Upper Valley Landscape Improvement Project

Transcription

1 Upper Valley Landscape Improvement Project Shrubland, Rangeland Resource and Noxious Weed Report Prepared by: Kimberly Dolatta and Jessica Warner Rangeland Management Specialist for: Escalante Ranger District Dixie National Forest February 28, 2016

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

3 UV Landscape Improvement Project Shrubland, Rangeland Resource and Noxious Weed Report Table of Contents Introduction... Error! Bookmark not defined. Overview of Issues Addressed... Error! Bookmark not defined. Affected Environment... Error! Bookmark not defined. Existing Condition... Error! Bookmark not defined. Desired Condition... Error! Bookmark not defined. Environmental Consequences... Error! Bookmark not defined. Methodology... Error! Bookmark not defined. Alternative 1 No Action... Error! Bookmark not defined. Alternative 2 Proposed Action... Error! Bookmark not defined. References... Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Tables Table 1. Project area vegetation cover types and acres Table 2. Grazing allotments within the Upper Valley Landscape Improvement Project Table 3. Acres of each vegetation type located in the project area Table 4. Key Areas located in the project area and average utilization measured at each site... 4 Table 5. Desired mix of canopy cover classes for sustainable sagebrush ecosystems Table 6. Rangeland Resource and Noxious Weed Project Design Features List of Figures Figure 1. Areas within and adjacent to the project area that have been previously chained and the proposed sagebrush treatment areas

4 Introduction This report discloses the existing condition and the impacts of the proposed action and no action alternatives on shrublands, rangeland resources, and noxious weeds in the project area that could be impacted by this project. Practices to be implemented with the proposed action are analyzed as part of the proposed action and are disclosed in this report as project design features. Overview of Issues Addressed This report will include the analysis of the issues identified relevant to shrublands, rangeland resources and noxious weeds. Shrublands were identified as having an undesirable mix of canopy cover classes. How vegetation management will affect the canopy cover classes will be analyzed. There was a need identified to improve and maintain habitat and optimum forage production. How vegetation management will affect rangeland resources will be analyzed. Also, how vegetation management could affect noxious weeds will be analyzed. Issue Indicators Percentage of acres in each of the canopy cover classes for shrublands, any changes to rangeland resources, and any change in acres of noxious weeds will be used to measure effects. Affected Environment Existing Condition Shrublands This project defines shrublands as flat to gently sloping areas where the predominant vegetation includes shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Shrublands cover just over ten percent of the project area. Typically shrublands are in valley and drainage bottoms adjacent to the forest and woodland covered slopes. Some of the shrublands have been farmed in early settler days and then reseeded to crested wheatgrass in the mid twentieth century. Most of the shrublands in the project area have received treatments such as chaining previously. The locations of those treatments are displayed in Figure 1 along with an overlay of the proposed sagebrush treatments. Comparison of the past treatments with the proposed treatments closely matches one another. 1

5 Figure 1. Areas within and adjacent to the project area that have been previously chained and the proposed sagebrush treatment areas. 2

6 Table 1. Existing Condition vs. Desired Conditions. Existing Condition of Shrublands Structure- Area is showing encroachment of pinion juniper and rabbitbrush with little understory. Composition- Pinion juniper and rabbitbrush dominate the lower elevation of the treatment area. Seedings have included crested wheat grass. Processes- Intervals needed to maintain a natural vegetation stand have not been met. Patterns- Largely mature stands of brush with a homogenous grass species. Large patches of dead and dying brush. Conifer trees are encroaching from the edges into the shrubland meadows. Desired Condition of Shrublands Structure- Balanced range of structural stages (shrub canopy cover). Bare soil should average less than 20 percent and signs of accelerated erosion should be absent. Composition- Native, late-seral species should dominate the herbaceous layer with exception for crested wheatgrass seedings. Invasive plants should be less than 10 percent of relative frequency. Processes- Lethal fire regime on an approximately 20 to 40 year return interval Patterns- Conifers should be absent or limited to a few scattered seedlings. Vegetation patterns are usually patchy with several age classes represented in a given area Table 2. Existing mix of canopy cover classes measured within the project area. Canopy Cover Class Percentage of Plots within Project Area 0-5% % 22 >15% 67 Rangeland Resources The project area encompasses all or portions of six grazing allotments. The following table lists the allotments and the acreage included in the project area, the total acres of the allotment, grazing system, and the permitted numbers and season for livestock. 3

