proposed Action, is to complete fuels reduction and vegetation treatments using commercial timber harvesting, precommerical thinning, and prescribed fire to better meet desired future conditions Infrastructure and features within the Upper Weber Project Area that would not be affected by the Proposed Action such as existing trails, roadways, recreation sites would continue to be maintained and used.

The Proposed Action is further described below.

PROPOSED ACTION

NEED THIS INFO

Implementation Date and Proposed Project Timeframes It is anticipated that vegetation management activities would begin within six months of a decision and last for ten-years. The anticipated timeframe to complete the vegetation treatments is dependent on funding and contractor availability. Once initial thinning and surface fuel treatments are complete, prescribed burning would occur.

Reforestation within treatment units is anticipated to be implemented, as needed, five years following the completion fuels and vegetation management activities.

Design Criteria and Best Management Practices The project interdisciplinary team developed design criteria to minimize or avoid potential adverse effects The design criteria are based on Forest Plan direction and policy, scientific and factual evidence, and site-specific evaluations, and would be applied during project implementation. Project implementation includes the physical on –the ground design of the project completed by layout crews; timber sale contract administration; service contract administration, and prescribed fire activities. Design criteria would be applied on the ground through physical design as instructed in silvicultural prescriptions, marking guides, statements of work, and cruise plans. Some features address conditions found on the ground during project activities, and would be applied through the timber sale contract, which includes both standard and site-specific provisions.

Best Management Practices are additional site-specific actions developed to minimize effects to resources that may occur despite design criteria. The Proposed Action was designed with input from all resource specialists, and as such was created to reduce or eliminate effects to resources.

A complete list of all design criteria, including best management practices, is provided in Appendix B:

Design Criteria and Best Management Practices.

Monitoring Activities Monitoring is the process of periodically and systematically gathering and analyzing data to understand trends over time. The most common monitoring is related to implementation (did we do what we said we were going to do?) and effectiveness (did we achieve our desired results?).

Project-level Monitoring If the Proposed Action is selected for implementation in the Strawberry Ridge project area, standard timber sale contract provisions would be used to direct how commercial activities are conducted. Other activities performed under contract (such as road decommissioning, precommercial thinning, riparian habitat restoration, etc.), would be monitored by a contracting officer’s representative (COR) to ensure activities are implemented as designed. Noxious weeds would be monitored for changes in populations.

Annual monitoring of landings would continue for a minimum of four years following activity.

Monitoring of temp roads, skid trails, and log landing sites should be done until such a time that it can be determined that successful regeneration of native species have adequate ground cover for natural protection of the site. In addition, the project interdisciplinary team would periodically review implementation of activities during field trips and follow-up meetings.

During project implementation, the Forest Service would monitor how Design Criteria and best management practices are being implemented. Timber sale administrator personnel would review the location of all proposed temporary roads and all road maintenance to assure compliance with BMPs and would monitor all temporary and reconstructed roads to ensure that they were built or restored following contract provisions. A sale administrator would visit each active cutting unit at a frequency necessary to assure compliance with the BMPs and the timber sale contract. Contract changes or contract modifications would be agreed upon and enacted, when necessary, to meet objectives and standards on the ground. Monitoring of BMPs has determined that recent projects on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest have been implemented as designed and have achieved the desired objectives.

[add description of proposed action]

Table 1. Summary of the Proposed Action with approximate measures. Exact sizes and the layout of the facilities within the site would be determined by the final engineering design. [delete table if not needed]

Proposed Activity Description

Describe alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail

PROJECT SCREENING

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS

The Responsible Official has requested documentation to demonstrate compliance with the following regulatory considerations in addition to NEPA:

1. NFMA/Land Management Plan

2. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

3. Sensitive Species (FSM 2670)

4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act

5. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

6. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

7. Tribal Consultation

8. Clean Air Act (CAA)

9. Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Interdisciplinary Team of resource specialists on the UWC identified the following issues to be analyzed: [list applicable issues]. The effects of the Proposed Action on these resources is addressed in the Environmental Impacts Review section.

