Public Scoping Package Central Malheur Allotment Emigrant Creek Ranger District Malheur National Forest Harney County, Oregon January 2014

Transcription

1 Public Scoping Package Central Malheur Allotment Emigrant Creek Ranger District Malheur National Forest Harney County, Oregon January 2014 Introduction The Malheur National Forest, Emigrant Creek Ranger District, proposes to continue authorization of livestock grazing on the Central Malheur Allotment in a manner that is consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, based on adaptive management strategies. Authorization is needed on this allotment because: The allotment contains lands identified as suitable for domestic livestock grazing in the Malheur Forest Plan and continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals (Forest Plan pages IV-2), desired future conditions (Forest Plan pages IV-7 and IV-10), objectives (Forest Plan pages IV-18), forest wide standards (Forest Plan pages IV-34), and management areas (Forest Plan pages IV-50 through IV-137). The Malheur National Forest Plan permits livestock use on suitable range when the permittee manages livestock using prescribed practices (Forest Plan IV-2). It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans. (FSM ) By regulation, forage producing lands will be managed for livestock grazing where consistent with land management plans. (36 CFR (c)) Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives there is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands. (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Adaptive Management The Proposed Action is based on adaptive management, a strategy that uses monitoring information to determine if management changes are needed, and if so, what changes and to what degree. Adaptive management is a process that provides constrained flexibility in the livestock operation that will allow the authorized Forest Service officer to effectively manage the uncertainty of changing conditions, unanticipated resource responses, funding and personnel changes, potential environmental issues, as well as changes in scientific knowledge. Concerns with livestock management or resource conditions would be managed through adaptive management, appropriate administrative actions and physical changes such as water developments or Page 1 of 11

2 fence construction to improve allotment management. Adaptive management administrative actions include but are not limited to: Determination of specific dates for grazing, Authorization of specific livestock numbers, Modification of the grazing plan, Rest or deferment of forage, Changes in class of animal, Assignment of specific maintenance or construction of range improvements. When adaptive management strategies have been implemented, a course of action that best meets or fosters Forest Plan Desired Conditions would be selected. This is incorporated into the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) and includes the annual authorized use period, numbers of animals allowed; pasture rotation, and monitoring guidelines. Results from monitoring conducted during the authorized use period are used to evaluate the annual plan and identify changes in management, when needed, to ensure adequate progress toward attaining Forest Plan Desired Conditions. All adaptive management options available would be analyzed under this environmental assessment before being adopted for potential future use. The Proposed Action includes strategies that are designed to not retard or measurably slow the recovery of rangeland resources. This would be the near natural rate of recovery, similar to the natural rate of recovery that would occur if livestock grazing were not present. It is expected that the implementation of the proposed adaptive management grazing strategies would achieve the near natural rate of recovery without creating adverse effects that would carry-over from one year to the next. However, due to the nature of grazing and complexities and uncertainties of livestock moving throughout the allotment, some effects would occur, which may be cumulative. The intent of the Proposed Action is that no cumulative effects that would retard attainment of riparian management objectives (RMOs) would occur as a result of the project. The Proposed Action would have an improving cumulative trend over the life of the EA. The Proposed Action Alternative The Emigrant Creek Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, proposes to continue authorization of livestock grazing on the Central Malheur Allotment using adaptive management strategies designed and implemented to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. This alternative focuses on attaining desired resource conditions which are achievable. Adaptive management principles would involve identifying management parameters designed to provide constrained flexibility, while ensuring that resource conditions are moving in the desired direction to produce the Desired Condition. The proposed action is a course of action selected as a starting point for management. This course of action identifies and analyzes parameters, or sideboards, that the Responsible Official believes will help ensure attainment of the Desired Condition. As long as management is conducted within the identified parameters, adaptations may be implemented to respond to changing conditions and needs. Adaptive management strategies would be implemented when environmental conditions, changing objectives, or Page 2 of 11

