Utah Agriculture Resource Assessment 2012

8/3/2019 Utah Agriculture Resource Assessment 2012

1/57

UtahResourceAssessmentConserving Natural Resources For Our Future

Including assessment summaries from each county in Utah

January 2012


2/57

Resource Assessment Document

Support RecognitionUtah Association of Conservation DistrictsUtah Department of Agriculture and FoodNatural Resources Conservation Service

Utah Conservation CommissionCommissioners:

Utah Conservation Districts Zone Directors 1 through 7(Governor Appointed)Utah Association of Conservation DistrictsUtah Department of Agriculture and FoodUtah Department of Environmental Quality

Utah Department of Natural ResourcesUtah Grazing Board (Chair and Vice-Chair)Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands AdministrationUtah State University ExtensionUtah Weed Supervisor Association

Partner Agencies:Bureau of Land ManagementU.S. Forest ServiceNatural Resources Conservation ServiceFarm Service AgencyState Historical Preservation Office

Governors Office of Planning and Budget


3/57

State of Utah Resource Assessment i

Executive SummaryGeneral Resource Observations Priorities and Concerns

ii

Introduction 1

Conservation History Public Outreach

Utah Overview2

General Utah Data Land Ownership

Major Resource Concerns4

Soil Erosion Soil Quality Degradation Excess/Insufficient Water Water Quality Degradation

Degraded Plant Condition Inadequate Habitat for Fish & Wildlife Livestock Production Limitation

Inefficient Energy Use Air Quality Impacts

County Resource Assessment Summary 22

Major Resource Concerns by County

References & Appendices 53


4/57

General Resource ObservationsNatural resources are categorized as Soil, Water, Air, Plants, Animals, and Humans(SWAPA + H). This assessment describes the general condition of these resources andhighlights additional concerns in each category. By evaluating natural resources individu-

ally, resource improvement projects can be implemented to improve resource health. Thefollowing categories are used to evaluate individual resource concerns:

Soil Erosion

Soil Quality Degradation

Excess and Insufficient Water

Water Quality Degradation

Degraded Plant Condition

Inadequate Habitat for Fish and Wildlife

Livestock Production Limitation

Inefficient Energy Use

Air Quality Impacts

Natural Resource Priorities and ConcernsEach Conservation District in Utah has identified the top natural resource priorities and concerns in their respective conservation district and county. Thesepriorities receive special emphasis. State and federal conservation agencies coordinate with the local conservation districts on improving the resource health.

Within each county, the top resource concerns have been identified. Details of each concern can be found in the individual county reports athttp://www.uacd.org

Noxious and Invasive weeds have been identified as a major concern in all areas of Utah. Weeds reduce forage on both public and private lands that are usedto feed livestock. Health of uplands range along with the riparian areas along rivers and stream are valuable resources. Competing uses of our natural resourcesalso becomes a challenge in the management of resource health and erosion issues as shared interest for recreation and hunting continue to add pressure on the

landscape.

Conservation of water resources and water quality ranks very high in the importance of Utahs natural resources. Our arid climate makes the water we haveeven more valuable to sustain crop production. Aging irrigation infrastructure along with narrow profit margins increase the problems with agriculture sustain-ability. Every acre of farmable land is precious.

The pressure of development continually increases the encouragement of land to be sold and used for housing and business. Utahs fruit and vegetable marketsectors continue to lose valuable acres of prime and unique soil to development. Areas high at risk for development have climatic conditions that support vege-table and fruit production. Increased development increases the demand for transportation infrastructure. With a growing population and less land to raise agri-cultural products, more of our food is being transported from outside sources and from further distances. Local food market demand is growing, creating theneed to expand the capacity to develop additional food producing opportunities for both large scale and urban farming needs.

Executive Summary

ii


5/57

State of Utah Resource Assessment

The Conservation District MovementThe Dust Bowl of the 1930's brought the beginning of national programsfor conserving soil and water resources in the United States. On April 27,1935, Congress declared soil erosion a national menace and established

the Soil Erosion Service. Since then, the agency was changed to the Nat-ural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In May of 1936 farmerswere allowed to set up their own districts to direct soil conservation prac-tices. Today, Utah has 38 conservation districts located in all 29 counties.Each conservation district has statutory authority and responsibility toassess and recommend practices for natural resource health.

Conservation ProgressSince the organization of conservation districts in Utah, great strides havebeen made toward increasing and sustaining natural resources in Utah.The 2005 resource assessment listed the most critical resource concernsas 1) water quantity and quality, 2) grazing lands, 3) noxious weeds, and

4) wildlife habitat. The 2011 resource assessment provides an opportuni-ty to evaluate the progress made during the last seven years and to setnew goals to address the highest conservation priorities. While waterquality is still as important to work on as it was in 2005, noxious andinvasive weeds have been identified as the highest priority in 2011.

Public OutreachLocally-led conservation includes public outreach campaigns to gatherdata at the grassroots level. For example, in July 2010, the Rich CountyConservation District conducted a survey to find out how local citizensview the countys natural resources and what conservation issues weremost pressing. Respondents indicated that water quantity and quality are

still major concerns as well as properly managing grazing land to im-prove natural resource health and to maintain a sustainable agriculturalindustry. Other top concerns included: weeds, particularly perennial pep-per weed and dyers woad; irrigation canal improvements and mainte-nance; protecting sage-grouse habitat; and maintaining current levels ofrecreational opportunities in Rich County.

County Resource Assessment ProcessEach conservation district invited participants to share information. Par-ticipants included landowners, public land management agencies, localpolitical leaders, and state and federal natural resource professionals

Introduction

1

Natural resource concerns were prioritized. Conservation districts convened at acounty level to develop priority county resource concerns.The 2012 Utah Resource Assessment takes combined county data of top concernsand provide qualitative analysis. This data is used to guide financial resources to

the areas of most critical need. Each county was represented. Complete as of Jan-uary 2012, county reports are being completed and can be found atwww.uacd.org.

Noxious Weeds in UtahNoxious weeds are the number one natural resource concern of the State of Utah.Every area of the state noted weeds as an issue throughout the county localworkgroups and rated them the number one priority in each county.

Noxious weeds on the official State of Utah list are divided into Class A, Class B,and Class C weeds. Class A weeds are considered a very high priority for controland pose a serious threat to the state. Eradication is the goal for Class A weeds.

Class B weeds are also considered a high priority for control. Class C weeds posea threat to the agricultural industry and agriculturalproducts. The focus related to Class C weeds is to stopexpansion (containment).

Class B

Bermudagrass

Perennial Pepperweed

Dalmation Toadflax

Dyers Woad

Hoary Cress

Musk Thistle

Poison Hemlock

Russian Knapweed

Scotch Thistle

Squarrose Knapweed

Class A

Black Henbane

Diffuse Knapweed

Leafy Spurge

Medusahead

Oxeye Daisy

Perennial Sorghum

Purple Loosestrife

Spotted Knapweed

St. Johns Wort

Sulfur Cinquefoil

Yellow Starthistle

Yellow Toadflax

Class C

Field Bindweed

Canada Thistle

Houndstounge

Saltcedar

Quackgrass


6/57

2

State Overview

Located in the Rocky Mountain Region, Utah derives its name from the Native American Ute tribe and means people of the mountains. Utah has 84,900square miles and is ranked the 11th largest state (in terms of square miles) in the US. As hosts of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, Utah boasts the greatestsnow on earth and is the home of 18 colorful National Parks and monuments. Utahs peaks are, on average, some of the talles t in the country and create great

contrasts that range from the snow covered peaks of the Uinta Range in the east, to the renowned natural and colorful rock formations of the deserts in thesouth. The geography is characterized throughout the 29 counties by three major eco-regions: Rocky Mountain, Basin and Range, and Colorado Plateau.

The Rocky Mountain area is characterized by the Wasatch and Uintah mountain ranges. The Wasatch Range stretches from Sanpete County north to Idaho.The Uintah range is the only east -west oriented range in the Rockies and contains the states highest elevation (Kings Peak at 13,528 feet above sea level).

The Basin and Range area is located in western Utah and contains some of the driest areas of the US, including the Bonneville Salt Flats west of the Great SaltLake. This province is typically identified by valleys and small mountain ranges. Utahs Dixie, also known as the St. George area, is in this part of the state.It has the lowest elevation (2350 at Beaver Dam Wash) and is also the warmest part of Utah.

