Deer Jasper Range Report

Transcription

1 Deer Jasper Colville National Forest Service Three Rivers Ranger District 2016/03/09 Rangeland Management Specialist Brandon Weinmann Range This picture was taken 8/1/2012 off of the closed road near Patten Spring. Looking west towards the Boulder Summit, Sentinel Butte can be seen in the background. Page 1

2 Introduction The Colville National Forest is proposing to conduct commercial timber harvest, pre-commercial timber harvest, fuels management, silvicultural management, and restoration activities on approximately 16,000 acres of a 25,000-acre project area. The purpose and need is to: Minimize adverse impacts to aquatic habitat and hydrologic function caused by Forest Service System Roads while serving the needs of the public and providing for management of the National Forest. Maintain or enhance forest composition, structure, spatial pattern, and function appropriate to the natural disturbance regime and forest type. Allow natural processes to function that will provide resilience to uncharacteristic wildfire and climate change. Protect, enhance, or accelerate the development of a baseline of high quality lynx foraging habitat that is reflective of the natural disturbance regime. Reduce hazardous fuels within strategically important areas for wildfire suppression to minimize adverse impacts to property, critical infrastructure, and forest resource values. Location The project is located on the Republic and Three Rivers Ranger Districts of the Colville National Forest. The area is located in West Deer Creek and North-Fork Boulder Creek HUC6 Watersheds. The project area is contained within multiple sections of Township 38N, 39N, and Range Sections 35E, 36E. Elevations in the watershed range from approximately 1800 to 5500 feet. This project lies almost entirely over the Snowcap allotment with portions of the project lying in the Bulldog, North Fork St. Peters, Day Creek and Lone Ranch allotments. Issues to be addressed: 1. Concern that treatments would increase cattle access to streams, resulting in negative impacts. 2. Concern that treatments near allotment, pasture and National Forest boundaries would remove natural barriers to livestock movement and allow permitted livestock to drift into unauthorized pastures or off allotments. 3. Access to range improvement projects (fences and water troughs) stock driveways and salting locations by Forest roads. 4. Concern that range improvement projects, specifically fencing would be damaged as a result of the project. 5. Concern that fuel loading would negatively impact forage available for livestock and livestock distribution. Page 2

3 Design Elements Element Areas Implementation Bulldog Cabin Road 6113 At units 63 and 66, where the 6113 makes a southeast turn from the Boulder Highway offers the vegetation barrier needed to complete the pasture boundary drift fence authorized under the Boulder Grazing Complex. This natural barrier will allow the containment of livestock from drifting out of the newly developed pasture in combination with the cattle guard and short section of drift fence after it s constructed. Units 63, 66 Purchaser/Contractor Snowcap/Bulldog 6113 Summit The natural boundary in unit 94 provides the allotment boundary break between Snowcap and Bulldog allotments in combination with the vegetation and ridge line running east to west. Important to maintain vegetation buffer along ridgeline due to Taylor Ridge trail and transition between north and south facing slope. South facing slope has much less vegetation resulting in a less effective natural barrier. Drain dips will be designed for low clearance vehicles. Existing Condition Unit 94 Roads Purchaser/Contractor Forest Transportation Manager and Purchaser Contractor History Records of permitted grazing use date back to 1945 where as many as 1,100 sheep and 35 cattle grazed in this area. In 1951, sheep grazing in the area ceased and only cattle use has been permitted since. The Snowcap allotment was originally part of the larger Little Boulder allotment, but it was separated out in There have been two major boundary adjustments for the Snowcap allotment; in 1965 the Marble Mountain area in the head of East Deer Creek was taken out and in 1971 all of the East Deer Creek drainage was excluded. Elevation on the Snowcap allotment ranges from a low of 1,870 feet at the junction of north and south boulder roads to a high of 6,000 feet at Marble Mountain. The south facing slopes are characterized by a more open vegetative type and more shallow soils and exposed rock. The north facing slopes are generally more heavily timbered and soil depth is better. Current Management Page 3