7 Table 3. Grazing allotments within the Upper Valley Landscape Improvement Project. Allotment Acres included in Project Area Total Allotment Acres Grazing System Permitted Livestock Numbers Permitted Season of Use North Creek 2,195 70,254 Deferred 734 6/16 9/30 Wilford Liston On/Off 3 6/1 10/30 Upper Valley Spring Upper Valley West Upper Valley East Canaan Mountain On/Off 4 6/16 10/10 6,400 16,419 Deferred 215 6/16 9/30 8,223 17,132 Deferred 366 6/16 9/ ,137 Deferred 33 5/15 9/30 Numerous structural range improvements (fences, water developments, tanks and distribution lines) can be found throughout the project area. There are approximately eighteen miles of fence, two corrals, and twenty-two water developments located in the project area. This results in a density of approximately one water development per 765 acres. However, the current developments are not evenly distributed. Most of the project area is suitable to grazing. Only approximately six percent of the project area is not suitable. A majority of the available forage comes from the shrubland vegetation types (black sagebrush, greasewood, and mountain big sagebrush). The mixed conifer, Ponderosa pine, and Pinyon-Juniper vegetation types offer lesser amounts of forage that can be found in the interspaces. The acres of each vegetation type located in the project are displayed in the following table. Table 4. Project area vegetation cover types and acres. Vegetation Cover Type Acres Ponderosa Pine Pinyon-Juniper 3699 Mixed Conifer Forest 432 Sagebrush Meadow 1889 Oak 37 Aspen 10 Rock 227 Total 16,855 Approximately 80% of the utilization measurements taken have been within the Dixie National Forest s maximum allowable forage use standards. Key areas that have been measured for maximum allowable forage use are listed below in Table 4. All of these key areas have been seeded to crested wheatgrass sometime in the mid twentieth century. Most of the key areas have been measured seven different years, some a few years less. Table 4 summarizes the average use for each key area over the years. 4

8 Table 5. Key Areas located in the project area and average utilization measured at each site. Noxious Weeds Key Area Average of Percent Utilization Allen Canyon 48.5% Rabbitbrush Flat 38.5% Liston Flat % Liston Flat % Sand Cove 47.0% South Hollow 56.6% Upper Valley Hwy % Willow Spring 61.2% The project area does not contain any herbaceous noxious weeds, but there is a very small amount of Russian olive and saltcedar located along Upper Valley Creek and Allen Creek. Rabbitbrush has been recommended and voted on by the county commissioners to be added to the Garfield County Noxious Weed List. There is a large amount of rabbitbrush in the project area. Total acres are not known since it has not yet been mapped. Russian knapweed has been found along the highway right-of-way adjacent to the project area. Desired Condition Desired conditions and general direction for livestock management and noxious weeds are set in part by the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended (USDA-FS 1986). Rangeland Recourses Goal #18 - Continue to improve management on all allotments (USDA FS 1986, pg. IV-6) Direction within management areas is as follows: Management Area 1 (General Forest Direction) Provide forage to sustain local dependent livestock industry. (USDA-FS 1986, pp. IV-36) Management Area 2B (Roaded Natural Recreation) o Manage livestock distribution and stocking rates to be compatible with recreation use. Locate structural improvements to meet Visual Quality Objectives. (USDA- FS 1986, p IV-70) Management Area 6A (Livestock Grazing) -Invest in cost effective grazing management and associated range improvements. Invest in cost effective grazing management and rangeland productivity improvements. Nonstructural restoration and forage improvement practices available are seeding, planting, burning, fertilizing, pitting, furrowing, spraying, crushing, and plowing. Cutting of encroaching trees may also occur (USDA-FS 1986, p. IV-109, 112). Management Area 7A (Wood Production and Utilization) Utilize transitory range that is available where demand exists, and where investments in regeneration can be protected. (USDA-FS 1986, p IV-119) Management Area 9A (Riparian Management) Livestock grazing is at a level that will assure maintenance of the vigor and regenerative capacity of the riparian plant communities. Maintain proper stocking and livestock distribution to protect riparian ecosystems. (USDA-FS 1986, p. IV-135, 138) 5

