Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment Analysis

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service April, 2017 Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment Analysis DRAFT Environmental Assessment Rifle Ranger District White River National Forest Garfield County, CO For Information Contact: Lydia LaBelle de Rios 0094 CR 244 Rifle, CO

2 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, office, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

3 Table of Contents Introduction...2 Background...4 Purpose and Need...6 Proposed Action and Alterantives...7 Environmental Effects...12 Range Invasives Heritage Wildlife Aquatics Botany Agencies and Persons Consulted...30 References

4 INTRODUCTION The Rifle Ranger District of the White River National Forest prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the effects of reissuing livestock grazing permits for the Rifle Creek Grazing allotment may be significant, and thus, requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, the Forest Service is fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. For this project, the responsible official is the District Ranger, Sarah Hankens. If the responsible official determines a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the selected alternative after the final EA is prepared, a draft Decision Notice will be issued and subject to objection under 36 CFR 218 parts A and B. The Decision Notice (DN) will disclose the rationale for choosing the selected alternative, discuss the rationale for rejecting other alternatives, and disclose how the decision responds to the relevant issues. Once a decision is made, a Term Grazing Permit and an Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) may be issued provided that they are in compliance with the NEPA-based decision. These are the implementing documents and do not constitute decision points. 2

5 Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment Analysis Environmental Assessment Figure 1. Map of the Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment 3

6 BACKGROUND The Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment (the allotment) is located in the north portion of the Rifle Ranger District on the White River National Forest, within the general land description of T 3 S R 94 W and R 93 W (Figure 1). The allotment is located north of Rifle Gap State park, on FS Road 832. The allotment is located on the north side of the Rifle Ranger District and encompasses 17,111 acres within an approximate elevation range of 7500 to 9500 feet. Allotment acres are classified as suitable for livestock grazing based on parameters such as percent slope (how steep the slope is), distance to water, accessibility for livestock, and inherent forage producing capabilities. Stocking rates for cattle are based on suitable acres. Non-suitable areas may receive incidental use and may be used as travel corridors to more suitable areas. While the Forest Plan is in itself a large scale assessment, capability and suitability studies were conducted at a local level so lands could be evaluated appropriately. The allotment was formed in 1929 at which time there were approximately 2000 cattle and 100 head of horses that would run from May 16 to November 1. The permit currently authorizes use from June 16 to October 20 for 858 cattle. Permitted Cattle Numbers Figure 2. Permitted Cattle Numbers Cattle Season long grazing was phased out after the completion of the last environmental assessment in 1995; now the allotment consists of seven fenced pastures. The grazing rotation has changed on the allotment several times since the last analysis. The current rotation allows for each pasture to only be grazed one time to allow for vegetation growth or regrowth depending on the pasture timing. Current permit numbers are in Table 1. 4

7 Allotment Permitted# Type On Date Off Date Total Days Animal Unit Months Rifle 858 Cow/calf 6/16 10/ Table 1. Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment Permit The Forest Service is a multiple- use agency including support to sustainable use in rangeland resources; and rangeland management and resources is considered important to this rural economy. The social and economic implications of forest resource management are of interest to local residents surrounding the forest, forest users (including grazing permit holders) and other residents throughout the area. The importance of the agricultural sector is highlighted more as a social benefit than as an economic benefit. Although agriculture provides a smaller portion of the economy than it once did, it adds significantly to the diversity within the county. The ranching lifestyle is an important part of the heritage and culture of the area. Ranching operations often operate close to the margin and their profitability can be significantly affected by market conditions. Federal land grazing plays an important and vital role in the economic viability of those ranchers who hold grazing permits and significant changes to the permitted animal months affect those operations. 5

8 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether to continue permitting livestock grazing on all, none or some portion of the Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment. The EA and decision is also required by Section 504 of the Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law ), which directs the Forest Service to develop a schedule for the completion of NEPA analyses and decisions on existing livestock grazing allotments. Permitting of livestock grazing is a discretionary action by the Forest Service. The analysis area contains lands identified as available for domestic livestock grazing in the 2002 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002), hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan. The purpose of this agency proposal is to provide forage grazed at sustainable levels of use to qualified livestock operators. The allotment is part of this sustainable land base. The general purpose, goals and objectives are designed to: Meet or adequately move toward desired conditions in the Forest Plan and Watershed Conservation Practices handbook. Provide for adaptive management flexibility. Continue improving resource trends or maintain currently satisfactory resource conditions as appropriate. Multiple needs have been identified for the project area. There is an overall need to analyze the possible effects of continuing or modifying the grazing authorization. There is also an overall need for greater management flexibility to cope with fluctuations in environmental and social conditions including, but not limited to, annual changes in weather, respond to permittee requests for reasonable operational adjustments, and to respond to unforeseen concerns or opportunities. There is a need to ensure that grazing of available forage is managed in manner such that the use maintains and/or enhance the forage resource, or desired conditions. Enhancement of the forage resource means cultivating healthy grass and forb species, and ecosystems, through proper management. If authorized, livestock grazing of available forage would be managed in a manner that maintains or moves conditions toward achieving Forest Plan and project level objectives and desired conditions in a defined timeframe. 6