3 monitoring results indicate a need for change. Monitoring would then be used to determine if or when adaptation would occur and would guide the selection of adaptive changes to be applied to ensure adequate progress in moving toward the Desired Condition. New science and management techniques would be incorporated as needed, or when they are developed. All adaptive management actions would be within the scope of effects described in the Central Malheur EA or a supplemental NEPA document and decision would be made as appropriate. This action would ensure that livestock grazing use is consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended, that proper management is in place on the ground to respond to changes in the range resource, and that management remains focused on the attainment of Desired Conditions. The following paragraphs illustrate adaptive management strategies for the Central Malheur Allotment. These possible management scenarios are not all-inclusive, and best management practices would be used where appropriate. The following management parameters, monitoring criteria, prescribed livestock use, and range improvements are proposed in order to ensure attainment of the Desired Future Conditions. 1. Maximum permitted use would be equivalent to 197 AU 1 for 122 days, or 1,043 AUMs 2.. Grazing intensity and forage use would be identified with AUMs. The permitted numbers are subject to change in response to various resource conditions, climate, and natural events. 2. Mixed classes of cattle would be authorized when/if improved livestock distribution and forage utilization is required. 3. Operate between the earliest on-date of May 15 (to ensure that soils are dry enough to withstand livestock effects without permanent damage) and the latest off-date of September 30. a) The potential season of use would be no earlier than May 15 (due to wet soils or snow) and no later than September 30. The actual period of use would be variable depending on monitoring and resource conditions. b) The authorized annual period of use would be determined yearly in cooperation with the permittee and other specialists and would be subject to change in response to various resource conditions, climate, vegetation improvement projects, and natural events (such as planned and unplanned fire). c) Within-season triggers would be used to realistically and accurately predict the outcome of the grazing plan when using adaptive management strategies. End-point indicators would be used to assess the resource impacts of the current year s grazing plan. 1 (animal unit)- a measure of livestock concentration on a range; considered to be one mature cow of approximately 1,000 lb, either dry or with a calf of six months of age or less, consuming about 26 lb of forage on an oven-dry basis. 2 (animal unit month)- the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent for one month based on a forage allowance of 26 dry lb per day. Note 1- not synonymous with animal month. Note 2- the term is commonly used in three ways: (a) stocking rate, as in X ac/aum; (b) forage allocations, as in X AUMs in allotment A; (utilization, as in X AUMs taken from unit B. Page 3 of 11

4 4. Construct fencing to divide the allotment in to more pastures. a) The south pasture would have a dividing fence (approximately 1.93 miles in 3 sections) constructed from the north fence line to the Horse Pasture, from the Upper Hog Flat Pasture to the Lower Hog Flat Pasture and from the Lower Hog Flat Pasture to the southern boundary of the allotment. The 2 new pastures that are created by dividing the South pasture would allow management to vary the time of use and duration of use. The two new pastures would be named the Southwest Pasture and the Southeast Pasture. b) Create an additional pasture called the River Pasture that is bordered on the east side by the Malheur River and on the west side by the rim rock and drift fence boundary. The River Pasture would not be authorized for grazing. c) Combine the current Horse pasture and the Upper Hog Flat pasture into one larger pasture by placing cattle guards on each end of the 1643 road that currently divides the two pastures. 5. Range improvements that no longer function would be removed. a) Remove the trough at Wade Spring and construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence and buck-andpole fence (about 0.1 miles) around Wade Spring to exclude livestock from about 0.3 acres. b) Remove the troughs at Blinn Spring. 6. Additional range improvement projects would be implemented to improve livestock control and encourage proper animal distribution (all trough replacements would have the ability to be controlled with an on/off valve to aid in animal distribution). a) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence (about 0.2 miles) around the Section 30 pond to exclude livestock from about 1.3 acres. Conifers up to 10 inches dbh within the enclosure would be thinned. Resulting slash would be added to streams as large wood, lopped and scattered or hand piled and burned if fuel loading is excessive. Restore willow as described below. b) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence (about 0.33 miles) around Willow spring to exclude livestock from about 4.6 acres. Develop the spring by installing a headbox and place a trough outside exclosure. Proposed exclosure would include both the sensitive plant site and heritage site adjacent to Willow Spring. Restore willow as described below. c) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence and/or buck-and-pole fence (about 0.48 miles) with a recreation gate around Miller Flat Spring to exclude livestock from about 8.7 acres. Existing fenced area would be modified and enlarged to include the adjacent pond, aspen and heritage site. Develop the spring by installing a headbox and place 2 troughs outside exclosure. Restore aspen as described below. d) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence water lot 3 (about 0.19 miles) at Twin Springs in order to have water access for all pastures adjacent to the water lot and also control access with gates. The water lot would be approximately 1.4 acres. e) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence (about 0.23 miles) around Twin Springs to exclude livestock from about 3.1 acres. Existing fenced area would be modified and enlarged to include aspen. Remove old troughs and restore aspen as described below. 3 an area that is designed to allow access to water by livestock in multiple pastures with one single water point by controlling access to the water point with gates into each pasture Page 4 of 11