TRIBES; FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; AND LOCAL GROUPS CONSULTED

The following agencies, organizations, tribes, and persons were consulted during the project development and analysis.

1. Tribes

2. Summit County

3. Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

4. Utah Forestry, Fire, and State Lands

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REVIEW

The following effects (or impacts) discussions focus on changes to the human environment from the Proposed Action that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the Proposed Action, including those effects that occur at the same time and place as the Proposed Action and may include effects that are later in time or farther removed in distance from the Proposed Action.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Describe the affected environment

CLIMATE EFFECTS SCENARIO

FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY

REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRENDS

Climate change can affect the local environment directly through changes in temperature and precipitation (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2020). On the UWCNF, higher temperatures are anticipated to increase the length of the growing season which may enhance vegetation growth and carbon sequestration (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2020). The ability for the ecosystem to accommodate and benefit from the longer growing season would be dependent on an adequate water supply and temperatures (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2020). This is because elevated or extreme temperatures may also result in increased evapotranspiration, which could reduce soil moisture negatively affecting growth rates and carbon accumulation (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2020).

Temperature and precipitation changes and associated effects, ultimately affect ecosystem processes such vegetation growth, regeneration, and mortality (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2020) .

Across the FS Intermountain Region, it is anticipated that as result of climate change, increased frequency and magnitude of disturbances such as drought, insect outbreaks, and wildfire will reduce mature forests, affect vegetation structure and habitat, adjust water and snowpack supplies, and reduce carbon sequestration (Halofsky, Peterson, Ho, Little, & Joyce, 2018). Riparian areas may be affected from changing hydrological regimes affecting the timing and amount of water available in summer (Halofsky, Peterson, Ho, Little, & Joyce, 2018).

Forested area on the UWC will be maintained as forest in the foreseeable future, which allows for continual carbon uptake and storage over the long term (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2020) .

While disturbances and changing climate will affect the forest, the forest is still expected to play an important role of maintaining a carbon sink across the region and forest.

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON AND AS RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The Proposed Action would result in short-term contributions to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels emissions resulting from the use of mechanized equipment and vehicles. Biogenic (forest carbon) emissions would also increase as vegetation treatments (salvage of dead material, pre-commercial and commercial thinning, and prescribed fires) are implemented. The carbon stored in the treated vegetation may be stored for long periods of time, in the case of trees used in stream habitat improvement work, or for shorter periods of time like the dead timber that is burned in a prescribed fire or processed into fuelwood. The duration carbon is stored by vegetation is dependent on the treatment it receives. In the case of trees used for in-stream habitat improvement work, carbon may be stored for long periods of time (Guyette, Cole, Dey, & Muzika, 2002). Shorter carbon storage would occur in treatments such as prescribed burning or when dead trees are harvested.

Released carbon is typically balanced by new growth post-fire (Halofsky, Peterson, Ho, Little, & Joyce,2018) Removal of the larger diameter material reduces burn-severity and vegetation recovers more quickly. As vegetation within a stand begins to regrow, carbon is stored in the roots and woody material.Vegetation types reliant on fire disturbance would be expected to proliferate increasing the speed of carbon storage.

Long term effects would include increased carbon storage due to improved vegetation conditions (Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 2020). By treating these areas, timber stand health and riparian ecosystem resiliency will be improved, and potential for high-severity wildfires, which would release carbon into the atmosphere, will be reduced. With improved stand health, insect and disease outbreak should be reduced. Future green timber stands also provide for carbon to be captured and stored long-term in carbon sinks like dimensional lumber products.

EFFECTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ON AND AS RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

As result of the No Action Alternative, there would be increased risk to long-term carbon stored in the existing vegetation and it is anticipated that disturbance events would be more frequent and intense within the project area. Increased disturbance coupled with the monotonous age-stand structure and heavy fuel loading, make the area even more susceptible to high intensity wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks.