9 Key Issues or Concerns Upland ecological conditions on the allotment are currently meeting or moving toward desired conditions. There has been an increase in species diversity with good perennial plant cover due to significant changes in livestock rotation over the years since the last assessment. No key issues were identified that would drive a separate alternative. No public comment was received on this project during the scoping period. Site specific concerns were identified through interdisciplinary analysis and were addressed in the proposed action (Alternative 3) and further details are in the project record, within specialists reports by resource. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: No Action No Permitted Livestock Grazing Under the No Action - No Livestock Grazing alternative, no livestock grazing would be permitted on the Rifle Creek allotment. Under this alternative, the current permits would be cancelled and not issued to any other applicant. (FSH , Chapter 90, section 94.1). This alternative provides an environmental baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives. Grazing permittees may be given a one year phase-out period to adjust their operations during which time they would be authorized to graze the allotment while the cancellation process proceeds (following 36 CFR 222.4(a)(8) and Forest Service Handbook , Sections 16.1, 16.3). During that timeframe, livestock grazing would continue to follow the Term Grazing Permit terms and conditions and AOI as provided in Alternative 2. Alternative 2: No Change - Current Livestock Grazing Management Under the No Change Current Livestock Grazing Management alternative, the term grazing permit would continue to authorize livestock grazing on the allotment as depicted in Table 1. Pasture rotation, duration, and timing have been, and will continue, to be adjusted according the rainfall and vegetation growth. Actual turn on dates may vary by permittee. The grazing rotation has changed on the allotment several times since the last analysis. The current rotation allows for each pasture to only be grazed one time to allow for vegetation growth or regrowth depending on the pasture timing. With this alternative, monitoring involves annual inspections for Term Grazing Permit and Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) compliance (on/off dates, improvement 7

10 maintenance, movement/distribution of livestock, etc.), range readiness, and range resource and riparian resource trend. However, under the current Term Grazing Permit, changing livestock grazing management as a result of monitoring is limited. Minor management adjustments are made in the AOI. Sheep would continue to move across the allotment to get to another permitted area on the White River National Forest. In doing so, they mitigate larkspur growth that may otherwise detrimentally effect permitted cattle. There are approximately 5800 ewes with lambs in six different bands that cross the western end of this allotment. They enter the allotment on the Forest Service (FS) 837 road and head northeast crossing the FS road 211 to FS road 812 and back on to FS road 211 again as they leave the allotment. One band of sheep (1000 ewes with lambs) is utilized for up to fourteen days. This use has allowed the range program to utilize pastures at different times, reducing the risk of larkspur poisoning, and allowed better cattle distribution. Alternative 3: Proposed Action- Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management The proposed action is to permit livestock grazing within the Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment under an adaptive management strategy (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] , Chapter 90; Quimby 2007) that will meet or move toward Forest Plan and sitespecific desired conditions. Under this alternative, the current management system would be selected as the starting point. Adaptive management allows the Forest Service to manage for changing conditions and new information over time. It is a process that uses focused monitoring information to determine if management changes are needed, and if so, what changes and to what degree. This alternative strives to resolve the disparity between existing conditions within the analysis area and desired conditions as defined in the Forest Plan and further defined at the project level. It gives the authorized officer the flexibility to adapt to change within the constraints imposed by the EA and subsequent decision. As long as implementation continues to remain within the scope of the EA, the District Ranger may choose to implement adaptive changes. The management actions listed in Table 2 are specific actions that could be implemented under the adaptive management framework. 8