The Colorado Plateau covers most of the southern and eastern areas of Utah and is marked by high upland country cut by deep canyons and valleys. The west-ern part includes plateaus rising to 11,000 feet, such as Aquarius, Markagunt, Cedar Breaks, and Fish Lake. Canyons include the national treasures of Bryce,

Zion, and Canyonlands. The Colorado River and its tributaries drain the Colorado Plateau. Utahs southeast corner is on the Plateau and is adjacent to the bor-ders of Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. This is the only place in the United States where four states meet and is known as the Four Corners.

Utah is the second driest state and is very dependent on stored water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural applications. Despite the dry climate, Utah isranked 26th in the nation in the amount of land being farmed (11,600,000 acres) and is 35 th in the number of farms. It is also one of the largest public lands

States in the nation (40,436,282 acres). Agricultural land is targeted for urban devel-opment; data from the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) indicates that 105,000acres of cropland were converted to other uses, including development, from 1982 to1997.

In terms of production, beef and dairy cattle are the largest agricultural sectors inUtah. It is also the second largest producer in mink pelts in the US, third largest in

apricots and tart cherries, sixth in sheep and sweet cherries, seventh in onions, andninth in pears and farm-raised trout. Barley production ranks eleventh and alfalfahay production ranks thirteenth. Poultry (especially turkeys), breeding hogs, peach-es, apples and dry beans are other major agricultural products. Utah agriculture gen-erates more than $1 billion in raw products annually, adding $368 million in net farmincome for farmers and ranchers and helps fuel the states rural economy.

The state is also known for its research and development work, especially in the are-as of health care and information technology. Construction, tourism, energy, and


7/57

State of Utah Resource Assessment 3

mineral extraction are other key focus areas of Utahs economy.

Utahs population is estimated at 2.7 million people; it ranks 34th in

United States population size and has an estimated 21 persons persquare mile.

The bulk of the population resides in what is known as the WasatchFront a region that spans the entire western side of the WasatchMountains. The area begins in Provo, at the south end of the range,and ends about 100 miles north, in Brigham City. Salt Lake Countyhas the highest population, followed by the other Wasatch Front coun-ties of (in order of size) Utah, Davis, and Weber. Next in populationsize, where much of the current population growth is centered, is therapidly growing Washington County in southwest Utah. Garfield,Wayne, Rich, Piute, and Daggett have the lowest population, each with

less than 5000 persons. The median household income is $18,815,compared to $21,587 nationally. Population growth ranks 7th national-ly, with natural in-state growth the prime component combined with in-migration. Utah ranks first in the nation in household size (3.13) andhas the lowest median age (27.1).

The following tribal nations have reservation land within Utah borders:Confederate Tribes of the Goshute Indian Tribe, Navajo Nation, North-western Band of Shoshoni Tribe, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, SkullValley Band of Goshute Indians, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain UteTribe, and the White Mesa Ute Tribe.

Many counties in Utah have a small percentage of private land due tothe vast tracts of federal, state, and reservation lands; 65% of Utah is infederal ownership. For example, 96% of Garfield County is in non-private ownership. This non-private ownership impacts developmentpressures to convert traditional agricultural land to urban uses, particu-larly second homes and recreational properties. The lack of privategrazing land closely links livestock operations to federal and state landmanagement policies and restrictions, and complicates long-term con-servation planning with intermingled leased land.


8/57

SOIL EROSION

4

There are a vast number of factors that contribute to soil erosion concerns in Utah. Among these are the physical and chemical soil characteristics, topographyand elevation changes, varied weather conditions and a dry climate, and limited plant growth and length of growing season.

Soil erosion is categorized by sheet, rill, and wind erosion. Concentrated flows and storm events can intensify soil erosion with detachment and transport ofsoil particles. Ephemeral gully erosion is identified by small channels caused by surface water runoff which degrade soil quality and tend to increase in size,depending on soil characteristics and the length and slope of the landscape. Water and air quality are additional resource concerns connected with soil erosion.Sediment that enters rivers, streams, and lakes contribute to water quality degradation.

Measuring Soi l Erosion The measurement used to determine soil loss by erosion is calculated in tons/acre/year. Soil treatments and management practices are planned by determiningthe average annual tons of erosion which can be reduced per acre for the field or planning area/unit. The assessment tool for quality criteria evaluation is con-ducted through visual assessments using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation calculation and the Utah Wind Erosion Equation.

The universal soil loss equation is an erosion model designed to predict the long-term average soil losses in runoff from specific field areas in specified crop-ping and management systems. The National Resource Inventory calculations use location -specific data for the defined area of work in which the NRI samplepoint falls or that portion of the defined area surrounding the point that would be considered in conservation planning. The use of these and other planningtools are used to pinpoint areas of greatest concern and direct project work. Soil erosion can be best managed, and soil quality most effectively preserved, byexamining these factors and implementing best management practices that maintainthe integrity of soil quality.

Sheet and R i l l Erosion Sheet, rill, and gully erosion along the alluvial fans is excessively delivering sedi-ments, Nitrogen and Phosphorus to waterways. This erosion is also affecting therange health by reducing the water holding capacity of these fans and is one of the

major causes of desertification and declining range health.

Soil erosion from head cutting and irrigation laterals is contributing to soil loss. Soilquality is low in some areas due to naturally high salt content in some areas ofUtah. Large storm events and spring runoff can cause tremendous stream bank ero-sion, sheet and rill erosion, and sediment deposits. Damage to properties, structures,crops, roads, and infrastructures cause insurmountable environmental and financialimpacts for the citizens of Utah. River systems are vulnerable to future destabiliza-tion until re-vegetation takes place.

Major Resource Concerns


9/57


Wind Erosion Winds are constant and strong in many of Utahs valley locations. High wind conditions, coupled with soils susceptible to wind erosion, make this a constantconcern for the health and safety of humans, livestock, wildlife, and crops as well as the environmental stability of the state. High wind areas can become valu-

able areas of alternative energy and are discussed in the energy section on page 18.

Erosion and Land TypesStream bank erosion is of greatest concern on grazed rangeland, forests, and watershed protection areas, but is also of concern and an issue for all land uses.Sheet and rill erosion are also a concern in the above mentioned areas, and have a great impact to cropland. Wind erosion is of primary concern on cropland,hay and pasture land, air quality, and is scrutinized with greater emphasis than ever before.

To better understand soil characteristics and factors affecting erosion, soil surveys have been conducted throughout Utah. This information can be accessed bygoing to the Web Soil Survey conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm

Loss of Pr ime Soi ls to Development The loss of Prime Farmland Soils is an increased concern. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for

producing food. While soil erosion in this case is not physical erosion due to natural causes, it is still soil loss due to land use changes. In general, prime farm-land soils have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, an acceptable level ofacidity or alkalinity, acceptable content of salt or sodium, and few or no rock. Other soils may be classified as unique and not prime due to the other importantfactors, such as the growing requirements for orchards that may be better suited in areas where soil may not be classified as prime, but have less susceptibilityto frost.

There are only 11,520,584 acres of privately owned land in Utah. This is a

very small percent of land mass in which we have for living and producing

food for our population needs.

Public lands grazing is a critical element of local food security and for main-

taining ranching and rangeland soil health.

Each acre of private land, and especially our most productive areas, are need-

ed for crop production and to fill the local fruit and vegetable production

needs.

Table 1: Sheet, Rill, and Wind Erosion(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop

112,448

80,276

46,496

Range 1,851,437 1,728,015 94,742

Pasture 223,667 185,756 73,426

Forest 80,244 76,429 4,871

Other Ag.

Land

25,187 22,782 9,206

TOTAL 2,292,926 2,093,258 228,741


10/57

6

SOIL QUALITY DEGRADATIONThe condition of the soil is characterized by subsidence, compaction, organic matter depletion, and the concentration of salts or other chemicals. Organic mat-ter plays a significant role in maintaining soil quality. The concern occurs predominantly on cropland followed by pastureland, but conditions of the soils arecritical in every soil type for managing optimum plant growth. Priority treatment areas will include soils identified to be susceptible to compaction or havebeen determined to have a low organic matter according to accepted testing or official soil survey data. The goal of conservation activities and projects are toimprove the soil conditioning index. Planning goals include a positive improvement in the index for the field or planning area.