Due to the intensity of the disturbance, vegetation regrowth may take longer or have a reduced ability to recover which would further minimize the area’s new vegetation ability to capture carbon.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Within the project area, past vegetation treatments and watershed treatments from 1973-2022 are expected to have a neutral carbon effect. On-going activities would continue to occur and would not be anticipated to result in increased or decreased greenhouse gas or carbon emissions from current conditions.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCENARIO

FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the action.

The actions discussed below make up the cumulative effects scenario which describes past, present, and future projects that may result in cumulative effects. Table 3 below shows the actions considered for potential cumulative effects.

Project/Activity Description Past, Present, On-going, or Future Examples to include: Invasive species treatments, grazing, previous projects, wildland fires, watershed treatments, recreation, etc.

Vegetation Treatments

Watershed-related Vegetation Treatments

Wildfires Stream/Fisheries Treatment National Forest System roads and motorized trails

Motorized vehicle trails in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Ongoing road maintenance, such as cleaning culverts and blading existing roads.

Ongoing

Dispersed Recreation Use Hunting and camping at dispersed sites and non-motorized trail use in the vicinity.

Ongoing

Noxious weeds treatment

Ongoing weed treatments according to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment Program Record of Decision.

Ongoing

Grazing ### of allotment occur in the project area

Ongoing

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (NFMA) – LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

CONSISTENCY

FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY

The Upper Weber Watershed Restoration Project is guided by management direction provided in the 2003 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan [for the] Uinta National Forest, as amended through 2015 (“Forest Plan”). The Forest Plan is a programmatic document that provides the desired balance of multiple uses to meet society’s needs while protecting, restoring, and enhancing our natural resources. This EA is tiered (40 CFR §1508.28) to the Forest Plan, the Forest Plan amendments, and associated Final Environmental Impact Statements prepared in concert with those documents, and all associated appendices are incorporated by reference into this EA. This document is consistent with the Forest Plan and the following points provide the basis for the purpose and need for this action:

The pertinent specialists have reviewed the project and found it to be consistent with the 2003 Revised Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.

The proposed action would promote the desired future condition by moving the project area toward a mosaic of vegetation cover types while maintaining stand health, wildlife habitat, and future forest products.

The project area is located within the Strawberry Reservoir, Deer Creek, Diamond Fork, and Hobble Creek Management Areas. These management areas consist of a range of prescriptions that emphasize what is considered allowable and not allowed for management activity. The management prescriptions that exist within the proposed project area, and the acres of each affected by the project, are outlined in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of Management Prescriptions within the Project Area

Prescription Description Acres Percent

3.1 Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic resources 14

3.2 Watershed Emphasis 131

3.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial habitat 0

4.4 Dispersed Recreation 596

4.5 Developed Recreation 38

5.1 Forested Ecosystems – Limited Development 8,255

5.2 Forested Ecosystems – Vegetation Management 9,322

6.1 Non – forested Ecosystem 4

8.1 Mineral Development 0

8.2 Utility Corridor/Communication Sites 4

8.4 Recreation Residences 65

Total 100

The project area includes portions of the Strawberry Ridge, Box Springs, Daniels Canyon, Wallsburg, Two Tom Hill, Pump Ridge, Mapleton, Red Mountain, South Fork of the Provo River, and Diamond Fork Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). The proposed action calls for tree cutting on approximately 3,567 acres of the High Uintas IRA and 3,526 acres of the Little West Fork Blacks IRA. No treatments would occur in the South Fork of the Provo River and Diamond Fork IRAs. These activities are consistent with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule under 36 CFR 294.13b (ii) “To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period;”. Other Actions that would occur in roadless area includes approximately 6 miles of National Forest System Road maintenance, prescribed fire on 9,204 acres of the High Uintas IRA, and prescribed fire on 4,514 acres of the Little West Fork Blacks IRA.

REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS

Modifications to the Proposed Action are not required, however Forest Plan Guideline G12 directs the Responsible Official to locate new actions (such as incident bases, fire suppression camps, staging areas, livestock handling facilities, recreation facilities, roads and improvements including trails) outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA). If the only suitable location for such actions is within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, sites would be located to minimize resource impacts. Resource impacts to riparian resources would be minimized by locating the improvement such as temporary roads outside of the RHCA buffer whenever possible. Some encroachment into the RHCA buffers may occur, however it would be accomplished in a manner that minimizes water resource impacts. This could be accomplished by locating any temporary roads on dry, upland sites that do not contain riparian habitat and/or designing any stream crossings to cross the channel in an alignment that is perpendicular to the channel and minimizes both the RHCA and channel disturbance.

The project would adhere to all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines through the implementation of Design Criteria and Best Management Practices as described in Appendix B.

Describe management prescriptions, management areas and inventoried roadless areas

REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS

[discuss any required modification, if any, to be consistent with Forest Plan]

CULTURAL RESOURCES

CONTRACTOR

Brief description of affected environment (Using Forest Plan and area analysis)

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

Based on surveys and known resources o Direct effects o Indirect effects o Cumulative effects

Commented [A1]: Revise table so it works for Weber

Commented [A2]: Revise language for Weber

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT REQUIREMENTS

[add design criteria as needed for each resource section]

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

FIRE AND FUELS

FOREST SERVICE

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix B and refer to Appendix B in the analysis

FISHERIES AND AMPHIBIANS

Brief description of affected environment

BT - Dry Fork (Fish Lake, Sand Lake Complex), North Fork Weber River (above Holiday Park), Habitat types:

Elevation species constraints

Species movements (breeding, refugia, seasonal hibernacula)

BCT - South Fork Weber River, Red Pine Creek, Box Canyon, Smith Morehouse Creek, Gardners Fork, Middle Fork Weber River, Weber River, Dry Fork

Habitat types:

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix B and refer to Appendix B in the analysis.

WATERSHED RESOURCES

Brief description of affected environment

PROPOPED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

RANGE

The proposed project is located within 5 range livestock allotments on the Heber Kamas Ranger District.

See below table.

Table. Project area grazing system, season of use, permittees, permitted livestock by allotment.

Allotment Grazing System Season of Use Permittees Permitted Numbers

Kamas Valley 15 Unit Rest

Rotation 6/10 to 10/15 7 730 cow/calf

Weber River 11 Unit Deferred

Rotation 6/21 to 9/30 3 186 cow/calf

Smith Morehouse Vacant livestock allotment

Based upon study sites located throughout the 3 allotments on the Heber-Kamas Ranger District, plant communities grazed by livestock are in satisfactory condition with stable trends or are trending toward desired condition (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monitoring Studies Inventory). See Table for vegetation monitoring by allotment.

Table. Vegetation monitoring studies by allotment

Allotment Number of Studies Condition Trend Kamas Valley 194 Satisfactory Stable/trending upward Weber River 117 Satisfactory Stable/trending upward

Smith Morehouse 3 Satisfactory Stable/trending upward

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

The Proposed Action would have beneficial effects to vegetation and habitat by opening up rangeland through the use of fire and mechanical treatments which will provide more vegetation to livestock. The proposed treatments are anticipated to have beneficial indirect effects including improved forage utilization and distribution of livestock.

Based upon Vegetation Monitoring, Environmental Analysis, and Term Grazing Permits, livestock grazing, and management is appropriate for the allotments. The proposed treatments would allow livestock to graze areas where access is currently limited due to dead timber and would improve livestock distribution and forage availability in each of the allotments.

The proposed project would enhance grazing distribution, improve management, and decrease utilization in some high impact areas on each of the allotments. Management of livestock stocking rates and season of use would remain the same and no changes to Term Grazing Permits are proposed under this decision.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative would not implement the activities described in the Proposed Action.

Livestock management would remain unchanged, existing range fences, spring developments, troughs, and pipelines would continue to be maintained and used.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

There would be no changes to grazing allotments aside from increased efficiencies. The proposed project would result in improving habitat and vegetation across 3 allotments on the Heber Kamas Ranger District.

Range Improvements: Protect existing range improvements (fences & water systems) on 3 range allotments during the proposed treatments.