4 The Snowcap allotment is categorized as a Cattle and Horse (C&H) allotment with 147 cow/calf pairs authorized to graze 662 AUMs from June 1 to October 15 each year. The allotment is managed under a two pasture deferred rotation grazing system. The two pastures in this allotment are Little Boulder, which is approximately 3,058 acres and Summit, which is approximately 21,825 acres. Grazing use for within the project area occurs in accordance with annual operating instructions which are developed and issued prior to the beginning of the grazing season. The annual operating instructions define the authorized number of livestock, pasture rotation and use periods, and discuss range improvements. Current management results in cattle being turned out in the Little Boulder pasture and later moved onto the Summit Pasture. From here cattle drift back down the Boulder Highway where they are picked up in the handling facility located on the Forest Service 010 road. Cattle mostly utilize the South facing slopes north of the Boulder Highway and areas around the Little Boulder pasture 010 road system. Areas south of the Boulder Highway are currently dominated by heavy timber and a north facing slope. Other areas utilized by livestock are around the Third Creek area and east. Cattle have the tendency of using the Boulder highway as a major travel corridor. Existing range improvement projects are in poor condition or under-utilized. Both open and closed road systems are used for livestock distribution on the allotment. The presence of dense, heavy timber and steep topography has a significant influence on cattle distribution and forage availability. Pasture Acres Lower Boulder 3,058 Summit 21,825 TOTAL 24,883 CURRENT AUTHORIZED LIVESTOCK USE Pasture Livestock Season Number Lower Boulder pasture & 147 Cow/Calf June 1 July 31 Cabin Creek area Third Creek area & Summit pasture 147 Cow/Calf August 1 October 15 The following table and map illustrates the amount of capable and suitable acres within the Snowcap allotment. Page 4

5 Snowcap Total Acres 24,899 Unsuitable Acres 14,760 Suitable Acres 10,139 *Unsuitable Acres: Slope > 45% and Canopy Cover > 60% Page 5

6 Page 6

7 Range Improvements Existing range improvements in the Snowcap allotment consist of five livestock management fences totaling 1.8 miles, seven water troughs and two livestock handling facilities. The fencing in combination with cattle guards was put in place in order to stop cattle from drifting off of the allotment. The first range improvements are listed in the 1964 allotment management plan. Existing range improvement projects were constructed to improve livestock and allotment management and reducing cattle drift. Range improvements are maintained annually by the permittee. All range improvements deteriorate as they age and may require reconstruction when annual maintenance is no longer capable of keeping them in working order. SNOWCAP IMPROVEMENTS Improvement Name Type of Improvement Condition Rating Size/Length Bulldog/Snowcap Fence Satisfactory.55 Miles West Deer Creek #2 Fence Critical.2 Miles East Deer Creek #3 Fence Poor.5 Miles Lower Boulder Fence #18 Fence Satisfactory.3 Miles Third Creek Enclosure Fence Good.25 Miles Granite Spring #8 Water Trough Critical 60 Gallons Deer Creek Spring #9 Water Trough Good 300 Gallons Patten Spring #10 Water Trough Satisfactory 600 Gallons Switchback Spring #11 Water Trough Good 300 Gallons Tamarack Spring #12 Water Trough Satisfactory 410 Gallons Dirty Shirt Spring #13 Water Trough Critical 400 Gallons Besand Spring #14 Water Trough Poor 280 Gallons Snowcap Corral #15 Corral Satisfactory 1 acre Third Creek Corral #16 Corral Poor 1acre Vegetation Most of the allotment is timbered with major tree species being ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, white pine, Douglas fir, grand fir, western red cedar, engleman spruce, western larch, western hemlock and subalpine fir. Main forage consumed by livestock on south facing slopes is Pinegrass. This particular grass makes up a large portion of the forage vegetation available. The primary native grasses consist of Bluebunch Wheatgrass, Idaho Fescue, Mountain Brome, and some Sandberg s Bluegrass. Other palatable species found on the allotment are Kentucky Bluegrass, Timothy and Orchard Grass. Shrubs found on the allotment that appear to furnish browse for livestock and wildlife are; redstem ceanothus, serviceberry, snowberry, ninebark and oceanspray. The primary rangelands in this allotment are located in the upper elevations of south facing slopes. They are areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation and are bordered by areas of mainly Douglas fir. These areas of the allotment are very productive and have a mix of native grasses, Page 7