SubsidenceSubsidence is a soil condition described by the loss of volume and depth of organic soils due to oxidation caused by above -normal microbial activity resultingfrom excessive drainage or extended drought. The timing and regime of soil moisture is managed to attain acceptable subsidence rates. Indicators of range-land health use attribute rating for soil/site stability with the capacity to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources (including nutrient and organic matter)by wind and water.

CompactionSoil compaction is a concern due to compressed soil particles and aggregates caused by mechanical compaction which adversely affect plant and soil mois-ture relationships. Throughout Utah agricultural lands are affected compaction. The promotion of minimum and no -till plant management practices has beenrecommended. Improved grazing management reduces soil compaction. There are 102,582 acres that have been identified as potential acres at risk in Utah forcropland and 78,253 acres identified as acres needing treatment. Potential at -risk acres in range are 480,627 acres with the majority of those acres needingtreatment.

Concentration of Salts or other ChemicalsInorganic chemical elements and compounds such as salts, selenium, boron,and heavy metals restrict the desired use of the land. The national quality crite-ria for contaminants such as salts or other chemicals examine Nitrogen nutri-

ent application levels. It is the goal that levels do not exceed the soil bufferingcapacity. Electrical conductivity (EC) testing can detect levels of salts in thesoil. Conservation practices will be applied that will control soil EC levels andother contaminants to acceptable levels for the intended land use. Certain areasof Utah, especially the Uintah Basin and along the eastern side of the state,experience high levels of salinity. Other areas of Utah also have salinity con-cerns but are more localized.



11/57


Nutrient ManagementContaminants, including animal waste and other organics, are analyzed by test-

ing the nutrient levels of Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Over application of thesenutrient levels from applied animal manure and other organics restrict desireduse of the land. Phosphorus application levels should not exceed soil storageand plant uptake capabilities based on soil test recommendations and risk anal-ysis results. Potassium levels from applied animal manure can also restrict landapplication practices and should not exceed soil storage and plant uptake ca-pacities.

Soil nutrient levels of nitrogen can affect pH levels in the soil and contribute toincreased plant growth or reduce yield goals by appropriately maintaining

proper levels in the soilprofile. Over application of

phosphorus and potassiumdegrades plant health andvigor or exceeds the soilcapacity to retain nutrients.Nutrients are measured in pounds/acre/year and should be tested regularly to assess nutrient levels in thesoil and determine cropping needs.

Residual pesticides in the soil have an adverse effect on non-target plants and animals. Pesticides should beapplied, stored, handled, and disposed of so that residues do not adversely affect the environment as well.

Organic Matter DepletionSoils are affected by climate and weather conditions. Low moisture levels limit plant growth and can cause

excessive erosion of soils without vegetative cover and soils with low organic matter.

Poor management practices of the 1920s and 1930 created a poor soil condition, known as the Dust Bowl,that was devastating. As a result of the extensive damage caused during the Dust Bowl, soil conservationdistricts were created to oversee and manage land treatment practices. Conservation districts are located ineach county in Utah to guide conservation practices and work to improve soil, water, and air qualitymeasures throughout the state.

Table 2: Soil Compaction(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop 102,582 78,253 39,051

Range 480,627 410,247 213,827

Pasture 398,186 334,395 202,258

Forest 7,444 6,507 1,926

Other Ag.

Land

56,687 53,815 32,107

TOTAL 1,045,526 883,217 489,169


12/57

EXCESS/INSUFFICIENT WATER

8

Ponding, Flooding, Seasonal High Water Table, Seeps, and Drifted SnowExcess water due to ponding, flooding, seasonal high water table, seeps, and drifted snow are areas of concern. Excessive runoff, flooding, or ponding is a re-sult of land that becomes inundated, which restrict land use and management. Control and management have a large impact on excess water amounts and ratesof flow. Keeping flows controlled and consistent with the desired present or intended land use should be developed and incorporated in management plans.

The quality criterion indicates that excess water does not restrict a suitableuse of the land, does not restrict operational activities, and does not restrictthe rooting depth of desired crops. There should be no observable damagesto land, crops, or structures resulting from overland flows.

The capacity to capture, store, and safely release water from rainfall, run -

off, and snow melt where relevant is an indicator of rangeland health. TheRangeland Health Evaluation Worksheet is an assessment tool for qualitycriteria evaluation.

Excessive seepage due to subsurface water oozing to the surface restrictsland use and management. When seepage is associated with steep slopes thesaturation of the soil profile can cause mass soil movement.

Excessive subsurface water often saturates the upper soil layers thus re-stricting land use. Subsurface water can be managed to limit periods of satu-ration compatible with the present or intended land use and wetland poli-cies. Visual assessments of soil cores and plant quality and quantity meas-

urements are used as management tools.

Snow levels and windblown snow deposits are identified concerns. Yearlysnow accumulations and snow melt patterns have a large impact on crop-ping and rangeland vegetative cover.

The SNOTEL website at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/Utah/utah.html managed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service is an important man-agement tool. The information gathered compares and provides accumulation totals and averages that are used for moisture management throughout the yearlygrowing season.



13/57


Improvements of natural or constructed outlets can be too small or inadequately in-

stalled to remove excess water in a timely manner. Outlets need to be designed, in-stalled, upgraded, or maintained to adequately convey water for the present or intendeduses. Hydrologic modeling, engineering and/or historical flows are used to upgrade con-veyances.

Inefficient Moisture ManagementUtah is the 2nd driest state in the nation. The inefficient use of water is a critical issuedue to the limited water supplies. The inefficient use of irrigation water is a primaryresource concern. This resource concern occurs on irrigated cropland, hayland, and pas-tureland. Roughly 50 percent of Utah irrigated lands are still irrigated with unimprovedflood systems. Unimproved irrigation systems range from 25 to 50 percent efficient.Improved systems will bring efficiencies up to 60-85 percent.

Inefficient Use of irrigation WaterLand and water management should be planned and coordinated to provide optimal use

of natural and applied moisture. Seasonal irrigation efficiencies should conform to the guidelines as outlined in the NRCS Utah Conservation Practice Stand-ard 449 Irrigation Water Management

Non-Irrigated lands also require management for optimal use of natural moisture. Water losses from runoff and evaporation should be minimized and infiltra-tion maximized through the use of vegetative, structural, and soil manage-ment practices.

Sediment deposits from soil erosion can reduce storage capacity of waterbodies. Water bodies and contributing defined source areas should betreated to allow sufficient water storage for present and intended uses.The watershed approach to management includes controlling soil erosionin all areas of the watershed, from the upper mountainous areas to thefinal storage and use areas of the watershed.

Aging canal infrastructure is a concern throughout the state. Some sys-

tems have been modified and continue to change to pressurized irrigation

systems. Older water conveyance structures are in need of improvements

and a financial mechanism for improvement. Canal improvements will

increase water efficiency and water losses.

Table 3: Insufficient use of irrigation water(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop 129,402 107,413 24,107

Range 61,947 52,046 35,209

Pasture 305,345 299,429 198,207

Forest 7,609 6,620 5,802

Other Ag. Land 19,208 17,532 14,783

TOTAL 523,511 476,420 278,108


14/57

WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION

10

Water Quality concerns include groundwater and surface water impacts. Groundwater pollution canresult if residues from the use of pest control chemicals or excessive amounts of natural or human-induced nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium degrade groundwater quality. Pollu-tion from excessive salts and heavy metal can also impact ground water quality. Viruses, protozoa,and bacteria can be harmful pathogens affecting groundwater quality.

Groundwater quality concerns can also be focused on recharge zones and well -head areas. The quali-ty of groundwater is a specific concern where highly saline irrigation water often exceeds crop toler-ances. The corrosive nature of this water can also be problematic for irrigation systems due to prema-ture system failure.

In some cases, aquifers have been receding for many consecutive years in agricultural areas wheredeep wells supply irrigation water to fields. Many operators have to deepen wells and increase pumpsize to obtain access to the available well water. This condition has decreased the economic viabilityof these farming and ranching operations.

Excessive Sediment in Surface WatersSurface water quality has similar concerns. Added impacts include suspendedsediments from erosion and turbidity from excessive concentrations of mineral ororganic particles, algae, or organic stains. Some tributaries and lakes or reser-voirs are impaired by non-point source pollution. In some cases pollutants exceedthe numeric criteria established by the state standard for the designated use by asignificant amount.

Sources of excessive pollution loads are known to originate from irrigated lands,rangelands, and stream bank erosion. Improved irrigation efficiencies, improvedrangeland health, and the need to address nutrient application practices are allmethods to correct these problems. Technical assistance is also needed to provideland users with the information and financial resources they need to improveirrigation systems.