Adaptive Management for Range Allotments should be used to mitigate any issues that arise when dead timber is cleared off the rangeland. Existing range fences may need to be extended once dead timber is removed. These mitigation issues should be covered in this document

Dispersed Camping: Mitigation measures needed to prevent campers from developing dispersed campsites in the newly opened rangeland. Historically, campers will move into an area once dead timber is cleared which negatively impacts livestock grazing and management.

RECREATION

Brief description of affected environment

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

SCENERY

CONTRACTOR

Description of affected environment

Use Forest Plan language and info from other NEPA documents and knowledge of surrounding area

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

See Anadarko Draft EA for reference [Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

SOILS

FOREST SERVICE –probably combined with watershed resources

Brief description of affected environment

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

SPECIAL USES

Special Use Authorizations within Weber Watershed Restoration

Use Type Contact Unit Auth ID Location T&R

Reservoir

Concession Operated Campground

Weber Basin Water Conservancy

Vista Recreation

STW Units 3,5, 7

S&M CG HTR

Ledgefork CG

HTR

KAM571502

UWC403105

T1S R7E Sec 1, 6, 12

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

TIMBER

Brief description of affected environment determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

VEGETATION

Brief description of affected environment

-Add weeds info

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

WILDLIFE (TERRESTRIAL)

CONTRACTOR+Surveys determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FOREST SERVICE

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES &/OR CRITICAL

HABITAT

The pertinent specialists reviewed the project and made the following determinations for threatened, endangered and/or proposed species.

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix B and refer to Appendix B in the analysis. If a BA/BE is needed, we will add it as an Appendix.

Table 3. TEPC Effect Determinations for ESA

Species/Habitat Status Proposed or Designated Critical Habitat Present?

Determination* Brief Rationale (or refer to other project documentation)

Black-footed ferret Endangered

Canada lynx Threatened

Yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened

Ute Ladies’-tresses Threatened

Razorback sucker Endangered Not Present NE

No water withdrawals would occur with this project. Would not impact species found in the Lower Green and Colorado Rivers.

Humpback chub Endangered Not Present NE

No water withdrawals would not impact species found in the

Colorado pike minnow

Endangered Not Present NE No water withdrawals would occur with this project. Would not impact species found in the

Bonytail chub Endangered Not Present NE No water withdrawals would not impact species found in the

Species/Habitat Status Proposed or Designated Critical Habitat Present?

Determination* Brief Rationale (or refer to other project documentation)

June sucker Endangered Not Present NE No water withdrawals would not impact species found in tributary streams and rivers of Utah Lake (Via Weber River/Provo River Diversion).

*NE – No Effect; NLAA – May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; LAA – May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect; No Jeopardy - Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence or Adversely Modify Critical Habitat

SENSITIVE SPECIES (FSM 2670)

The pertinent specialists reviewed the project and made the following determinations for sensitive species.

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

Table 4: Sensitive Species Impact Determinations

Species Determination* Rationale (or refer to other project documentation)

Wolverine FS to provide dismissal rationale

Bald eagle

Northern goshawk CONTRACTOR SURVEYS

Flammulated owl

Peregrine falcon

Three-toed woodpecker

Great gray owl

Boreal owl

Spotted bat

Species Determination* Rationale (or refer to other project documentation)

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Greater sage-grouse

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

Gray wolf

Fisher

Sharp-tailed grouse

Wheeler’s angelica

Crenulate moonwort CONTRACTOR SURVEYS

Slender moonwort CONTRACTOR SURVEYS

Wasatch fitweed

Brownie lady’s slipper CONTRACTOR SURVEYS

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper

CONTRACTOR SURVEYS

Wasatch shooting star

Wasatch draba CONTRACTOR SURVEYS

Burke’s draba

Rockcress draba

Maguire’s draba

Santaquin draba

Cronquist draba

Garret’s fleabane

Logan buckwheat

Utah ivesia

Wasatch jamesia

Wasatch pepperwort

Arctic poppy

Cache beardtongue

Cottam cinquefoil

Uinta greenthread

Barneby woodaster

Frank Smith’s violet

Species Determination* Rationale (or refer to other project documentation)