8 such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue, and native forbs. Of the 24,883 acres within this allotment 3,628 acres are considered to be primary rangelands. Secondary rangelands, which are slightly less desirable than primary rangelands and productive foraging areas, also exist in the allotment. There are 2,650 acres considered to be Secondary Rangelands. Transitory rangelands also exist in this allotment and are the result of past timber harvest and road construction activities. Transitory rangelands have been seeded with palatable forage species, such as redtop, orchard grass, timothy and Kentucky bluegrass, which provide additional areas of forage production. Over-time, primary rangelands within the allotment have decreased in forage production due to conifer encroachment. This has been offset by the transitory rangeland created through the evenaged timber management practices of the 1970s and 1980s and the commercial thinning that has occurred in the more recent past. Many of these harvested areas were seeded for wildlife and livestock forage. The normal use period for transitory range in the location of the Deer Jasper project is about 15 to 20 years, so much of this type of range is at, or reaching the end of its usefulness for cattle. Unfortunately, since many of the historic harvest units included riparian and wet areas, cattle access and use has resulted in areas where resource impacts such as streambank trampling have occurred. Utilization Utilization information has been infrequently collected for the Snowcap allotment. Below is a table of utilization measures that have been collected for the allotment. Year Pasture Snowcap Lower Boulder Summit % % % 21% % 6% % Desired Conditions The desired future condition is based on assumptions, allocations and direction given in the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This is not a direction statement, but rather conclusions drawn as to the changes that would occur as a result of management activities over the next 10 years. The following desired future condition is an excerpt from Chapter 4, page 63 of the plan. Livestock grazing will be more intensively managed. All allotments will emphasize riparian habitat protection and/or recovery. Page 8

9 Management Framework Broad scale management direction for Colville National Forest grazing allotments is contained in the current Land and Resource Management Plan which states: 1. Management of grazing by domestic livestock will be guided by project level allotment plans. The development of these plans will be integrated with the needs associated with use and values present in the area. All associated uses and values will be considered, with special consideration given to: (1) fish and wildlife habitat needs; (2) timber harvest and cultural activities; (3) riparian values; (4) recreation use; and (5) threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Further considerations are contained as other resource standards and guidelines in this section of the plan. 2. Coordination requirements.will include: (1) timing of the timber harvest and associated activities and grazing schedules; (2) protection of livestock barriers or mitigation of these values where desirable; (3) reducing the spread of noxious weeds where present; (4) seeding of livestock and wildlife forage species, considering desirability of seeding palatable and non-palatable forage species and species competitive with tree production; and (5) livestock-wildlife conflicts. Allotment specific management direction for the affected grazing allotments is contained in the following individual allotment management plans: Effects 1. Snowcap Allotment Management Plan 1984 No Action The no action alternative would result in no timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning or prescribed fire activities within any portion of the Jungle Hill, Bracken, Copper-Mires or Lambert allotments. Short term effects of this alternative would result in little or no change in the range resource compared to the existing condition. Livestock would continue to graze on the four active allotments and range improvements (such as fences, water developments and corrals) would exist on the landscape and be used to manage livestock grazing. Livestock would also continue to have limited access to riparian areas within the project area. Long-term effects of the no action alternative would be the perpetuation of denser stands of small diameter trees that provide little value for production of forage. Such stands typically have closely spaced tree canopies that allow little sunlight to reach the forest floor. The understory found in these types of environments usually consists of few grasses and are therefore, generally Page 9