Table 4: Excess nutrients in surface and ground waters (NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at

risk

(acres)

Needing treat-

ment

(acres)

Priority treat-

ment (acres)

Crop

88,763

69,803

21,875

Range 785,659 746,919 462,749

Pasture 149,159 120,239 48,597

Forest 575,635 561,956 218,957

Other Ag.

Land

30,313 28,471 18,476

TOTAL 1,629,529 1,527,388 770654



15/57


Excess Nutrients in Surface and Ground WatersExcess nutrients in surface waters can be the result of livestock manure or chemical fertilizers

that are applied in excess getting into lakes and streams. Treatment will predominantly beapplied on animal feeding opera-tions, cropland, and pasturelandareas. Addressing the concern willkeep agriculturally applied nutrientsfrom reaching the waters of theUnited States through direct treat-ment and management practices thatwill mutually benefit the environ-ment and production goals. Prioritytreatment areas should be withinidentified 303d impaired water bod-

ies. Animal waste digesters, com-posting, and fertilizer applicationpractices have been developed asoptions to help keep excess nutri-ents from reaching waters of theUnited States.

National and state quality criteria require that nutrients and organics arestored, handled, disposed of, and applied so that groundwater and sur-face water uses are not adversely affected.

Technical assistance should be in accordance with standards and speci-

fications for NRCS Nutrient Management (590) and Waste Utilization(633). Irrigation water should be managed according to standards forIrrigation Water Management (449) such that groundwater uses are notadversely affected. Fertilizers should be applied at the correct agro-nomic rates

Excessive Salts in Surface and Ground WatersSalinity is another area of concern. The Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Program tracks effects of improved irrigation techniques to

reduce salt entering the waters of the Colorado River. Implementation

of practices in the planning unit areas reduce contribution of salts to the

Colorado River.

Table 5: Excessive salts in surface and ground waters (NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop 107,590 86,439 24,652

Range 2,051,365 1,956,618 287,736

Pasture 323,885 276,462 128,519

Forest 525,408 501,065 12,126

Other Ag. Land 62,286 57,933 17,807

TOTAL 2,847,234 2,687,423 389,536


16/57

DEGRADED PLANT CONDITION

12

Undesirable Plant Productivity and HealthUnwanted and unproductive plant species on rangeland and agricultural fields are a major concern. The encroachment of pinion pines and juniper trees, cheatgrass, red brome and other noxious and invasive weeds have decreased the productivity of many rangelands and croplands.

Plants that are not adapted and/or suited to site conditions or client objectives are of concern. The national quality criteria calls for the use of selected plantsthat are adapted to the soil and climatic conditions, or the site is modified to make it suitable for the desired plants. Plants that are sustainable and do not nega-tively impact other resources and meet client objectives are also a criteria. Only species that are adapted to the site should be seeded. If plant species are notsuitable for their intended use, either management operations should be modified to favor the desirable species or plant species that are better suited for theintended use should be selected and established.

Plant productivity, health, and vigor are of concern. When plants do not produce the yields, quality, and soil cover to meet the objectives, productivity andprofitability are affected. Plant production goals should be planned for the site and sufficiently productive to meet or exceed producer needs.

For specific land uses, additional criteria apply:

Cropland: A healthy stand with vigorous growth produces at

least 75 percent of site potential.

Rangeland: The plant community has a similarity index of at

least 60 percent or an upward trend for similarity indices lessthan 60 percent.

Pastureland: Forage yields are at least 75 percent of high man-

agement estimates cited in Forage Suitability Groups (FSG) Re-ports.

Forestland/Agroforest: Forests consist of healthy stands with

vigorous growth having a stand density within 25 percent ofoptimum stocking on a stems/acre basis. Plants chosen for agro-forest applications should be consistent with Conservation Treeand Shrub Groups (CTSG) listings and height performance.

Concerns for threatened or endangered plant species includes indi-vidual plants, habitat (or potential habitat) for one or more plant spe-cies listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.Plant population and habitats of threatened or endangered speciesshould be managed to maintain, increase or improve current popula-tions, health, and sustainability.



17/57


Noxious and Invasive WeedsNoxious and invasive weeds continue to plague Utahs landscape. A compi-lation of county resource assessments shows the impact of noxious and in-vasive weeds as the most critical concern in Utah. The impacts affect soil

quality, vegetative cover, plant health, and water quality. Unacceptable con-ditions appear on both private and public lands. Invasive plants such ascheat grass, pepperweed, musk thistle, Russian knapweed, tamarisk(saltcedar), Russian olive, and medusahead rye and many others are nega-tively impacting productive rangeland health. Conditions that are left un-checked often inundate the landscape and almost completely change plantpopulations. Productive native forages are eliminated and destroy access forpublic recreation, and destroy productive forage for livestock and wildlife.

Excessive Plant and Pest PressureRangeland health in the shrub-steppe is declining. This increases the erosionof rangelands and reduces the productive potential of these lands for live-

stock and wildlife. Decadent Sagebrush and the encroachment of Pinion andJuniper decrease available feed for livestock and wildlife. Wildlife often move onto agricultural lands to then find forage. Overstocking wildlife numbers andunimproved livestock grazing practices add negative plant pressures. Cheatgrass and excessive plant pressures of the black grass bug and the infestation of thebark beetle are creating additional fire hazards. The kinds and amounts of fuel loadings (plant biomass) also pose a risk to human safety and loss of propertyshould wildfire occur.

The quality of existing plant communities may not provide adequate nutritivevalue or palatability to support the intended use. Forage plants should be man-aged to produce the desired forage for the intended use. It is recommended thatadditional financial resources be allocated to address the concern of noxious andinvasive weeds.

County weed boards support the review of local weed concerns, and work closelywith county commissions and conservation districts for the coordination of weedissues. State coordination is supported through the state weed supervisors andstaff from the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food.

Inadequate Structure and CompositionDuring extended drought cycles, the health and condition of plants on rangelandsare impacted. Lower precipitation on rangeland increases the difficulty for plantselection and forage capacity for grazing. Management changes including timingand time-controlled grazing principles provide stabilization in plant condition andcomposition.

Table 6: Excessive Plant Pest Pressure(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop 3,757 3,269 N/A

Range 818,056 736,438 N/A

Pasture 33,044 28,804 N/A

Forest 70,894 69,767 N/A

Other Ag.

Land

4,975 4,808 N/A

TOTAL 930,726 843,086 N/A


18/57

INADEQUATE HABITATFOR FISH & WILDLIFE

14

This resource concern occurs predominantly on rangeland with other potential on pasture, cropland, forest and other agricultural riparian lands. Treatmentshould focus on identified priority areas to protect, enhance and sustain habitat for sage-grouse with the use of direct range treatment or specified managementpractices.

Another wildlife resource concern is wildlife depredation. Elk and deer herds often use agricultural lands for food shelter and water. Over populated wildlifeherds degrade rangeland, encroach on private property and farmland, and become an additional safety risk when entering traffic corridors. Managed and limitedwildlife herd size is critical for wildlife health and rangeland health.

Inadequate FoodIt is important that the quantity and quality of food is available to meet the life history requirements of the species or guild of species of concern. A balance ofwildlife with well-managed livestock grazing is a great management tool for the quality and quantity of available food on the range.

Inadequate Cover and ShelterCover or shelter for the species or guild of species of concern may be unavailable or inadequate. For aquatic species, this includes the lack thermal and refugecover. Optimum criteria for the ecosystem or habitat types support the necessary plant species in adequate diversity, abundance, and physical structure; includ-ing the control of noxious and invasive weeds. It also includes the connectivity of fish and wildlife cover.

Inadequate WaterThe quantity and quality of water is of concern. Lakes, rivers, and streamsplaced on the 303d list of impaired waterways are targeted to improve fishand wildlife habitat as well as overall watershed health and to improve pub-lic safety.

Inadequate Space

Lack of required areas disrupts the life history of the species or guild ofspecies of concern. Targeted treatment areas should determine projects toadequately meet the concerns. Examples include staging areas, forest andfeeding, lekking areas for breeding grounds, and migratory movement cor-ridors.

FragmentationThere is a concern that the habitat has insufficient structure, extent, andconnectivity to provide ecological function and achieve management objec-tives. It is important that fish and wildlife habitats are connected and main-

Table 7: Habitat Degredation(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop 29,841 21,976 0

Range 3,534,045 3,190,407 1,279,089

Pasture 192,003 179,441 47,966

Forest 1,293,373 1,236,791 271,806

Other Ag.