11 Table 2 Adaptive Management Toolbox* Tool Explanation 1.Change the season of Would allow for range managers to change the rotation the grazing use within the allotment or the rotation within an individual pasture, thus changing the season of use in selected areas. This responds to resource conditions in selected plant communities where early season or late season use may be more beneficial to the growth after browsing of the plant. The utilization level in uplands and riparian areas will determine livestock off-dates for specific pastures and the 2. Change livestock Numbers (without exceeding AUM capacity) 3. Adjust livestock grazing intensity and/or duration. 4. Use livestock herding to manage specific areas of concern. 5. Rest or restrict specified areas from livestock grazing. allotments Increase or decrease in numbers, within the livestock carrying capacity of the allotment, to address resource conditions on an annual basis. Decreasing numbers and extending time in an allotment can lead to better distribution if careful livestock management is practiced Tool that allows managers to adjust the duration of use within a pasture, either with an increase or decrease in time spent, dependent on resource conditions. This could allow more time in a pasture that in under-utilized, thereby decreasing use on other pastures that may benefit from less grazing. Specifically, less time spent in a pasture would reduce the number of times (frequency) within the season that individual plants will be grazed. The fewer times a plant has to pull from its root reserves for regrowth, the more that is available for maintaining and producing root system. This tool could be applied to any pasture within the allotment. If areas of concern are noted, the permittee would be contacted and would manage these areas with increased attention. Resting specific areas from livestock grazing can aid in the recovery of an area where over grazing (wildlife or domestic) has degraded the range condition. Areas that have experienced natural events such as fire or large scale land movements may also require rest from livestock grazing in order to recover fully. An example of application is to restrict livestock grazing in popular recreation areas (i.e. popular campsites or fishing spots) to decrease conflicts between livestock and recreationists. There may also be areas where livestock grazing is beneficial for a short period of time (i.e. using sheep to move through an area before cattle to eliminate or decrease plants that may be harmful to cattle). 9

12 6. Construct range improvements needed to improve livestock distribution. 7. Grass and forb Seeding 8. Herbicide treatment of selected non-native plant species Fencing may be beneficial to improve livestock distribution or to hold cattle in an area with no logical topographical boundaries. Fencing is beneficial in some cases where adequate distribution is not being achieved or where sensitive areas are identified and need to be avoided. Water developments can encourage livestock to move into previously under-utilized areas due to lack of water, aiding in the distribution of livestock away from riparian areas and wetlands. Water developments may also aid in distribution of wildlife away from riparian areas and wetlands Use re-vegetation techniques such as seeding with grass, forb and/or shrub species. This technique may be used where areas have been disturbed and reduced to early seral and rapid recovery is desired (heavy grazing, road construction and abandonment, landslides, fire, etc.). This tool could be employed on selected sites that may not be reaching their vegetative potential. Treat selected non-native plant species in selected areas with herbicide. Following the forest wide non-native plant species EA guidelines. * Use of any tool must consider rangeland condition, site potential, and other relevant multiple-use objectives for the analysis area. Additional site specific proposals have been identified that would support desired conditions within the allotment: Continued the integration of domestic sheep on the allotment to the graze the larkspur, so that possible alternate timings in rotation could be achieved. Use of sheep bands to knock back the abundant larkspur, poisonous to cattle, in several areas would be for a period of days. To help manage the movement of sheep across the stock driveway we would reopen Forest Service Road 837.1A that was closed during the travel management plan (already approved in TMP). This route is the historic livestock driveway that transitions from the Bureau of Land Management permits to the Forest Service permits. The road was historically used to move sheep camps on and off Forest Service land To reduce grazing utilization by permitted sheep bands on stock driveway through allotment, bands will be required to move 4 miles per day in the spring and 5 miles per day in the fall. In addition they are required alternate bedding areas. Install electric fence in several areas to protect the Butler Creek riparian area. If found effective, there may be potential for a permanent fence. Improvements to Rifle Creek Cow Camp to address safety issues Decommission cabin near Butler Several significant headcuts are progressing in the upper Butler Creek channel through areas formerly occupied by beaver dams. 10

13 o Address the key areas and associated channel/bank instability by actively treating headcuts with native materials (primarily rock) and by reintroducing beavers to the system where appropriate. o Create favorable habitat to promote beaver establishment (manual installation of natural materials) o Transplant willows to throughout the of Butler Creek riparian corridor. Develop water sources at up to 13 identified pond locations: o Six potential pond locations in the Bear Gulch pasture o Four in the Spray Area Two pasture o Three in the South Middle Rifle Creek pasture (Please see the project record for these specific locations). More water developments may be required to reach desired condition goals. Additional fence is needed to implement more controlled pasture rotation and riparian mitigation. o Extension to the existing exclosure on Butler Creek to help stabilize a headcut o Near the Butler Creek/FS Road 832 crossing starting at that point and heading east. There are three other smaller head cuts that are on upper Butler Creek; they might be addressed in the same fashion if the others prove that an upward trend is being achieved. Electric fence will be used first, and if this change in fence alignment improves the pasture, a permanent fence would be installed. Recreation considerations include: keeping cattle/sheep out of the Spruce Picnic Area; keeping cattle/sheep away from Coulter Lake Guest Ranch s ditch/waterways/and ranch; educating hikers/bikers/horseback riders of sheep dogs along Three Forks trail; educating motorized users (ATV/UTV) of sheep dog encounters (Little Box Canyon); requesting cattle come on and off the forest during the week when entering and exiting allotment in spring and fall; continue coordination with future recreation events; install signs requesting users to close gates. If selected, the proposed action would give direction for AOI. Based on monitoring findings, livestock grazing management may be adjusted within specified adaptive management limits as described in this NEPA analysis and subsequent decision. Specific adaptive management strategies being proposed for the purpose of better distribution and pasture rotation opportunities are in the Adaptive management toolbox. Additional specific strategies for this proposal are in bold in the same toolbox. Maintenance of desired conditions will be measured using short and long term monitoring methods. These methods have included or would include rangeland and riparian characteristics health valuations, cover-frequency transects, allotment inspections (Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide, Rocky Mountain Region, 1996), green line transects, and vegetative cross section transects with photo points. Deviation 11