10 not used by livestock. These types of stands also provide a benefit to livestock management by creating natural barriers which act to restrict livestock movement. In areas of dense timber, where there is little herbaceous vegetation for an extended distance, livestock do not pass through these areas because they will not utilize areas that do not provide adequate foraging conditions. By having intact natural barriers which limit livestock movement, the need for fencing to manage livestock movement is less. Excluding wildfire, the no action alternative, would allow Douglas fir to continue encroaching into the more open and grassy areas of the allotments and thereby reduce the forage producing capability of the allotment. When trees encroach into upland grassy areas, they generally become more inaccessible and unavailable to livestock. As there is less forage for livestock in the upland areas of pastures, it is likely that grazing pressure would increase on lower elevation rangelands and riparian areas. This alternative would produce and propagate a forest condition that has a large amount of natural fuels. High levels of natural fuels could result in large catastrophic fires burning the landscape. Wildfires would likely be more damaging to the forage base that supports livestock grazing in the short term than prescribed fire because fire intensities would likely cause mortality in desirable forage plants. Areas burnt by wildfires do recover and vegetation reestablishes, but there would be less forage available while recovery is taking place. Prescribed fire could be implemented during times that would be less damaging to cool season perennial grass plants, but wildfire could occur while plants are still growing and before they have produced mature seed. This alternative has a greater potential to adversely affect range management because forage production would decrease as tree densities continue to increase. As the amount of uplands that support grazing decreases due to the encroachment of trees, riparian area impacts would likely increase. Under this alternative range improvements, such as fences and water developments would be at greater risk of having wildfire damage them. If a wildfire were to occur within the project area, there would likely be little done to protect range improvements and the improvements would have to be reconstructed. Proposed Action The proposed action consists of a host of vegetation treatments and fuel disposal methods that are expected to reduce the build-up of natural forest fuels and provide for improved forest health within the project area. Vegetation treatments consist of commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, fuels reduction and shaded fuel breaks. Fuel treatment methods consist of underburning, hand and mechanical piling, pile burning lop and scatter and optional burning. Page 10

11 Rangelands The proposed action would result in a more open timber stand where there is likely to be a greater amount of herbaceous vegetation in the understory. Converting dense forested areas to more open stands is beneficial to range management and forage production by creating transitory rangelands that provide mid-term grazing lands that provide forage to livestock and wildlife. Forested sites have a high potential for producing forage following logging because moisture availability is relatively high and competition from previously established species is less (Miller and Krueger, 1976). Logged forest communities can produce approximately twice the herbage as primary rangeland and ten times more forage than un-logged forests ((Miller and Krueger, 1976). These areas can support relatively higher numbers of grazing animals (Gillen, Krueger, and Miller, 1984). Transitory rangelands exist for approximately 10 to 30 years depending on when early structure stand tree canopies close, and older structure stands regenerate understories. Transitory rangelands that would be created by the Walker project would likely have beneficial results to grazing for closer to 30 years given precipitation amounts and forest types present. Transitory rangelands for the Deer Jasper project would be created primarily by commercial thinning treatments combined with surface fuels treatments and road construction and/or reconstruction. Reseeding of logged areas can create a valuable temporary forage supply and can hold and rebuild the soil for future timber crops (Wilson, 1960). Non-commercial fuel treatments would not likely create large enough openings to generate forage and produce transitory rangelands. Created transitory rangelands would be in the non-riparian upland areas; therefore they would act to attract livestock away from riparian areas by providing foraging areas in the uplands. The Deer Jasper project has the potential to create an approximate 5,875 acres of transitory rangeland mainly within the Snowcap allotment boundary. The Lone Ranch, Day Creek and North Fork St. Peters Creek allotments have no commercial treatments proposed that would act to open the forest canopy to the point that transitory rangelands would result. The Snowcap and Bulldog allotments would have the greatest benefit from the creation of transitory rangelands resulting from the proposed action due to the amount of acres treated. The Bulldog allotment would realize a smaller amount of transitory rangeland as a result of the Deer Jasper project due to the smaller amount of allotment acreage that is contained within the boundary of the project. The transitory rangelands that would be created by the Deer Jasper project would be beneficial to livestock management by providing quality upland foraging areas which has the potential to equate to greater weight gains of livestock. Page 11