Colorado River cutthroat trout

NI Not Found In Project Area

Bonneville cutthroat trout

MIIH

Boreal toad MIIH

Columbia spotted frog NI Not Found In Project Area

Northern leatherside chub

NI Not Found in Project Area

Southern leatherside chub

NI Not Found in Project Area

Monarch butterfly NI – No Impact; MIIH- May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species; WIFV - Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with A Consequence That the Action May Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Cause A Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species

AIR QUALITY

CONTRACTOR -Note: No Action alternative should be listed here

Brief description of affected environment

Include attainment zones

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

WATER QUALITY

CONTRACTOR SURVEYS

Include attainment zones Include UT DEQ analysis (brief) Include brief Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 analysis

PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS

[Add discussion of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and rationale for impacts determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix determination. Contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. If no impacts are expected, add rationale for that determination and resource section can be moved to an appendix that describes resources that were dismissed from detailed analysis.]

Design Criteria would be incorporated into project. List applicable design criteria and BMPs in Appendix

Commented [A3]: Remove content control box -BN

PERTINENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS

The Responsible Official and/or applicable specialist(s) have determined the project is in compliance with the following Executive Orders (EO), which were deemed pertinent based on the nature of the project.

1. EO 11988, Floodplain Management

2. EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands

3. EO 12898, Environmental Justice

4. EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites

5. EO 13112, Invasive Species

6. EO 13175, Consultation & Coordination w/ Indian Tribal Governments

7. EO 13186, Migratory Birds

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

This 30-day comment period on the Proposed Action represents the only opportunity for the public to provide specific written comments on the project and thereby have standing to object (see 36 CFR 218.24(a)(2)). This project implements the Forest Plan and is not proposed under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It is subject to the objection regulations found at 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

The following documents were used to complete the analysis and findings in the resource sections above and are included in the project record. [add or subtract documents from table as needed]

Document File Location

2003 Revised Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCU MENTS/stelprdb5347083.pdf

Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluation In the project record.

Fences Handbook https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf88242803/pdf88242803dpi300.p df

Project Recommendations for Migratory Bird Conservation. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office. 2020)

In the project record.

Document File Location

EA TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIONS

FOCUSED EA TIPS

One of the best tips for focusing EAs is to use this template and follow our NEPA regulations. Avoid including sections or information that are not required by NEPA or another regulation without good reason. If you are adding more than what is required, ask yourself “why?” and discuss the approach with your line officer.

NEPA REGULATIONS EXCERPTS

Environmental assessment: means a concise public document prepared by a Federal agency to aid an agency’s compliance with the Act and support its determination of whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact, as provided in 1501.6 of this chapter. 40 CFR 1508.1(h)

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative(s). The EA: (i) Shall briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis, including the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative(s), to determine whether to prepare either an EIS or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).; (ii) Shall disclose the environmental effects of any adaptive management strategy. (36 CFR 220.7(b))

In considering whether the effects of the proposed action are significant, agencies shall analyze the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the action at 40 CFR 1501.3(b). In considering the potentially affected environment, agencies should consider, as appropriate to the specific action, the affected area (national, regional, or local) and its resources, such as listed species and designated critical habitat under the ESA 40 CFR 1501.3(b)(1). In considering the degree of effects, agencies should consider the following, as appropriate to the specific action: (i) both short and lang term effects; (ii) both beneficial and adverse; (iii) effects on public health and safety; and (iv) effects that would violate federal, state, tribal, and local law40 CFR 1501.3(b)(2).

The EA may document consideration of a no-action alternative through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action and any alternative(s) with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(ii))

OTHER FOCUSED EA TIPS

To shorten the length of the EA, cite and include a brief summary of the material being incorporated by reference.

The EA is not required to:

Include alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study.

Include a response to comments, although consideration of comments is required to be in the project record.

Identify resources that are not affected, although it may be helpful to state them, particularly if the public commented on a resource.

Use analysis measures (or measurement indicators), although they may be helpful for the team to focus their analysis to relevant impacts.