Land

135,035 130,825 0

TOTAL



19/57


tained sufficiently to support the species of concern.

Imbalance Among and Within Wildlife Popu-

lationsThere are concerns that wildlife populations are notin proportion to available quantity and qualities offood, cover, water, space and other life history re-quirements. There is increased pressure to examinelands where listed and endangered species exist.

Targeted project activities include land and watermanagement use that is consistent with direct popu-lation management activities and long-term sustain-ability with monitoring conducted by fish and wild-life agencies, the Utah Department of Agriculture

and Food, and the Utah Division of Water Quality.

Endangered Species, Declining Speciesand Species of ConcernPopulations and habitats of fish and wildlife speciesof concern are managed to maintain, increase, orimprove current populations, health, or sustainabil-ity.

The at-risk species

list (to the right)

identifies fish and

wildlife species of

concern that have

been listed as can-

didates under the

Endangered Spe-

cies Act.

Listing Common Name Group Primary Habitat Secondary Habitat

Endangered California Condor Bird Cliff

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Bird Lowland Riparian Mountain Riparian

Bonytail Fish WaterLotic

Colorado Pikeminnow Fish WaterLotic

Humpback Chub Fish WaterLotic

June Sucker Fish WaterLentic WaterLotic

Razorback Sucker Fish WaterLotic

Virgin River Chub Fish WaterLotic Lowland Riparian

Woundfin Fish WaterLotic

Black-footed Ferret Mammal Grassland High Desert Scrub

Kanab Ambersnail Mollusk Water-Lentic Wetland

Threatened Canada Lynx Mammal Sub-alpine Conifer Lodgepole Pine

Mexican Spotted Owl Bird Cliff Lowland Riparian

Lahontan Cuthroat Trout Fish Water-Lotic Mountain Riparian

Greenback Cutthroat Trout Fish Water-Lotic

Desert Tortoise Reptile Low Desert Scrub

Mexican Spotted owl Bird Cliff Lowland Riparian

Utah Prairie Dog Mammal Grassland Agriculture

Coral Pink Sand Dunes TigerBeetle

InsectCandidate

Greater Sage Grouse Bird Shrubsteppe

Gunnison Sage Grouse Bird Shrubsteppe

Least Chub Fish

Western Yellow-billed Chuckoo Bird Lowland Riparian

Wolverine Mammal

At-Risk Species


20/57

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION LIMITATION

16

Inadequate Feed and ForageUtah forage supplies are critical for livestock production. There is some concernthat there are insufficient total feed and forage supplies to meet the nutritionalneeds of kinds and classes of livestock. Feed and forage including supplementalnutritional requirements are needed to meet production goals. Native grazersshould be factored into the total feed and forage balance needs. The combination ofgrazers and browsers are important to maintaining balanced and healthy forageplant populations on the range.

Locally-important sub irrigated meadowlands are a vital part of feed sources forlivestock in some areas of the state. While high water tables remove the lands asprime soils, they are a very important and nutrition rich vegetation for livestock

and wildlife.

Small pastures and ranchetts are being degraded due to the lack of landownerknowledge and experience with sound and profitable grazing practices. Un -keptsmaller grazing properties are also a major contributor to weed issues. In manycases, properly cared for pasturelands have three to four times the forage capac-ity with proper care.

Inadequate Livestock ShelterIn general, farmsteads have sufficient shelter during inclement weather. Openrange livestock, however, have limited cover.

Wind, rain, snow, and other natural occurrences can all impact livestock pro-duction goals and animal health. Artificial or natural shelter provides a benefi-cial source of cover.

Animals that exhibit illness or death from disease, parasites, insects, or have



21/57


digested poisonous plants are factors that add stress and mortality. Oftenillness can also be attributed to or exaggerated by the effects of inadequateshelter or inclement weather.

Inadequate Livestock WaterRegular and accessible water is essential for meeting production goals andcritical for maintaining animal health. There is a close correlation withhealthy rangeland and watersheds and having adequate water sources forlivestock and wildlife.

Proper grazing management practices include having sufficient water ofacceptable quality and providing adequate distribution to meet productiongoals. The distribution of water sources help limit over grazing concerns bymoving livestock within allotments to reduce impacts along streams andwaterways.

Improved watering facilities and distribution of water help reduce the potential of watercontamination and helps to minimize livestock and wildlife mortality. Increased waterdistribution on rangeland would also help distribute livestock and wildlife, which in turnwould help plant growth improve the watershed health.

Wildlife depredation continues to be problematic for livestock producers. Large numbers

of deer and elk herds encroach on private property and forage on feed that is intended for

privately owned livestock at the farmer and ranchers expense.

Table 8: Inadequate Livestock Water(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop N/A N/A N/A

Range 26,927,038 26,340,242 12,949,062

Pasture N/A N/A N/A

Forest N/A N/A N/A

Other Ag.

Land

N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL N/A N/A N/A


22/57

INEFFICIENT ENERGY USE

18

Inefficient Energy UseSome of the concerns for increasing efficiency are often associated withcost, maintenance, and sustainability. Increased education of renewableenergy would help farmers and ranchers understand opportunities, costs,and benefits.

Alternative EnergyMore alternative energy development and renewable energy opportunitieswithin the state could be made available. Utah has a great potential of cap-turing small energy turbines on water systems. The lack of educationalopportunities, the expense of system installation verses income potential,

and the lack of sufficient energy potential data is limiting energy capabili-ties.

Solar power energy is another alternative form of energy used in agriculture aswell as other sectors of society. Solar power is extremely effective for pumpingdrinking water for livestock in remote areas without electricity. Variable speedpumps are an effective way of reducing energy costs and can be used to regulateflow when irrigation needs vary, or in other agricultural businesses where motorsare used that could save energy costs.

Farming and Ranching Practices and Field OperationsThe use of no-till and minimum tillage can minimize energy use. Increasing theeducation and implementation of energy efficient irrigation systems promotesenergy efficiency and profitability. Additional installation of solar pumps for live-stock watering systems adds to energy reduction


Table 9: Farming/Ranching Practices and Field Operations(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop 416,914 363,316 359,552

Range 1,028,469 929,159 866,249

Pasture 1,108,981 1,047,739 1,004, 523

Forest

50,647

48,098

40,214

Other Ag.

Land

189,803 188,793 79,744

TOTAL 2,794,814 2,577,105 2,310,068


23/57


Energy efficiency is a resource concern on agricultural lands where energy use is associat-ed with equipment, production, and farmstead headquarters. These concerns can be ad-dressed with the use of more efficient engines, solar/wind power technology or other ener-gy-saving technologies and management strategies. Energy audits of farm operations will

help guide treatment priorities for this concern.

Split EstatesWith less than 18 percent of Utah land privately owned, increasing pressure for energydevelopment on farms and ranches with split estates, where the surface and the mineralestates have different ownership, creates greater potential for conflict. Many of these farmsand ranches produce hay and grain that require irrigation. To provide a stable environmentwhich promotes agricultural production and protects the financial investments on surfaceproperties (while not adversely impacting energy development activities) we recommend:

Reasonable accommodation for oil and gas developers should include accommodation

for surface rights and investments by mitigating intrusion. Exercising due regard forpreservation of the property through technology, such as directional drilling, should

also be considered.

Good faith negotiations should be rendered between mineral rights and surface rights

owners. Oil and gas developers should reach agreement to protect surface property resources and provide adequate compensation for loss of crops, surfacedamages, and loss of value to surface owners property rights.

An independent mediation process for conflict resolution should be provided.

Public policy should provide protection for privately held surface rights that are at least equal tofederal statutes that protect BLM-administered surface properties and state statutes related to pri-vately held surface properties and SITLA-owned mineral rights.

Ethanol Subsidies

Subsidies for corn production are concentrated in the Midwest. These subsidies create a burden onthe livestock industry due to increased feed prices. An unfair market is created by the subsidies.


24/57

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

20

Emissions of particulate matter (PM) and PM precursorsThe Environmental Protection Agency has determined that many scientific studies have found an association between exposure to particulate matter and a se-ries of significant health problems, including: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; reduced lung function; irregular heartbeat; heart attack; and prematuredeath in people with heart or lung disease. Particulate matter is also the main cause of visibility impairment in the nations cities and national parks.