12 Acres of Transitory Rangelands Created by the Deer Jasper project. Allotment Project Area Commercial Treatments Acres 5,875 TOTAL 5,875 Forest Service Policy is to use native plant materials and seed in areas where timely natural regeneration of native plant material is not likely to occur. The Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (October 11, 2005) states that non-native, non-invasive plant species may be used in circumstances where prevention of resource degradation and/or invasive species establishment is a concern. Instances have been observed on the Colville National Forest where natural vegetation and native seed establishment following disturbances have not been adequate to prevent noxious weed establishment in recently disturbed areas. Seeding of disturbed upland (non-riparian) areas with non-native, non-invasive species, such as orchard grass, intermediate wheatgrass, smooth brome, etc., would not only provide more palatable forage for livestock and wildlife, but would also reduce the risk of invasive plants and noxious weeds. In studies observing seeded plant establishment following disturbance, non-native, non-invasive plants quickly established dominant cover with levels of biomass production two to three times the level of native species (Talbott Roche et. al., 2008). Effects from seeding non-native grasses do not always persist and can serve as a transition to restoring a more diverse seral community (Talbott Roche et. al., 2008) Grazing and Fuels Treatments Most proposed units within the project area would not increase livestock access to riparian areas, or cause livestock to degrade riparian areas from their current state. By following INFISH standards and guidelines and the Design Elements for this project, most riparian areas should be protected. Intact or undisturbed natural vegetation provides the best means for riparian area protection from livestock impacts. Fuel treatments which occur in riparian areas pose some risk of increasing livestock impacts to such areas by removing natural vegetation. There is little concern from pile type fuel treatments since they would be localized, but if underburning is to occur near riparian areas efforts should be made to have low intensity fires which are allowed to back down into riparian areas in an attempt to reduce the amount of tree and shrub mortality in the unit. Fewer livestock impacts to riparian areas are expected if natural vegetation is left intact in these areas. Riparian area impacts from livestock are not expected to increase following fuels treatment providing that prescribed fire is implemented so that fire intensity is low. Page 12

13 Primary rangelands are characterized by having deep rooted cool season perennial grasses. If burning is to occur in primary range areas it should be done in the fall to favor the dominant cool season perennial plants and only when soil moisture levels are relatively high (Wright 1974). Burning these areas in the late spring and early summer would result in higher rates of mortality on desirable grass species since the plants would be actively growing and attempting to produce seed at these times. Prescribed fire in primary rangelands where older decadent shrubs occur, or where conifers are encroaching would improve rangelands and range management over an extended period by providing an improved quantity of forage available for livestock and wildlife. Health and productivity of herbaceous vegetation is expected to increase following prescribed fire in the project areas because there would be less competition for available moisture if shrubs and small trees are removed from sites. Following prescribed fire, herbaceous vegetation would be benefited through the release of nutrients and reduced competition for resources (Pearson, Davis and Schubert, 1972). Increased forage and foraging areas for livestock would result from the vegetation and fuels treatments defined in the proposed action. Implementation of the proposed action is not expected to require grazing deferral or adjustment of grazing rotation systems. Impacts to herbaceous vegetation from prescribed fire are expected to be light with minimal damage to roots because burn plans aim to create cooler fires and so prevent burning down to mineral soil. Therefore, established forage grasses are expected to be adequately recovered by June 1 st when the grazing season begins for the allotments. The implementation of prescribed fire has the potential to impact or complicate range and livestock management by displacing animals and damaging range improvement projects. Prior notification and planning with grazing permittees regarding prescribed fire would reduce the potential for problems in range management on the affected allotments. Range Improvements within Project Area Livestock management is accomplished in part by range improvement projects that exist within each grazing allotment. These range improvement projects include such items as fences, water developments and exclosures. All potentially affected range improvement projects would need to be documented on timber sale maps and specified for protection. These projects are critical for the implementation of sound livestock management, they encourage and support livestock grazing in acceptable areas and provide for resource protection. If fence projects were to become damaged because of the proposed action, livestock could have increased access to riparian areas and cause degradation. If water developments were to become damaged because of the proposed action, livestock distribution could be affected and livestock may have to rely more on undeveloped springs and streams to provide adequate drinking water. All range improvement projects located within the project area need to be protected from damage that may occur from activities described in the proposed action. Page 13

14 Known range improvement projects exist in the following units: ALLOTMENT TYPE OF PROJECT IMPROVEMENT UNIT NAME NAME Snowcap Allotment Boundary Fence West Boundary Drift 48 Fence Snowcap Allotment Boundary Fence West Deer Creek Drift 47, 383 Fence Snowcap Water Development Massie Water 2 Development Snowcap Water Development Dirty Shirt Water 32 Development Snowcap Water Development Patten Water 36 Development Snowcap Water Development Tamarack Water 901 Development Snowcap Water Development Switchback Water 38 Development Snowcap Water Development Besand Water 39 Development Snowcap Water Development Ranger Pauley Water 9 Development Snowcap Handling Facility Third Creek Corral 12 Snowcap Handling Facility Snowcap Corral 46, 906 Snowcap Pasture Boundary Fence Lower Boulder Pasture 46, 906 Fence Lone Ranch Allotment Boundary Fence Rocky Mountain Drift 1, 2, 3, 6 Fence Bulldog Allotment Boundary Fence Upper Bulldog Fence 80, 84, 94 There are known fences that occur near the Forest boundary in proximity to unit 2 along the west boundary of the project area. Care should be taken to avoid damage to these improvements during vegetation and fuels treatments. These are private fences and not Forest Service range improvements. Allotments located adjacent to and within Project Area The majority of the Snowcap allotment lies within the project boundary. Several other allotments have a small amount of acreage within this project boundary, but the amount of acres is very minimal and the proposed action would not have any substantial effects to the livestock management or natural barriers within the allotments. Bulldog is the allotment with the second most amount of acreage within the project area, but due to the location of units and how it falls topographically on the allotment boundaries, the project is of little concern. Fractions of the Page 14