14 from current conditions will trigger an evaluation of existing conditions and management by the District Ranger and IDT and may trigger a need for a change in allotment management. Monitoring targeting riparian and instream habitat conditions (including bank stability, substrate composition, and aquatic macroinvertebrate community sampling) would be conducted each year for 5 years in an effort to determine if desired improvements in those conditions was occurring. The effectiveness of the grazing regime in restoring instream habitat conditions in Butler Creek would be reevaluated on the basis of those monitoring data and grazing management would adjust accordingly. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives by Core Resource Resources that represented concerns or issues during project development, or required in compliance with regulation, are included below. Additional resource analysis can be found in the project record. Direct effects are the effects occurring in the same time and place as the triggering action. Indirect effects are those caused by action and its alternatives but they occur at a later time or a distance from the triggering action. Cumulative effects described below are grouped into general categories due to the similar and inter-related effects to those resources. The following analysis describes past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment and how direct and indirect effects from the proposed grazing project may be additive in time and space. In order for direct and indirect effects from the Proposed Action to be cumulative, they must overlap in both time and space with direct and indirect effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the area. Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Activity Past, Present, Future Four Timber Sales 1996, 1998, 2002, 2010 Sheep Trailing Ongoing Herbicide Ongoing Dispersed Recreation Ongoing TMP road reopening FSR837 1A 12

15 RANGE Alternative 1 No action No livestock Grazing This alternative would result in the cancellation of the existing Term Grazing Permits. With no livestock on the allotment there would be no direct effect from livestock grazing to soils or vegetation. There would be no direct affect from livestock on stream banks. The overall effect of no livestock grazing on rangeland ecological condition could be beneficial for the first few years following livestock removal but could have the potential of being neutral or negative thereafter. Indirectly, the areas in early the mid seral stages of ecological succession would experience increases in litter accumulation and decreases in bare ground. This increased matting and accumulation of dead plant material over what presently occurs would provide more insulation to the ground. This would provide slight increase in the water holding capacity and a slight decrease in surface soil movement and erosion. In areas where vegetation is currently stressed, by frequent and/or excessive defoliation, vigor of forage species over the short term could improve with the removal of domestic livestock. However, according to Holechek et. Al. (2004), excessive accumulation of plant tissue lowers the photosynthetic capabilities of the plant. McNaughton (1993) suggested that moderate grazing could increase primary productivity and that some plants clearly benefited from some grazing. As noted on most of the sites that have permanent transects, the ecological trend of the upland conditions with livestock is upward. Litter accumulation and percent bare ground are not issues in the analysis area. In areas where present grazing allows for regrowth and recovery, where forage species are presently vigorous, little change would be predicted. Plant vigor in the short term may show a decline as production with litter build up effects the amount of sunlight reaching the base of the plant. At this point, excessive amounts of nutrients and energy would be trapped in the dead plant material reducing that available for plant growth. Carbon cycling could slow under this alternative as the disturbance from livestock grazing is eliminated and the sites gathers litter and nutrient cycling in general slows. Excess mulch can provide habitat for pathogens and insects that can damage forage plants. Holechek presented evidence that grazing can increase the reproductive potential of some plants.(holechek 1981; McNaughton 1983; Prige and Whitman 1987) Any depleted root reserves would have an opportunity to recover with this alternative provided grazing by elk was not excessive. Species composition would be expected to shift slightly towards desired forage species with root systems that could take advantage of soil moisture at varying depths. Kentucky bluegrass would be expected to persist; growth form could be expected to become more vigorous and less prostrate except where elk continue to concentrate use. Alternative 2: No Change - Current Livestock Grazing Management 13