9 Specific desired conditions for the Upper Valley Vegetation Improvement project are to maintain range improvements in their current condition. Shrublands The desired mix of canopy cover classes for sustainable sagebrush ecosystems is displayed in Table 5. If the mix of sagebrush cover is outside of the desired cover class distribution, the cover type may be functioning at risk for the overall ecological health and diversity of a sustainable sagebrush community at a landscape level (USDA-FS 2005, p. 6). Table 6. Desired mix of canopy cover classes for sustainable sagebrush ecosystems. Canopy Cover Class Percentage of Plots within Project Area 0-5% % 50 >15% 40 Utilization standards set for key areas with upland vegetation have a standard for maximum allowable use of 50% while wheatgrass seedings should not be utilized more than 60%. Noxious Weeds Goal #19 Cooperate with counties and other land managers in controlling noxious weeds (USDA-FS 1986, p IV-6) Goal Noxious weeds and undesirable invasive species are managed and controlled to prevent new infestations, control existing populations and eradicate invasions where possible and practical so that ecological biodiversity, ecosystem stability and function and native plant composition, structure and successional patterns are maintained or improved. (DNF 2000, p F-3) Specific desired conditions for the Upper Valley Vegetation Improvement project are to not establish new sites of noxious weeds. If noxious weeds have become established, they should be controlled with the most effective treatment available following the Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management on the Dixie National Forest (DNF 2000). Desired conditions and general direction for rangeland resources and noxious weeds are set in part by the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Goals stated in the LRMP are to continue to improve management on all allotments (Goal #18, p. IV-6) (USDA-FS 1986) and cooperate with counties and other land managers in controlling noxious weeds (Goal #19, p. IV- 6) (USDA-FS 1986). Specific desired conditions for this project are to maintain' range improvements in their current condition and do not establish new sites of noxious weeds. If noxious weeds have become established, they should be controlled with the most effective treatment available. Environmental Consequences Methodology For the purposes of this analysis, the current Dixie National Forest GIS layers of range allotments and improvements, vegetation types and past treatments, and noxious weed locations were used. Long-term vegetation monitoring conducted by the Forest Botanist was used to determine canopy 6

10 cover classes of the shrublands. Annual use monitoring of utilization standards, collected by the Rangeland Management Specialist, was used to determine compliance with Dixie National Forest standards. Site visits have been conducted to most of the project area by the Rangeland Management Specialist. General knowledge of the area was used to help determine effects to the resources. Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Spatial context used for effects analysis will be the project area for direct effects. The grazing allotment boundaries will be used to determine indirect effects with the exception of the North Creek allotment. Since only a very small portion of that allotment is included in the project area, the boundary of proposed treatments will be used in the determination of indirect effects. The timeframes used for the effects analysis will be five years for short term and twenty or more years will be defined as long term. Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Timber harvesting has occurred in the cumulative effects area since the 1960 s with most of the sales occurring in the 70 s and 80 s. The latter years have mainly been salvage sales from acres burned by wildfire. Prescribed fire and wildfire have been a common occurrence in the cumulative effects area. There is an active oil and gas field adjacent to the project area with a dense road system developed. Noxious weeds are currently being treated in accordance with the Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management on the Dixie National Forest (DNF, 2000) and will continue to be managed that way. Alternative 1 No Action Direct Effects Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct effects to shrublands, rangeland resources, or noxious weeds. Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative there would be indirect effects to rangeland resources and noxious weeds. Shrublands would continue to age resulting in an increase of the percentage of the densest canopy cover class. This would lead to an undesirable mix of cover classes possibly putting the overall ecological health and diversity of a sustainable sagebrush community at risk. Cumulative Effects Under the No Action alternative there would be no measurable cumulative effects to shrublands, rangeland resources, or noxious weeds. Summary of Effects Under this alternative there would be no direct or cumulative effects to any of the resources. The only indirect effect would be impacting the shrublands from a lack of treatments to the shrubs resulting in an undesirable mix of canopy cover classes. Direct and Indirect Effects Shrublands Under the No Action alternative there would be indirect effects to shrublands. Shrublands would continue to age resulting in an increase of the percentage of the densest canopy cover class. This 7