15 North Fork St. Peters, Day Creek and Lone Ranch also have a very small amount of land within the project area. Allotment Acres Within Project Area Bulldog 68 North Fork St. Peters 8 Day Creek 1 Lone Ranch 17 Snowcap 24,465 Deer Jasper Planning Area 25,132 Natural Barriers Allotments and pastures are separated by a combination of Forest Service fences, privately owned fences, and natural barriers. Natural barriers consist of areas that are too steep and/or rocky for livestock to cross and areas of dense timber with a lack of herbaceous plants in the understory. Cattle do not typically venture into areas of dense timber because there is a lack of forage available to support livestock grazing. Therefore, these areas work well to contain livestock in desired areas without the need for a continuously fenced perimeter. Natural barriers function well until the point they become compromised due to vegetation treatments or wildfires. The vegetation and fuels treatments in the proposed alternative have the potential to compromise some natural barriers. Evaluating effectiveness of natural boundaries and determining what constitutes an effective natural boundary are difficult. This is because there are multiple factors to consider such as percent slope, denseness of vegetation, type of terrain, aspect, amount of rock, etc... Combining all of the listed factors with how livestock use a given area and evaluating how capable and suitable the adjoining areas are for supporting livestock grazing makes planning for maintenance of natural boundaries a challenge. Post implementation monitoring is the only way to evaluate if natural boundaries have been maintained successfully or not. Therefore, post implementation monitoring is critical to evaluating the success of natural boundaries following implementation of the proposed action. Should it be determined that natural boundaries have been compromised by the Deer Jasper project, the Colville National Forest fuels program would construct fencing in its place. The natural barriers of most concern are in proposed commercial thinning and pre-commercial units, 66 and 94 but as long as design elements are implemented, these natural boundaries should be protected. The above mentioned commercial thinning and pre-commercial thinning units are situated in the location of allotment boundaries that are not completely fenced. The natural boundary in the location of units 66 and 94 is critical in keeping permitted livestock in the appropriate and authorized grazing area. The natural boundaries in the location of units 94 separate the Bulldog allotment from the Snowcap allotment. The natural barrier off of unit 66 Page 15

16 and at the confluence of the Bulldog Cabin 6113 road is crucial for implementation of project #30 under the Boulder Grazing Complex. This natural barrier permits the construction of a cattle guard and drift fence. These natural boundaries are very important to maintain because they allow for allotment management plans to me implemented and complied with. Replacing natural boundaries with fencing is not a desirable option or mitigation due to cost, project maintenance and feasibility. Costs for barbed wire fence construction can cost up to $4.00 per foot and annual maintenance costs would be required for the life of the fence. Should additional fencing be needed to create effective allotment or pasture boundaries on any of the allotments contained within the boundaries of the Deer Jasper project, maintenance of such fences would become the responsibility of the grazing permit holder upon completed construction. Additional maintenance responsibilities would impact grazing permittees by requiring more time to maintain a greater amount of fencing compared with the existing condition. Roads Road decommissioning is to occur on approximately 3.5 miles of Forest roads within the project area. Road decommissioning from this project is not expected to result in a negative impact to range or livestock management since proposed decommissioning is in portions of allotments that have other adequate access routes. Roads that are to be changed from an open road to a closed road through this project would still allow grazing permittees access to perform tasks associated with grazing and livestock management. Proposed temporary road construction and road reconstruction is not expected to have any effect on livestock grazing. Noxious Weeds Some noxious weeds are spread by livestock grazing on Forest Service lands. Houndstongue seed, which occurs in the project area, can become attached to cattle and wildlife hair only to later fall off and cause new infestations (De Clerck-Floate, 1997). The project is likely to result in there being less noxious weeds within the project area by implementing the noxious weed mitigation measures. Therefore, livestock would likely spread fewer noxious weed seeds following project implementation. Cumulative Effects No Action Page 16