For each category of particulate matter, the proposal includes two types of standards: primary standards, to protect public health; and secondary standards, toprotect the public welfare such as crops, vegetation, wildlife, buildings and national monuments and visibility.

Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter are suspended in the air, causing potential health hazards to humans and animals. Particles of 10 mi-crometers and less have a greater potential of being suspended in the air for longer periods of time. Particulate matter less than 2.5 causes greater concern be-cause of the potential penetration deep into the lungs.

Air that is trapped due to inversions increases photochemical reactions. Increased carbon emissions are caused by increased populations that driving vehiclesand use fossil fuels. The use of no -till or minimum tillage practices can help reduce the increased particulate matter in the air. Also, air pollution is reducedwhen less fuel is used.

Other potential air quality concerns include the following categories:

Excessive OzoneWhen high concentrations of ozone adversely affect human and animal health, national airquality criteria require land use and management operations to reduce ozone precursorsand comply with requirements of the State or Federal Implementation Plan.

Greenhouse Gas

Increased CO2 (carbon dioxide), N2O (nitrous, oxide), and CH4 (methane) concentrationsthat are adversely affecting ecosystem processes are of concern.

Ammonia (NH3)Ammonia, which is emitted from animal waste and inorganic commercial fertilizers, con-tributes to air quality concerns and is a PM.25 precursor. Ammonia is measured inpounds/year by examining the average annual pounds of reduced NH3 emissions for thefield or planning area/unit. Using best management practices to implement animal manurefor fertilizer also promotes lower volatilization and reduces odor.



25/57


Chemical DriftConcerns with chemicals are materials applied to control pests that drift

downwind and contaminate or injure non-targeted fields, crops, soils, water,

animal, and humans. National quality criteria include proper land use appli-cation and management that reduce chemical drift into the atmosphere andcomply with all applicable regulations and applicable label directions.

Objectionable OdorsLand use and management operations can produce offensive smells. Odor-producing facilities and activities should be planned and sited to mitigatepotential nuisance impacts as much as possible and meet all applicable reg-ulations.

Reduced Visibility

According to the national description of concern, sight distance is impaireddue to airborne particles causing unsafe conditions and impeded viewing ofnatural vistas, especially in Class 1 viewing areas (primarily national parksand monuments).

Undesirable Air MovementWind velocities (too little or too much) reduce animal or plant productivity,impact human comfort and increase energy consumption. Winter inversionstraps pollutants and decrease air quality. Mountain valleys have a n increasedconcern due to the topography of the land and lack of air movement.

Adverse Air Temperature

Air temperatures (too cold or too hot) reduce animal or plant productivity,impact human comfort and increase energy consumption. Air temperature canreach above 100 degrees, especially in Southern Utah. Northern Utah has theproblem of cold winter temperatures that can dip to 40 degrees below zero.

Air quality concerns are present. The cause and management of dealing with

air quality impacts have been continually reviewed and revised. Recognizing

that concerns exist and implementing best management practices for improv-

ing our environment continues to be the goal.

Table 10: Air Emissions of particulate matter and PM precursors(NRCS-GIS Inventory)

Potential at risk

(acres)

Needing treatment

(acres)

Priority treatment

(acres)

Crop 241,325 197,145 34,258

Range 974,016 826,344 81,065

Pasture 355,688 312,565 64,487

Forest 537,760 524,891 736

Other Ag.

Land

136,218 131,381 8,348

TOTAL

2,245,034

1,992,326

188,894


26/57

County Resource Assessment Summary

County Level Assessments Local working groups have been organized to prioritize the natural resources concerns in each county. Conservation districts have coordinated input from locallandowners, city and county officials, and multiple local natural resource professionals from state and federal agencies. County local working groups havecoordinated public outreach campaigns, surveys, public informational meetings, and called upon the knowledge of local landowners to facilitate discussion and

gather comments in determining the natural resource issues of greatest concern.

As county reports are being completed the Utah Conservation Commission has compiled general categorical issues and concerns that have been identified. Theremainder of the Utah statewide report is a culmination of county assessments and a brief description of each major concern.

County Resource Assessments The 84,000 square miles in Utah has been characterized as the second driest state in the nation. The vast landscapes and national parks are inviting to explorethroughout the year. The lower humidity provides a condition for ultimate winter sports, and the arid climate, where water is available, provides agriculturalproductivity.

Each county in Utah has abundant natural resources. The landscape is as diverse as anywhere in the world. The varied soils, weather conditions, precipitation,and growing season provide a unique blend of beauty and food production. The colorful remnants from sandstone erosion in Southern Utah to the high plateau

grassy meadows in the mountains to the north differ in utility and management demands.

Managing landscapes state-wide is problematic because of diversity. The evaluation of resources by watersheds or by county boundaries identifies more spe-cific needs and provides a guide for improving natural resources and landscapes. Each county in Utah, led by conservation districts, has developed a list ofnatural resource concerns of greatest priority and works continually to coordinate funding and projects that improve watershed health.

Utah Conservation Commission The Utah Conservation Commission has statutory duties and obligations to provide leadership and oversight to natural resource health and conservation ofresources. For additional information about the Utah Conservation Commission, go to: http://ag.utah.gov/divisions/conservation/AboutUCC.html

Utah Code:4-18-2. Purpose declaration.

(1) The Legislature finds and declares that the soil and water resources of this state constitute one of its basic assets and thatthe preservation of these resources requires planning and programs to ensure the development and utilization of these re-sources and to protect them from the adverse effects of wind and water erosion, sediment, and sediment related pollutants. 4-18-5. Conservation commission -- Functions and duties.

(1) The commission shall:(a) facilitate the development and implementation of the strategies and programs necessary to: (i) protect, conserve, utilize, and develop the soil, air, and water resources of the state; and(ii) promote the protection, integrity, and restoration of land for agricultural and other beneficial purposes; Lt. Governor Greg Bell and

UACD President WendallStembridge, 2010

22


27/57

State of Utah Resource Assessment

Conservat ion D ist r ic tsDuring the great dust bowl of the 1920s and 1930s drought and over-cultivation devoured the crops. Soil erosion from wind and water destroyed food produc-tion and was detrimental to the health and financial well -being to the citizens of the United States. The devastation became so severe that Congress voted, withapproval from President Roosevelt, to establish the Soil Conservation Act of 1935.

Since that time local conservation districts have been established across America to improve the health and productivity of agriculture by providing leadershipand environmental stewardship of our natural resources. The law allowed for a board of elected supervisors for each conservation district and established theirpowers and duties.To locate your conservation district elected officials go to: http://www.uacd.org/directory-of-districts.html.

Utah Code:17D-3-103. Conservation district status, authority, and duties.

(2) (a) A conservation district may: (i) survey, investigate, and research soil erosion, floodwater, nonpoint source water pollution, flood control, water pollution, sediment damage, and water-

shed development;(ii) subject to Subsection (2)(b), devise and implement on state or private land a measure to prevent soil erosion, floodwater or sediment damage, nonpoint

source water pollution, or other degradation of a watershed or of property affecting a watershed; (iii) subject to Subsection (2)(b), devise and implement a measure to conserve, develop, utilize, or dispose of water on state or private land;

Each county in Utah has elected local citizens to provide conservation leadership. This allows for a structured organization to evaluate and determine best man-agement practices and the proper disbursement of financial resources for land and water improvements. Funding is available through federal, state, and localsources that are used to improve the natural resources. Conservation districts meet regularly to lead conservation efforts in their counties.

The following county pages are listed in alphabetical order and have been submitted by local county workgroups. Additional county assessment information canbe found at: http://www.uacd.org/County%20Resource%20Assessments.html. The county assessments will provide a greater detail of concerns and suggestedactions to improve the condition associated with each concern.

23


28/57

BEAVER

24

Water Quantity: More storage is needed to contain available snow melt moisture. Some canal deliveryprojects still need to be completed so landowners can improve irrigation systems. Agri-culture lands in most areas are converting from flood systems to sprinkler systems.

Water Quali ty: There are still areas where excessive run-off from fields, rangelands, and forests take

place. Lack of vegetation and monocultureof pinion/ pine and juniper trees, and sage-brush in several areas contribute to nutrientloading and lack of slowing down water intostorage systems.

Rangeland Health: Continue to work with producers/permitteeswith better grazing management practices,produce water/spring development on range-

lands to manage distribution of livestock andwildlife to improve plant growth. Treat more acreage of Pinion/Juniper monoculture sites and re-seed with grass,forbes, and shrubs. Better management of wild horse and elk herds needed in different parts of the county.