16 Under the No Change Current Livestock Grazing Management alternative, a term grazing permit would continue to authorize livestock grazing on the allotment. (FSH , Chapter 90, section 94.1, R2 Interim Directive of 6/8/07) Livestock stocking rates and management plans would remain constant with this alternative. There are approximately 5800 ewes with lambs in six different groups that cross the western end of this allotment. Additionally, one band of sheep (1000 ewes with lambs of the 5800) have been utilized for up to fourteen days to travel across the allotment on the drive trail to mitigate larkspur growth. Upland areas presently receiving moderate use and having adequate littler and plant cover and receiving sufficient recovery time following grazing would be expected to improve slowly and continue to move toward desired condition (late seral) over time. Maintenance and/or recovery of native perennial grasses/forbs can be expected in the allotment as they have over the past 30 years. With the current plans problem areas are addressed annually through the annual operating plan. Turnout dates in the spring are adjusted from year to year depending on range readiness. The range is generally ready for livestock grazing when soils are sufficiently dry and sufficient forage has been produced to support the livestock. Elk use occurs throughout the allotment. Heavy use by elk can and does occur at times during calving season in June. Elk vegetation use and needs are taken into account and effect management of cattle grazing and their use on the same resource. Timing and intensity of cattle grazing is monitored both by the grazing permittee and the range program. Multi-pasture grazing rotations provide an opportunity to adjust the time and timing of gazing to allow for plant needs. This allows plants to go completely to seed prior to grazing on some years or to provide time for plant re-growth and recovery on other years. Alternative 3: Proposed Action- Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management This alternative proposes adaptive grazing management (Table 2). This alternative would move existing ecological conditions toward the desired conditions more rapidly than Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. Even as the lower sections of Butler Creek are showing a positive reaction to current management strategies the upper portions are still not showing proper functioning condition. Annual and long term monitoring (between 5-10 years)will measure the progress of existing conditions and determine when management activities should be taken from the grazing management toolbox, and implemented. The more productive the ecological site (soils, water, aspect, etc.) the more likely the site will continue an upward trend and at a more rapid rate than less productive sites. 14

17 Additional water development (small earthen ponds/tanks less than nine foot banks and ½ acre foot) in several locations will help improve livestock distribution. Such range improvement will enable additional pasture rotation opportunities that lack of water presently limits. Overall, the direct effects of implementing the proposed action of livestock grazing using adaptive management would be positive in achieving or moving toward desired conditions for all vegetative types. The effects of specific management actions under the Adaptive Management Toolbox are discussed below. 1. Change season of grazing use. A possible change in the season of grazing use could be earlier turn-on dates in the spring. In some cases moving livestock on earlier in the spring and therefore bringing them off earlier in the fall would provide more time for grazed plants to recover after being grazed. Coming on late in the season reduces the time a plant can recover from grazing as the growing season remaining after grazing is reduced. 2. Change livestock numbers. The allotments have a livestock carrying capacity that is a function of time (numbers of days) the cattle are on the allotment and the number of cattle on the allotment. Therefore the number of cattle on the allotment could be adjusted up or down as long as the season is adjusted at the same time. For example: if the cattle numbers were reduced then the remaining cattle could stay on the allotment longer (or vice versa). Numbers can have an overall effect with timing, intensity, and frequency to grazing of a plant. 3. Adjust livestock grazing intensity and/or duration. This action could reduce the number of times (frequency) within the season that individual plants could be grazed. The fewer times a plant has to pull from its root reserves for re-growth, the more reserves that are available for maintaining the plant in a vigorous state. 4. Use livestock herding to manage specific areas of concern can reduce heavy use prior to an area being grazed beyond the allowable use standard. This can include sheep bands as a tool for poisonous plant mitigation to change grazing pattern. 5. Resting specific areas from livestock grazing can aid in the recovery of an area where heavy grazing (wildlife or domestic) has degraded ecological condition. Natural events such as fire or large scale soil movement may also require rest in order to recover fully. 6. Construct range improvements needed to improve livestock distribution. Fencing is a tool that could be employed when natural features are ineffective at stopping livestock movement. Water development is a tool that can encourage cattle to move into areas previously inaccessible due to distance to water. This tool includes temporary electric fencing. This in turn may increase wildlife utilization of different areas. 15