5 f) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence (about 0.39 miles) around O.D. Atkin spring and aspen stand to exclude livestock from about 1.1 acres. Remove old troughs and restore aspen as described below. g) Construct a buck-and-pole fence (about 0.23 miles) around Yellowjacket Spring to exclude livestock from about 1.5 acres. Move the trough out of the fenced area and to the road prism. h) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence or buck-and-pole fence (about 0.17 miles) with a recreation gate around Mike Acton Spring and aspen stand to exclude livestock from about 0.7 acres. Move the trough location out of the drainage, and restore aspen as described below. i) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence (about 1.76 miles) along the south boundary of the allotment. j) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence (about 0.39 miles) around Hog Flat spring to exclude livestock from about 4.5 acres. k) Construct a 4-strand barbed wire fence along approximately 200 feet of rim rock adjacent to the River Pasture to ensure cattle are not allowed access to the Malheur River. The new drift fence would also protect a notable grass species, Little ricegrass or Piptantheropsis exigua found at that location. 7. Restoration of sagebrush/bunchgrass/mountain mahogany plant communities. Restore up to 900 acres of sagebrush/bunchgrass/mountain mahogany plant communities in the Johnson Corner Pasture and adjacent NE slope by cutting or girdling 4 juniper up to 18 inches dbh (juniper lacking old growth characteristics) and ponderosa pine trees up to 10 inches dbh. Created slash would be jackpot burned during the first winter. In order to protect mountain mahogany, trees within the interior of mountain mahogany stands that cannot be safely felled and burned would be girdled and trees cut in mountain mahogany stands would be pulled back from the stand with small ground based equipment and jackpot burned 5 in open areas. 8. Aspen Restoration. Restore aspen stands that are located within proposed exclosures 6 by cutting encroaching conifers less than 10 and juniper less than 18 (juniper lacking old growth characteristics). Created slash would be added to streams as large wood, lopped and scattered or hand piled and burned if fuel loading is excessive. Aspen regeneration would be protected by the proposed exclosure fencing and caging if necessary. Monitor aspen regeneration and if there is not adequate regeneration, plant aspen suckers of the same genetic makeup. Aspen restoration would occur in Miller Flat Spring, Mike Acton Spring, Twin Spring, and O.D. Adkin Spring exclosures. 9. Willow Restoration. Restore willow that are within proposed exclosures by cutting encroaching conifers less than 10 and juniper less than 18 (juniper lacking old growth characteristics). Created slash would be added to streams as large wood, lopped and scattered or hand piled and burned if fuel loading is excessive. Willow regeneration would be protected by the proposed exclosure fencing 4 to make more or less continuous incisions around a living stem, through at least both bark and cambium, generally with the object of killing the tree 5 a modified form of broadcast slash burning in which the greater accumulations of slash are fired and the fire is confined to these spots. Sometimes called "Spot Burning" or "Jackpotting." 6 a small fenced off area where livestock grazing is excluded, usually around a spring or aspen stand. Page 5 of 11

6 and caging if necessary. Monitor willow regeneration and if there is not adequate regeneration, plant willow cuttings of the same genetic makeup. Willow restoration would occur within Section 30 pond. O.D. Adkin Spring, and Willow Spring exclosures. 10. Riparian Restoration. Restore the functionality of floodplains by adding woody material and rock by hand to promote and sustain riparian vegetation. Portions of five intermittent incised streams across about 15.5 miles of identified stream channels would be treated to help stabilize stream channels, stream banks and reduce sediment movement into fish bearing streams. Woody material would consist of live conifer trees up to 10 inches dbh and downed wood or rocks, located within 100 feet of the stream channel. Up to 60 head cuts on these streams would be targeted with this process and up to 40 of these head cuts would receive additional stabilization techniques including tapering of the cut and the addition of fiber cloth or other similar methods. 11. Habitat Restoration. Restore riparian vegetation to provide cover and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species by constructing a 4-strand barbed wire fence around portions of Section 8 and Section 9 ponds. Construct the fence in a manner that would exclude livestock watering from approximately ½ of the pond area. The resulting exclosures would each be about ¼ to ½ acre in size. 12. Sensitive Species Implementation Monitoring. A small sub-population of the Region 6 sensitive Eleocharis bolanderi, Bolander s Spikerush will be included in the exclosure fence surrounding Willow Spring and the associated riparian area. a) The objective of excluding Bolander s Spikerush from livestock grazing is to increase soil stability within the species habitat and reduce direct damage from trampling. Although little is known about this species, this exclusion is expected to increase the number of individuals as well as expand the physical size of the sub-population. b) To determine the effects of excluding Bolander s Spikerush from livestock grazing, monitoring would be completed in both the excluded sub-population and the nearest sub-population outside the exclosure fence within the same drainage. Monitoring would be completed according to appropriate protocols for rare graminoid species in dry-shrub habitats. 13. Standards and Guidelines for upland and riparian utilization would be applied. Annual forage utilization would meet Forest Plan Standards at the end of the grazing season. a) Upland Utilization: Upland utilization would not exceed 45% on forage grasses and 50% on shrubs (FP IV-18, 35, and 58). The following would act as triggers to implement adaptive management strategies or move livestock to the next grazing area or pasture: i) Forage utilization level approaching 35% use by weight on upland grasses and sedges. ii) Upland shrub utilization by livestock approaching 40%. Upland shrub utilization by livestock will be managed to include the forage needs of big game in late fall (FP IV-71). Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of upland shrub use by livestock may result in livestock move triggers within designated big game winter range. Such move triggers will be expressed in annual direction letters. Page 6 of 11