Noxious Weeds: Need to develop an active, functioning cooperative weed management area committee in the county to address noxious weed mitigation. Need to better con-trol invasive weeds such as scotch, musk & bull thistle. Develop a plan for tamarisk (saltcedar) and Russian olive control areas, and knapweed in certain areasof the county.

Energy & Renewable Energy Development: Continue promoting alternative energy development and opportunities within the countyusing wind and solar power sources. Encourage use of no-till drill and minimum con-

servation tillage to reduce energy use. Promote low use irrigation systems on the coun-tys hay/croplands. Promote using solar power for pumping water on livestock waterprojects.

In teragency Cooperat ion: Continue to work, plan, and coordinate with state and federal land management agenciesto address livestock grazing management, conservation projects, wildlife numbers andappropriate management, maintaining economic agriculture viability or rural communi-ties within Beaver County.

Tamarisk (Saltcedar)


29/57


BOX ELDER Grazing Management:Box Elder County includes vast areas of rangeland from the low-level salt-desert shrub around the Great Salt Lake (4200 ft) to elevations above 9000 ft in theRaft River Mountains. Much of the lower to mid elevations are subjected to varying degrees of cheat grass invasion. Due to the absence of historic fire inter-vals, other areas have seen increased woody vegetation of sagebrush, greasewood, and juniper. Many projects have been implemented in the past 20 years toimprove degraded rangelands. Because introduced weeds have altered the succession of native vegetation, most successful restoration work has been achieved

through the use of competitive introduced grasses and forbs. These resource improvements need continued effort.

Noxious & Invasive Weeds: Noxious and invasive weeds pose one of the most significant threats to natural resources in Box Elder County.medusahead rye, knapweed species, musk thistle, hoary cress, perennial pepperweed, and dyers woad are someof the weeds of most significant concern. As is often the case, county weed crews focus on new infestations ear-ly, and follow the early detection/rapid response model for weed control. While cheatgrass is a significant prob-lem and has degraded thousands of acres in Box Elder County, control related to this annual grass is most suc-cessful when paired with re-vegetation efforts and proper grazing practices.

Wildl i fe Habi ta t : Sage -Grouse: The residents of Box Elder County have long valued their native wildlife. Due to the risk of listing greater sage

-grouse as an endangered species, improving habitat remains a top priority. The western portion of Box Elder County is home tohealthy populations of sage-grouse. Private landowners and public land agency managers have been proactive in response to peti-

tions for listing sage-grouse as an endangered species. Landowners and managers have coordinated efforts under the West BoxElder Local Work Group. Many range improvements and changes to grazing practices have been made with promotion of sage grouse in mind. Continued pres-sure from environmental interests to list sage -grouse warrant increased vigilance and cooperation to improve their habitat.

Soi l Erosion: Most potentially damaging soil erosion occurs with dryland farming. From the northern end of the Bear River Valley west to Snowville, the Blue Creek/Pocatello Valley area is dominated by dryland farming. This is also an area subject to occasional severe storms. Various practices have been applied includingterraces, diversions, debris basins, strip farming, and residue management. The Howell/Blue Creek watershed recently received an Emergency Watershed Pro-tection Grant to make improvements to aging erosion control structures. Also, as improvements are madeand adapted to local needs, no-till farming is expected to play a bigger role in reducing erosion.

Water Qual i ty :The Lower Bear River is listed as an impaired water body for phosphorous loading. A Total MaximumDaily Load (TMDL) is being created to manage and improve water quality. Most agricultural inputs viaanimal feeding operations have been and are being addressed. As load allocations are determined, financialassistance programs should be applied where there is greatest load reduction for dollars invested.

I r r igat ion Water Management:The Bear River Valley is dominated by flood irrigation. Due to soil type and slope, laser-leveled fields canachieve a high degree of irrigation efficiency. Moving west of Tremonton, flood irrigation gives way tosprinklers fed either by stream flow or well water. Because water is a precious resource, any improvementto irrigation efficiency is important to capture.

Medusahead


30/57

26

CACHE Agricul tural Land Preservat ion:Cache County is one of Utahs leading agricultural counties, consistently ranking in the top five in the state. Prime farmland is also prime developable land.Growth must be managed to preserve prime farmland. Most farmers, ranchers, and dairyman want to continue farming, but are concerned about the future oftheir profession and family operation. The current rate of development is consuming over 600 acres of prime and statewide important farmland each year. Pub-lic input from the 2009 Envision Cache Valley workshops and meetings indicate that residents put a high priority on conserving land in the valley floor for its

working farms and role in protecting water quality. The most popular growth projection sce-narios were those in which the most farmland is preserved for working ranches and farms andpopulation growth stays within the boundaries of existing cities and towns. Cache County iscurrently working on a zoning ordinance to cluster development in the county, protecting landfor agriculture production.

Water D is t r ibut ion Systems:Today there are about fifty-eight mutual irrigation companies in Cache County. Aging infra-structure has created problems with seepage and leaking, compromising efficiency and con-servation in delivery of irrigation water. Due to a number of canal failures in the past fewyears, legislation was passed, requiring certain water conveyance facilities to adopt a safetymanagement plan. In addition, significant growth is projected throughout the basin during thenext twenty years. While most of basin municipalities have sufficient water to meet projecteddemands, many towns will eventually reach or exceed the limits of their capacity. Irrigationcompany water management plans being developed should address both hazards and optionsfor protecting water rights from forfeiture.

Invasive Weeds:Noxious weeds present serious problems in pasture, open lands and the urban interface. Cache County has many different nox-ious weeds. Medusahead rye, dyers woad , and leafy spurge are some of the main concerns. Cache County places top priority onnew, relatively unknown weeds before they become widespread. This approach, with the help of government agencies and proac-tive landowners, has allowed great strides in controlling weeds. Resources are scarce, however, which limits control efforts.Cache County landowners with medusahead problems have started a proactive weed prevention program to help control its

spread. The project, which includes mapping, spraying, and reseeding, is governed by a board of landowners and overseen by theBlacksmith Fork Conservation District. Medusahead control efforts have been focused primarily in the south end of the valleybut are being extended to include the whole county.

Grazing & Range Management:Sixty percent of the county is used for grazing. Public rangelands in Cache County are generally in good condition. There are localized areas that become over-utilized by livestock, particularly around springs and riparian areas. Changes in management could alleviate most issues. However, making changes to publicrange management is a difficult and slow process. Private rangeland condition depends much on the landowners themselves whose decisions are often finan-cially based. Small pasture management is increasingly an issue in Cache County as small ranchettes of 2 -10 acres are developed. Landowners of these smallproperties often have little knowledge of pasture management and consequently don't manage their acreage appropriately. Educational opportunities and re-sources for small acreage landowners are available, but are underutilized.

Dyers woad


31/57


CARBON Water Quantity and Quali ty: Because of the areas desert climate, water in Carbon County is scarce. The area is highlydependent on mountain water storage for all water needs. One major concern for waterquantity includes sediment buildup in reservoirs which reduces storage capacity. Because ofthe areas mancos shale and the inherent salt, another major water quality concern for Car-

bon County is salinity. With the many coal mines in the area, mining impacts on water qual-ity are also a major concern.

Soils: Because of the low content of organic matter in Emery County soils, the return of organicmatter is particularly important in soils that are irrigated. The majority of the soils in thearea are formed from shale and are rich in illite and kaolinite clays. These clays have a lowcapacity to retain plant nutrients. The clay-like nature of the soils also makes them highlyerodible. Because of this, reservoirs in Emery County are faced with sedimentation, reduc-ing water storage capacity and decreasing water quality. Salinity of the soil also has majorimpacts on water quality.

Energy Development & Alternative Energy:

Carbon Countys economy is largely driven by energy production, due to the vast amounts ofenergy resources in the area. Coal, oil, and gas production are the major industries. EmeryCounty also has many opportunities for alternative energy development with large deposits of oilsands. Also, with the countys abundant coal deposits, the opportunity for advanced coal tech-nology or carbon sequestration is present.

Rangeland: Carbon Countys rangleland has historically been highly utilized for livestock grazing and re-mains an important resource for ranching today. Cattle and sheep typically graze during thesummer months in upland ranges administered by the U.S. Forest Service and the State Institu-

tional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). In fall and winter

months, cattle and sheep are generally brought to lower range-lands to graze, most of which are administered by the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM). Ranchers are challenged with limitedwater and watering facilities, invasive and noxious weeds, andincreasing regulations on grazing permit numbers and duration.