18 7. Grass and forb seeding. This technique may be used where areas have been disturbed and reduced to early seral and rapid recovery is desired (heavy grazing, road construction and abandonment, landslides, fire, etc). 8. Herbicide treatment of non-native species. Treat selected invasive plant species in selected areas with herbicide. Following the forest wide invasive plant species EA guidelines. Cumulative Effects The following table lists some cumulative effects and their potential response to the three alternatives: Alternative 1, 2 No Action or current 3 Proposed Action Adaptive Management Plant species composition Increase, Slight increase Litter Accumulation Increase, No change Percent Bare soil Slight decrease Trend toward Desired condition Increase, Slight increase Increase Increase Decrease Increase Certain vegetation communities have changed over the past years as the result of and including the following events: 1) Timber harvest, 2) historically (early 1900s) high levels of livestock grazing, 3) Suppression of naturally occurring wildfires, 4) Fluctuations and substantial increases in wildlife (especially elk) over time, 5) Construction and use of Forest Service roads and trails, 6) Oil and gas development, and 7) Normal plant community succession. Alternative 1- No change will benefit the resource in the long term but at a slow rate. With management techniques that are available at this point plant species composition will probably increase, litter accumulation will probably stay the same or slightly increase, percent bare ground will probably decrease slightly and slowly the resource will be on an upward trend to desired condition. Overall, the proposed adaptive management Alternative 3 will provide the best opportunity for grazing and protection of resource values thereby minimizing negative cumulative effects to vegetation and soil resources. It will do this by: 1) Improving livestock management, 2) Improving control over timing, intensity, and frequency of livestock utilization, and 3) Improving plant health and vigor providing acceptable effect to those species of concern that need periodic disturbance while minimizing effects to other species. 16

19 As trend data is collected through long-term monitoring, a better understanding of longterm trends in vegetation communities will evolve. Based on the much-decreased levels of livestock grazing (over the past 100 years), more diligent administration of grazing permits and more involvement by the permittees in annual short-term monitoring, vegetation communities are expected to continue to move toward desired conditions as described in the table above. INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES Alternative 1: No Action No Permitted Livestock Grazing Under the no grazing alternative, the potential for disturbed sites existing as the result of livestock grazing would be reduced; therefore creating a reduced opportunity for invasive plant species establishment. This would be due to the increased vigor of the un-grazed native vegetation being able to compete with the invasive plant species.. Alternative 2: No Change Current Livestock Grazing Management An increase in invasive plant species infestations resulting from grazing is not anticipated in Alternative 2.Grazing by livestock when managed to Forest Standard should not increase the spread of weeds. Healthy, properly managed rangelands seem to be more resistant to invasive plant species introduction and spread than those under stress. This is most likely due to the diversity and robustness of the native vegetation. Invasive plant species are very opportunistic and seem to invade where there is a soil disturbance, bare soil, or a plant community is under a stress situation such as by overgrazing. Alternative 3: Proposed Action- Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management An increase in invasive plant species infestations resulting from grazing is not anticipated in Alternative 3. Invasive plant species could actually decrease due to their ability to adapt to the planned grazing plan. For example: with Alternative 2, grazing by livestock, when managed to Forest Standard, does not contribute to the spread of invasive plant species. The only item that could have a detrimental effect on invasive plant species management could be excluding or resting an area from livestock grazing where livestock were being used as a tool to target an invasive plant species (i.e. domestic goats used to control vegetation.) This management tool is not presently being used on the allotments. Grazing by livestock, when managed to Forest Plan standards, will not have a significant negative effect on the spread of noxious weeds. Cumulative Effects 17

20 The presence of livestock (horses, cattle and wildlife) and trail riders create vector for seed transport. Under all alternatives the spread of noxious weeds would continue due to natural and other activities in the area. Roads, recreation use and grazing all provide vectors for spread. There are programs in place to treat areas of infestation, however it is difficult to treat all noxious weeds. Under Alternative 1, there would be one less vector for seed transport. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 grazing activities would continue, thus the vector for transport would still be present. However these alternatives provide an additional source for managing noxious weed would also be available thus could lead to a reduction cumulatively to noxious weeds in the area. HERITAGE Alternative 1: No Action No Permitted Livestock Grazing Alternative 1 would result in the least impact on cultural resources. If livestock grazing and construction of related range improvements ceased, then there would be no direct or indirect impact or disturbance to cultural resources. Alternative 2: No Change Current Livestock Grazing Management Livestock grazing in archaeologically sensitive areas creates a potential conflict between rangeland objectives and cultural resource management. Concentration of livestock may impact cultural resources. Stock consistently using the same pathways may result in erosion on trails. These activities can expose subsurface materials, displace surface deposits, and cause artifact breakage. Construction of range improvements such as fences, corrals, and water sources also has the potential to disturb cultural resources. Future range developments will require Section 106 review on a project-specific basis. Alternative 3: Proposed Action Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management It is proposed to authorize livestock grazing on the Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment using an adaptive management strategy that provides a flexible framework to address changing conditions through time and reduce the impacts of grazing on the environment, including cultural resources. Alternative 3 presents the potential for fewer adverse effects of livestock grazing on cultural resources than Alternative 2. Improving range conditions through alteration of the livestock grazing season, duration and intensity of use, and protecting riparian habitats will potentially aid in the protection of cultural resources. Increased vegetation cover can stabilize soils and reduce erosion of cultural resources. Planned frequent 18