7 14. Riparian Utilization. In wet meadows and enclosures where overland water flow is present, hydric herbaceous vegetation would be measured along the riparian greenline 7. Riparian utilization would not exceed 35% on hydric grasses, sedges and rushes or 30% on riparian shrubs by livestock (FP-18, 35, and 58). The following would act as within-season triggers to implement adaptive management strategies or move livestock to the next grazing area: a) A 6-inch stubble height on riparian dependent grasses and sedges. b) A 3-inch stubble height on floodplain grasses. c) No more than 20% stream-bank (flow pattern) alteration by livestock on the green-line (enclosures). 15. It would be the Permittee s responsibility to ensure that established with-in season triggers are attained. If it is determined that these triggers have been met before the end of the authorized use period, then the following adaptive management strategies, individually or in combination, would be implemented: a) Livestock would be removed, or moved to the next grazing area. b) Grazing within the effected key grazing area would be no longer be authorized and would be deferred with additional riding or herding. c) If the area of concern could not be deferred using the above strategies, cattle would be removed from the allotment within a designated period of time and not allowed back on the grazing unit until it has been determined through monitoring that recovery has taken place. 16. Forest Service personnel would be responsible for monitoring end-point indicators. If end-point monitoring shows that annual indicator allowable-use design criteria (Table 1) cannot be achieved in the Central Malheur allotment during the typical grazing season, then the following adaptive management strategies, individually or in combination, would be implemented: a) Permittee would apply a full-time herder to move livestock away from areas of concern, out of ephemeral drainages, or adjacent upland areas to encourage within-pasture deferment of forage grasses and upland sedges. b) Consider shortening the annual period of use in the effected pasture by at least 25% for a specified period of time to provide a longer growing period or complete life cycle for the majority of perennial forage (extended recovery for forage). c) Re-evaluate within-season triggers and modify as necessary (i.e., Move trigger for floodplain grasses (Poa spp.) will be 5 stubble height instead of 4 for the next grazing season. ). d) Re-evaluate range readiness criteria and modify as necessary (i.e., Do not graze the south pasture in 2015 until Sagebrush buttercup has set seed and dropped all its blooms ). e) Prescribe complete rest or partial deferment of effected pastures until it is determined by monitoring that herbaceous recovery has taken place and resources are moving toward the Desired Condition. Monitoring Rangeland resource monitoring would be conducted by Forest Service personnel at established benchmark sites or C&T plots to determine compliance with the term grazing permit and any necessary modifications of annual direction throughout the grazing season. Range Readiness Criteria is displayed in Table 1. below. Recommended guidelines and objectives are identified in Table 2. 7 the first perennial vegetation that forms a lineal grouping of community types on or near the water s edge. Most often it occurs at or slightly below the bankful stage. Page 7 of 11