11 would lead to an undesirable mix of cover classes possibly putting the overall ecological health and diversity of a sustainable sagebrush community at risk Rangeland Resources Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct effect in capable acres, permitted livestock numbers or season of use. Livestock management would continue in accordance with current plan direction. Indirect effects would occur as shrubland and juniper canopy continues to increase with a reduction of understory forages. Noxious Weeds Under the No Action alternative there would be no increased risk of new noxious weed infestations. Current vectors (i.e. recreation, livestock and wildlife) would continue to utilize the area with the potential for new infestations to occur. Monitoring of existing noxious weed populations and survey for new infestations would continue to occur. Likewise, treatment of known and new weed populations would continue to occur. Thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Cumulative Effects Rangeland Management Since there would be no direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects to rangeland management under the No Action alternative. Noxious Weeds Since there would be no direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects to noxious weeds under the No Action alternative. Summary of Effects Under this alternative there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to rangeland management or noxious weeds. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Design Features and Mitigation Measures Table 7. Rangeland Resource and Noxious Weed Project Design Features. Range RG-1. Protect range allotment improvements (fences and water developments) during implantation activities. RG-2. Livestock grazing will continue to be administered through existing range allotment decisions and annual operating instructions to minimize impacts on regeneration and seeding establishment of vegetation. Measures may include livestock management activities such as herding, salt placement, and timing of grazing, fencing, and rest. Rest will follow established DNF guidelines. Normally, the Forest requires that burned or treated areas be rested for two full years. 8

12 Prior to stocking burned areas, an evaluation is needed to make sure that the rangelands are within 80% of desired effective ground cover values for the site and desirable plant species are established and producing seed. These timeframes may be modified based on documented consensus from an Interdisciplinary Team. Utilization standards are described in the Forest Plan and apply to this project. Noxious Weeds NW-1. All ground disturbing equipment will be thoroughly cleaned to remove dirt, mud and plant materials at an off-forest location prior to being transported to the project area. NW-2. Disturbed soils will be evaluated to determine whether rehabilitation is needed and, if so, the methods to use. Seed mixes used for rehabilitation purposes will be certified noxious weed free. Seed mixes will include species that germinate rapidly to provide a quick cover of vegetation (the nurse crop technique). NW-3. If used for rehabilitation purposes, only certified noxious weed-free hay, straw, and mulch will be used. NW-4. Noxious weeds will be controlled on all disturbed areas should they become established in accordance with the Dixie NF Decision Notice for Noxious Weed Management of January 2000 (USDA, 2000). Direct Effects Under the Proposed Action alternative there would be no direct effects to noxious weeds. The Proposed Action would directly affect the shrub cover classes. Mastication of the shrublands will lower the percentage of acres in the densest canopy cover class. Several of the stream restoration treatments will remove a small percentage of forage and water access from the allotment. The acreage is so small that it will not affect permitted livestock numbers. The timber and prescribed fire treatments should have minimal impacts to the shrubland and rangeland resources. Grazing system rotations may need to be adjusted during treatment of those acres. Indirect Effects Noxious weeds may be indirectly affected from the proposed action due to the introduction of new weeds to the area from some of the treatments proposed. Treatments that lower the canopy cover classes of shrublands should result in higher herbage production which would increase the amount of available forage for livestock. Cumulative Effects Under the Proposed Action alternative there would be no measurable cumulative effects to shrubland, rangeland resources, or noxious weeds. Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The following provides direction for livestock grazing on the Dixie National Forest: Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 9

13 Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2201 summarizes laws and regulations governing range management and forest planning. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 identifies information requirements concerning NFS grazing resources. 36CFR 222.3(a) states that unless otherwise specified by the Chief of the Forest Service, all grazing and livestock use on National Forest System lands must be authorized by a grazing or livestock use permit The Proposed Action complies with the Forest Plan and all other applicable laws and policies. Summary of Effects The Proposed Action will have direct effects to the shrublands and minor direct effects to the rangeland resources. Noxious weeds and rangeland resources may experience indirect effects. There would be no measurable cumulative effects to any of the resources. Monitoring Recommendations Monitoring will need to be done on the shrub cover classes to assure mastication accomplishes the correct mix of canopy cover classes. This can be done by following the standard protocol already used by the Forest Botanist. Prescribed Fire treatment acres that have been burned will need to be evaluated to determine when they would be ready for grazing. After installation of the water guzzlers are completed, they will need to be checked for livestock impacts. If they are being negatively impacted by cattle, then they will be fenced with a secondary tank added for livestock use. All soil disturbing treatments need to be monitored on an annual basis for the presence of any new noxious weed infestations. 10

14 References USDA Forest Service Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management. Dixie National Forest, Cedar City, Utah. USDA Forest Service Forest Service Handbook Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Management Handbook, Chapter 20 Rangeland Inventory and Analysis, Region 4 Amendment