21 movement of livestock will reduce the likelihood of stock concentrating in particular areas further reducing long term trampling impacts to cultural resources. Future range developments will require Section 106 review on a project-specific basis. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to cultural resources relate primarily to the kind, amount and locations of structural improvements (i.e. stock tanks, fences, etc ), stocking rate and season of use by livestock, recreational activities, prescribed burning, and other ground-disturbing activities within the analysis area. The other activities would continue and could affect heritage resources, especially unknown sites. Significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources are not anticipated by the implementation of any of the three Alternatives. WILDLIFE Existing Conditions and Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1: No Action No Permitted Livestock Riparian Areas: Riparian areas are very important for a diversity of species, particularly neotropical migratory birds. In northwest Colorado, 82% of all nesting birds use riparian areas (Finch and Stangel 1993). In the Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment, the primary streams include portions of Three Forks Creek, Middle Rifle Creek, East Rifle Creek, George Creek and Butler Creek including all streams, lakes and wetlands. Several springs and ponds have been developed for stock watering. Riparian areas provide valuable wildlife habitat for a variety of wildlife species, particularly neotropical migratory birds, small mammals and amphibians. Riparian areas in the western United States comprise less than 1% of the total land area but support most of the terrestrial wildlife (Finch and Stangel 1993). The absence of livestock grazing under the No Action Alternative would likely increase the quality of riparian habitat in these allotments. Although the allotment is considered to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the quality of riparian habitat is reduced to some degree by livestock grazing. Livestock numbers are currently at a lower level than they were several decades ago. For this reason, managers believe that both riparian and upland conditions are showing improvement over time. Under the No Action Alternative, riparian and wetlands would improve at a faster rate as compared to Alternative 2 and 3. This would particularly be the case for species that nest and forage in heavy shrub, riparian zones or herbaceous ground cover. Ungulate Habitat: With the absence of livestock grazing on the Rifle Creek allotment there would be less pressure (more available forage) on the winter and transitional range habitat that occurs at the lower elevations of these allotments. The quality and quantity 19

22 of forage in this transitional habitat helps determine the body condition of elk and deer going into the winter months. During the summer months, elk and deer may avoid pastures that contain livestock, which can cause animals to concentrate in vacant pastures, or at least in habitats that provide security cover from livestock activities. Without livestock presence, big game animals might disperse wider throughout the summer range from smaller summer concentration areas although influences due to dispersed recreation and other existing activities would continue. Under this alternative there would be less competition for forage, however given the current livestock stocking levels, forage availability is not believed to be a limiting factor for deer or elk on summer range. Aspen and Mixed Aspen Habitat: The primary factor affecting aspen habitat, besides climate and precipitation, is grazing by livestock and wild ungulates. Aspen regeneration occurs in existing mature aspen stands, timber harvest units, and burned areas. Under the no action alternative there would be less domestic grazing affecting aspen regeneration, although there would still be wild ungulate grazing. Elk can have noticeable effects on aspen regeneration in areas of concentration, which does occur in the Rifle Creek Grazing Allotment during calving season and later in the summer months. Alternative 2: No Change Current Livestock Grazing Management Riparian Areas: Riparian ecosystems are extremely productive and have diverse habitat values for wildlife. Riparian areas within livestock grazing allotments are good indicators of management successes or failures. Several studies have been conducted on the effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory birds. Finch and Stangel (1993) summarized the studies that occurred in western riparian ecosystems. Out of 43 species of birds, 8 were positively influenced by grazing, 17 species were negatively influenced by grazing, and 18 species were unresponsive or showed inconsistent or uncertain responses (Finch and Stangel 1993). Species that responded positively to grazing generally included aerial foragers associated with open habitats (e.g., mountain bluebird, kill deer, house wren, American robin, brown headed cowbird, and pine siskin). Species that responded negatively to grazing were species that nest and/or forage in heavy shrub or herbaceous ground cover (e.g., Lincoln s sparrow, yellow-rumped warbler, MacGillivary s warbler, chipping sparrow, whitecrowned sparrow, and Cassin s finch). Canopy nesting species are generally unaffected by grazing. (Finch and Stangel 1993). Ungulate Habitat: Elk population numbers are very close to the herd objective set by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists for DAU E-6. Forage competition and any displacement that may result from livestock grazing is does not appear to have a significant effect on the current population numbers for elk, although livestock grazing in the allotment has resulted in some site specific areas of overuse. 20