8 Table 1. Range Readiness Criteria. LOCATION SPECIES OBJECTIVES Wet Meadows Upland & other sites Early forbs, Poa spp. Sedge species Elk sedge Idaho fescue Bluebunch wheatgrass Sandberg bluegrass Junegrass Pinegrass Soils firm & dry enough to support livestock without excessive hoof action (breaking through the soil surface) or causing excessive compaction. 4 to 6 leaf length measured on the greenline or flow patterns. Seed heads in late dough stage. Foliage 4 to 6 in height. Foliage 6 to 8 in height, seed stalks showing. Seed heads in dough stage (developmental stage of the plant in which seeds are nearly mature & of dough-like consistency). 5 foliage height. 4 to 6 foliage height. Table 2. Annual Indicator/Allowable use for the Central Malheur Allotment. LOCATION INDICATOR WITHIN-SEASON OBJECTIVES 1 (triggers to move/remove livestock) END-OF-SEASON OBJECTIVES (end point indicators) Key Areas in Wade Spring drainage, Miller Flat drainage, Mike Actin Spring drainage, and Hog Flat drainages. (Seasonally dry mesic meadow vegetation). Percent use of mesic meadow grasses and sedges. Bank alteration (intermittent drainages and flow patterns) Approaching 4 to 6 average leaf length or 35% use. 2 When trampling is apparent on 10% to 20% of streambanks or flow patterns. 4. Not more than 45% use by weight on mesic meadow grasses and sedges. Not greater than 20%. Upland Key Areas Upland Herbaceous Upland Shrubs Approaching 35% average use by weight on key upland grasses. 3 Start moving cattle when 40% of current year s leaders are cropped. Not greater than 45% use Not greater than 50% use on current year s leader growth. Enclosures/Wet Meadows (hydric grasses, sedges, and rushes) Stubble Heights of hydric greenline or flow pattern grasses, sedges, and rushes. Approaching 6 to 7 average leaf length. Not less than 6 inches. Trend Trend will be read every 5-10 years at established upland and wet meadow (I. e., Miller Flat and Hog Flat Meadows) C & T Plots. Methodology will include Line-Point Intercept or Cover/Frequency using the Daubenmeir Quadrat, or other accepted methodology appropriate for the range site. 1 Within-Season Triggers will be identified and established with permittee involvement. It is the permittee s responsibility to monitor move triggers. If necessary, specific dates to verify compliance with these triggers should be identified at the time of the pre-season meeting in order to provide full communication of the permittee s responsibility. 2,3 Specific stubble heights at maximum percent use for individual key upland and meadow grass species, based on established or sitespecific height/weight curves, may be further described during the grazing seasons. 4 Trend monitoring results will determine site specific bank alteration or hoof action objectives. Trend monitoring results will also be used to determine if grazing is allowing movement towards desired conditions and Forest plan standards, as amended. Page 8 of 11

9 Monitoring Methodology Monitoring methodology would be based on (but not be limited to) the following: a. The Malheur National Forest Range Monitoring Guidelines, b. Malheur National Forest Riparian Monitoring (Condition and Trend) Strategy, c. Monitoring protocol developed by the Interagency Implementation Team, as amended in d. USDI Technical Bulletin , Cowley and Burton, Monitoring Stream-banks and Riparian Vegetation Multiple Indicators (MIM). e. Winward, 2000, and Burton et al., 2007, to determine riparian trend in wet meadows. f. Line-point Intercept, Height-Weight Curves, Ocular Percent Forage Use, or other methodology developed for the range site to be monitored. Consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as Amended Selection of the Proposed Action alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (36 CFR (c)). Refinements or Additions The above descriptions of proposed treatments and design elements are not necessarily final or exhaustive; they are subject to refinement or addition of other measures that serve the project purpose in a manner consistent with applicable standards. Such refinements or additions would occur after receiving comments on this proposal, in conjunction with environmental review or a project-approval decision. Opportunity for Public Comment During this scoping phase of the NEPA process, we are seeking input, either verbal or written. We are interested in any site specific issues, concerns or opportunities that you think need to be considered in the development of this analysis. Section 428 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 included a provision establishing a predecisional objection process (36CFR218) for projects and activities implementing land management plans in lieu of the post-decisional appeal process (36CFR215) used by the agency since The Central Malheur Allotment project is a non-fuels reduction act (HFRA) project, and is subject to the Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process (Objection process) as identified in 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Rather than being able to seek higher-level review of unresolved concerns after a project decision has been made (Appeal process), those who are eligible will be able to seek that review before the project decision has been signed (Objection process). The Forest Service believes that considering public concerns before a decision is made aligns with our collaborative approach to public land management and increases the likelihood of resolving those concerns resulting in better, more informed decisions. We also believe this will aid in our efforts to be more efficient with documenting environmental effects (NEPA). Page 9 of 11

10 Individuals and entities (non-governmental organizations, businesses, partnerships, state and local governments, Alaska Native Corporations, and Indian Tribes) who have submitted timely, specific written comments regarding a proposed project or activity during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection. Opportunity for public comment on an Environmental Assessment includes during scoping, the 30 day public review period, or any other instance where the responsible official seeks written comments. Written comments are those submitted to the responsible official or designee during a designated opportunity for public participation provided for a proposed project. Specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider. Please provide your comments by February 21, Send written comments to: Attn: Melissa Ward, Central Malheur Allotment Project Emigrant Creek Ranger District Malheur National Forest 265 Hwy 20 South Hines, Oregon To contact the project team leader call: Melissa Ward at: (541) To the project team leader send to: comments-pacificnorthwest-malheur-emigrantcreek@fs.fed.us To view maps on the web go to: Page 10 of 11

11 Page 11 of 11