Fish & Wildl i fe: Carbon County is home to a number of threatened, endangered, and candidate species, as well as at -risk species that are not fed-erally listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Among the most recently federally listed species is the greater sage-grouse.Efforts to improve habitat and reduce disease and predation are necessary in order to de-list the bird. Another wildlife concernin Carbon County is management of big game.Field bindweed


32/57

DAGGETT

28

Water Quali ty and Quantity:

The two main things that adversely affect the water quality in Daggett County are salinity andsediment. With the inclusion of Daggett to the salinity control programs progress has beenmade. Pipelines and sprinkler systems are being used to improve water quality and quantity.

Water storage for some areas is an important issue. One of the canal systems has been piped andthe other two have applied for funding assistance.

Pasture/Rangeland Health:

This countys agriculture production is based mainly on the rearing of livestock, pasture, hay-land, and rangeland to support the livestock industry. As part of the livestock industry the useof pastures and rangelands are an important tool used in this area. Pas-

ture and rangeland health is key to long-term watershed health and profitability. Drought years limit the irrigationwater needed for good plant health. Since becoming a salinity area with funding for improved irrigation systems and

pipelines, yields have increased and management practices have improved.

Noxious Weeds:

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food defines a noxious weed as Any plant the Commissioner of Agricul-ture determines to be especially injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land, or other property. Most noxiousweeds are non-native plants that have been intentionally or accidentally introduced into the United States. Some ofthe main problems caused by noxious weeds are: reducing crop yields, reducing livestock forage, limiting recreation-al opportunities, reducing wildlife habitat, displacing native vegetation, increasing soil erosion, and altering soil andwater quality. In an attempt to get weed control underway, Daggett County has been making efforts to completemapping for the noxious weeds in the county. With the completion of mapping, weed spraying is done in amore strategic plan. Once sprayed, the most effective way to keep the weeds from returning is planting de-sired plants where the weeds once were.

Wildl i fe M anagement:

Because Daggett County is basically surrounded by public lands, wildlife management becomes a critical issue to watershed health, recrea-tion and agriculture sustainability. Invasive species, threatened and endangered species and big game en-croachment are important issues for Daggett.

Forest Heal th:

Forest lands are a large portion of Daggett County and a key component of watershed health. Beetles and theresulting dead trees continue to be a major concern for the county. Other concerns include wilderness desig-nation, which is identified as land designated and protected by the federal government. It is highly restrictedin its use. Daggett county people are concerned about more land being declared wilderness and already desig-nated lands becoming more restricted.

Quackgrass


33/57


DAVIS Water Quant i ty , Qual i ty and I r r igat ion Inf rastructure: Agriculture in Davis County depends on affordable water and efficient irrigation. Urban encroachment causes problems for canal systems including: subdivi-sions being built over existing pipes and field drains, low water in canals, increased liability, blocked access to easements, flooding, flood ditch issues and highwater pricing. Irrigation improvements and other conservation measures must continue to be implemented and practiced on agricultural lands, as well as incommercial and residential areas, to stretch limited supply. The price of water in the county is among the highest in the state. Many canal companies cannotafford to make major improvements and are forced to upgrade the systems only after a major problem occurs. Current funding programs are inadequate fordealing with the magnitude of canal improvements needed.

Urban development can introduce storm water and pollution into the irrigation infrastructure. Unauthorized storm drain discharge increases the stress on thealready dilapidating systems; and is a major source of irrigation water pollution. Contaminants such as oil, fertilizer, chemicals and other debris from urbanareas enter the storm drain systems that empty into the irrigation water. These pollutants are extremely problematic to farmers who are working to comply withfood safety and water quality regulations.

Noxious and Invasive Weeds: Noxious and invasive weed infestations tend to be concentrated near roads, highway corridors, railroad lines, recreationaltrails, grazing areas, along canals, dormant and stalled construction sites, fence lines, and in privately owned ranchettes.Weed seeds are often transported in the canals and waterways. These areas are not always adequately maintained and areproblematic sources of weed infestations.

The district and its partners have identified nutsedge as the top weed of concern for crop land, phragmites for waterways,and cheatgrass as the top concern on rangelands. Problem weeds in the county include bindweed, cheatgrass, common purs-lane, dyers woad, hoary cress, poison hemlock, phragmites and puncture vine. High priority weeds that have small popula-tions include black henbane, Canada thistle, dalmatian toadflax, goatsrue, Japanese knotweed, jointed goatgrass, leafy spurge, medusahead rye, purple loose-strife, Russian olive, scotch thistle, St. Johns wort, silver nightshade, tamarisk, yellow nutsedge, and yellow starthistle. It is critical to keep potential invaderssuch as myrtle spurge out of the county.

Air Quali ty: Davis County is designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. The countys leading source of PM2.5 is combustionfrom vehicles. Other major contributors include refineries, construction and soot. Agricultural source of ammonia in Davis County comes from outside of thecounty. The inversions trap PM2.5, and other pollutants, in the valley and peak November through March. Ground level ozone is formed from automobile,

industrial, and other pollutions by chemical reactions when there is bright sunshine with high temperatures. The highest ozone concentrations usually occurbetween 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. from May through September. Air pollution from vehicles accounts for more than half ofthe air pollution along the Wasatch Front (www.cleanair.utah.gov).

Ag Susta inabi l i ty /Ag Land Preservat ion: Davis County was once a thriving agricultural community. Today the county is highly urbanized and much of theprime soil and agricultural lands have been sold to development. Agricultural land is commonly worth more eco-nomically when developed than used as farmland. When farmers struggle to make a profit or there is no one to takeover the business after retirement, this land is too often sold to development. Once fertile soil is paved over, it is nolonger available for food and fiber production. Davis County has rich fertile soil. Unless conservation of this land isa priority and agriculture is profitable, it will be lost to development.

Phragmites


34/57

30

DUCHESNE

Water Quality and Quantity:Water is considered the blood of the Uintah Basin. The majority of Duchesne County water supplycomes from the Uintah Mountains, with the Forest Service overseeing this federal land. Agriculture,residential, industrial, and recreational users utilize this life -sustaining resource. The top priority con-

cern of the county is the maintenance and enhancement of the water storage and delivery systems. Thesalinity control program continues to be an important conservation program that enhances and con-serves water.

Pasture and Rangeland:

This countys agriculture production is based mainly on the rearing of livestock and crops to supportthe livestock industry. As part of the livestock industry, the use of pastures and rangelands are im-

portant tools used. Pasture and rangeland health is key to long-term watershed health and profitability. Proper nutrient management is key to waterquality concerns for animal feeding operations that combine the use of pastures/rangelands and corrals for confined feeding of animals.

Noxious Weeds:Invasive noxious weeds have been described as a raging biological wildfire with the potential of becoming out of control,

spreading rapidly and causing enormous economic losses. Weeds often reduce crop yields, and can damage watersheds, in-crease soil erosion, negatively impact rangeland plant and animal communities and adversely affect outdoor recreation.

Energy:The boom and bust cycle of the Uintah Basin for the last 50 years is based on the oil and gas extraction industries. Theseindustries have proven critical to the economy of the Uintah Basin. Because of the importance of this industry in the Basinall aspects of the economy are impacted by these extraction industries. It is important for the county to ensure that the stabil-

ity and soundness of the extraction industries are doing well. There are many chal-lenges facing these industries that need to be identified and addressed for the Basin.

Air Quality:

During the winter of 2009-10 in the Uinta Basin, limited air quality monitoring revealed periods of elevated

daytime ozone concentrations exceeding the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stand-ards. Although the Uinta Basin 2009-10 winter measurements were not made at regulatory stations, the re-sults raised concerns regarding the winter ozone levels in the region. Of particular concern was the potentialimpact these ozone levels might have on the health of Uinta Basin residents. Concern was also expressedthat a failure to meet EPA standards for ozone levels could result in a nonattainment designation for UintaBasins counties, a consequence that could severely impact the economy of eastern Utah and the state as a

whole.

The results of the Basin-wide winter ozone study showed elevated wintertime ozone concentrations through-out most of the Uinta Basin during temperature inversion events. Results als

Utah Agriculture Resource Assessment 2012

Documents

Transcript of Utah Agriculture Resource Assessment 2012