23 Under this Alternative 2 there would be greater competition for winter, transition and summer forage and more displacement of elk and deer as a result of the increased amount of livestock grazing, as compared to Alternative 1. This could result in elk being more concentrated in certain areas, resulting in more impacts to the vegetation, particularly the willow habitat. As long as Forest Plan standards for utilization are being met, there should be sufficient forage for elk and deer. Aspen Habitat: The majority of aspen habitat is in good condition with natural regeneration occurring. Both wildlife ungulates and domestic animals graze the understory of mature aspen stands, and can affect natural regeneration. Aspen clear-cut timber sale units cut in the late 1990 s as part of the Buckskin Timber Sale have been slow to regenerate in three locations within the Rifle Creek Allotment. Two of these units are located south of Buckskin Lake along Forest Service Road 833. The other unit is located on Coulter Mesa south of Forest Service Road 832 in T3S, R93W, and Section 4. Alternative 3: Proposed Action Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management General effects to the different wildlife habitat types as a result of livestock grazing are discussed here with an emphasis on how adaptive management is different than current management under and the use of the Adaptive Management Toolbox. Riparian Areas: Ocular surveys were conducted in riparian areas and wetlands in the Rifle Creek Allotment by the Range Staff, Forest Hydrologist, and District Wildlife Biologist and wildlife technician. Photo points were also recorded (see Watershed Specialists and Aquatic Specialist reports) that will be retaken every few years. If photo points exhibit a downward trend in riparian vegetation condition, more quantitative monitoring techniques (i.e. vegetation cross-section and greenline transects) would be established. The only terrestrial wildlife Forest Plan direction that applies to riparian condition is included under the lynx management direction. Forest Plan Guideline (from Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment): In riparian areas and willow carrs, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Riparian surveys conducted in portions of Butler Creek and West Rifle Creek indicated that these conditions were not being met. This monitoring will be repeated every few years to determine the change from this baseline. If this riparian monitoring, or other monitoring techniques (annual inspections, photo points, etc.) indicate that resource conditions are in a downward trend, management options from the toolbox in Table 2 may be employed. Tools from the Adaptive Management Toolbox (Table 2) that could be used to improve riparian conditions include: Change season of use, Change livestock 21

24 numbers, Adjust grazing intensity or duration, Adjust herding to manage specific areas of concern, Rest specified areas of concern, Restrict livestock grazing in specified areas, Use or exclusion of a pasture, Construct range improvements, and Use temporary electric fence. Ungulate Habitat: Elk population numbers are very close to the herd objective set by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists for DAU E-6. Forage competition and any displacement that may result from livestock grazing is not expected to have a significant effect on population numbers for elk, but it may result in some site specific areas of overuse. Tools from the Grazing Management Toolbox that could be used to manage elk and livestock conflicts include: #1) Change season of use, #2) Change livestock numbers, #4) Adjust grazing intensity or duration, #5) Adjust herding to manage specific areas of concern, #6) Rest specified areas of concern, #7) Restrict livestock grazing in specified areas, #8) Use or exclusion of a pasture, #9) Adjust allotment boundaries, #10) Construct range improvements, and #11) Use temporary electric fence. Aspen Habitat: The majority of aspen habitat is in good condition with natural regeneration occurring. Both wildlife ungulates and domestic sheep graze the understory of mature aspen stands, and can affect natural regeneration. Aspen clear-cut timber sale units cut in the late 1990 s as part of the Buckskin Timber Sale have been slow to regenerate in three locations within the Rifle Creek Allotment. Two of these units are located south of Buckskin Lake along Forest Service Road 833. The other unit is located on Coulter Mesa south of Forest Service Road 832 in T3S, R93W, and Section 4. Tools from the Grazing Management Toolbox that could be used to manage livestock impacts to aspen regeneration include: #2) Change livestock numbers, #4) Adjust grazing intensity or duration, #5) Adjust herding to manage specific areas of concern, #6) Rest specified areas of concern, #7) Restrict livestock grazing in specified areas, #8) Use or exclusion of a pasture, #9) Adjust allotment boundaries, #10) Construct range improvements, and #11) Use temporary electric fence. Cumulative Effects Livestock grazing would add cumulatively to effects on wildlife habitat. Range improvements that decrease head cutting, stabilize stream banks and decrease concentrated grazing are beneficial to wildlife while concentrated grazing in stock driveways and around riparian habitat can decrease over all productivity of individual wildlife species and on those secondary food sources dependent on robust riparian vegetation. Recreational activities combined with livestock and livestock grazing activities can displace and disturb wildlife. There is limited foot and trail use but heavy vehicle use and dispersed camping along the designated Forest Service Road system throughout most of this allotment which also contribute to wildlife disturbance. Dispersed camping along Butler Creek has been documented to impact riparian vegetation, and cause increase sediment input into stream systems. This has the potential to reduce water quality, and can have negative effects on aquatic species. 22