Include methodology and assumptions. If methodology and assumptions seem relevant, consider having a white paper in the project record and referencing it in the EA. Consider developing one that can be applied to more than one project.

For additional information on focusing your analysis.

FORMATTING TIPS

If you are not well versed in using Word and styles, refer to guidance in “The Basics of Using

Styles and Templates in Word 2013” on the Enterprise Program’s Writer-editor Resources SharePoint site. (More great resources on using Word and other templates can be found on the site at: https://usdagcc.sharepoint.com/sites/fs-teams-editing/SitePages/Home.aspx)

Avoid pressing Enter to add spacing between paragraphs and headings. Adjust line spacing settings on the Layout tab rather than pressing Enter.

When copying and pasting from other documents, place your cursor at the desired location and paste as “Keep text only.” Then apply the appropriate Body Text or Heading Style.

Use maps, tables, figures, charts, and/or photos when it is helpful to better convey a message. To add a graphic: Place cursor at desired location. Go to Insert > Pictures, (Navigate to graphic). Then right click, choose Format > Wrap Text > In Line with Text. For 508 Compliance: Right-click Photo > Format Picture > Alt Text > Type Title and description of graphic.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

For additional information related to formatting and style, refer to the following information:

Refer to the Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Author Guide, page 53 for assistance with formatting your references.

Refer to the Government Publishing Office Style Manual for assistance with Government-required writing style.

Refer to the Enterprise Program’s Writer-editor resources for information on writing tools, templates, and troubleshooting.

Refer to the Federal Plain Language Guidelines for assistance with improving the clarity and readability of

APPENDIX A: RESOURCES CONSIDERED BY DISMISSED

Add resources here + short reason for why the resource was dismissed from further review

APPENDIX B: DESIGN CRITERIA AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Mitigation and minimization measures would be implemented to reduce and eliminate potential impacts from the project. These apply to the project, as well as specific Proposed Action items. If a Design Criteria or Best Management Practices falls into more than one category listed below, it is identified each applicable category.

Project Wide:

1. Adhering to all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as reasonable, practicable, and applicable.

2. Stormwater management Best Management Practices such as silt fencing and/or straw wattle placement would be implemented as needed at disturbed sites adjacent to streams such as temporary road crossings.

3. Informing the public of timing and duration for commercial logging, hand thinning, mechanical treatment, prescribed burning activities, or other activities that have to potential to affect recreationists.

4. Avoidance of established dispersed recreation sites for things such as log landings or the parking of equipment.

5. Consideration for timing of peak operations to reduce potential effects to recreationalist and Special Use-Authorized camps.

6. Limited Operation Periods (LOPs) and buffer zones would be implemented as necessary and when practicable to reduce disturbances to wildlife including migratory birds during the spring breeding and nesting season. Buffer distances would be based on the site- specific habitat, topography and species life history requirements.

7. Temporary roads and overland travel routes would be decommissioned after project implementation is completed.

8. Minimize soil disturbance and use native species and seeds to rehabilitate areas.

9. Prior to beginning treatment activities, as applicable, the contractor selected for implementation would be required to obtain a General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities from the Utah Division of Water Quality (UT DWQ). This permit would be issued in compliance with the provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code, as amended under delegated authority according to Title 33 U.S. Code Section 1342 with federal oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Clean

Water Act, Title 33 U.S. Code Section 1251, et. seq., as amended, and the rules and Regulations made pursuant to those statutes

Fire and Fuels

1. Cut and pile vegetation in locations within or outside of the treatment areas with hand crews and/or equipment. Burn piles during optimum periods (winter/spring) to remove the vegetation by hand crews.

2. Apply prescribed fire as a treatment alternative to introduce fire with hand crews by any means (drip torch, fuses, etc.) or by helicopter using a heli-torch or plastic sphere dispenser (PSD) between treatments and under predetermined conditions. Fireline’s may be constructed by hand or by machine where there are no existing fire control lines, these lines may be temporary or permanent.

3. “Blackline” identified areas to improve holding capacity during prescribed burning…