17 The no action alternative regarding cumulative effects would have no impacts on the range resource. Livestock grazing management, the existing range improvements and the forage base would remain static under the no action alternative. All other effects regarding a loss in transitory range, decrease in livestock distribution and inability to use the existing range improvements in relationship to a change in forage base are direct effects on the range resource. Proposed Action This cumulative effects analysis considers the effects of the Walker project on livestock grazing when considered with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic cumulative effects are limited to the Forest Service allotment boundaries for areas contained within the project area. The cumulative effects of past timber harvest, roading activity, wildfire and increased recreational use and development have all complicated the management of grazing within the analysis area. Between approximately 1975 and 1995 there was a dramatic increase in the amount of roads and timber harvest units which provided livestock access to riparian areas. In the past, many of these activities also prescribed the use of palatable forage species when seeding for erosion control in all areas including riparian areas. This created an environment that attracted livestock into riparian areas and provided desirable forage that allowed them to stay in these areas rather than moving on to native upland foraging areas. Creation and improvement of rangelands in upland areas will help draw cattle away from these historic use areas. Past timber harvest activities have resulted in a positive effect on the forage base for these allotments. Timber harvest created openings in the forest which provided temporary additional forage for livestock by way of creating transitory rangelands. When transitory rangeland is created and available, it reduces the level of grazing pressure on primary and secondary rangeland. Transitional rangelands also provide an abundance of forage for livestock which produces heavier calves for the producers and higher economic gains when their calves are sold at market. Having a mix of transitory rangelands mixed with primary and secondary rangelands are beneficial to livestock grazing. The proposed treatments within this planning area have the potential to remove some natural barriers which limit livestock movement on the forest and allow for pasture rotations and deferment. Mitigating measures have been identified to address the potential effects of natural barrier removal, but constructing new fencing produces additional maintenance requirements that are likely to continue far into the future. Miles of fencing to be maintained by the grazing permittees is only expected to increase by 0.25 miles with implementation of the proposed action. Page 17

18 If timber stands near the Forest and allotment boundaries become less dense after implementation of the proposed action, instances of livestock drifting off of the Forest and onto private lands that border the Forest could increase. If appropriate locations for fencing to stop livestock drift off of the Forest cannot be found, permitted livestock may access private lands more often. Due to Forest Service policy stating that it does not build or maintain private property boundary fencing, impacts to adjoining land owners could be realized if private land owners decide they need to construct fencing to keep permitted livestock off of their land. Current timber harvest levels on the Forest are greatly reduced as compared to the mid-1990s. This means that there is less transitory range being created by vegetation management projects on the Forest than there has been in the past. This compared with a switch from regeneration harvesting (clear-cut, seed tree and shelterwood treatments) to intermediate harvests (thinning) has decreased the number of openings being created in the forest and the resulting available forage. The amount of transitory rangeland within the entire project area would increase following implementation and would provide valuable upland foraging opportunities for livestock, thereby attracting them away from riparian areas. Past road construction activities have generally been beneficial to range management by providing access to construct water developments and fences and manage livestock. Roads that are near range improvement projects provide a way to get supplies to improvements and aid in project maintenance activities. Having roads within grazing allotments also allows permittees to distribute salt to livestock, check on the location of livestock and bring livestock onto and off of allotments with greater efficiency. Roads can also act as routes to trail livestock on while moving from one pasture to another. Both open and closed roads aid permittees in the management of their allotments. The amount of road construction and decommissioning proposed by the Walker project would not likely alter range or livestock management. The roads proposed for decommissioning do not access areas of primary rangelands or rangeland improvement projects. Ongoing and future noxious weed treatments under the existing Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment Decision are helping to reduce noxious weed populations that may be spread by livestock. The mitigation measures specific to the Walker project should limit the spread of noxious weeds within and around the project area. The Colville National Forest maintains fire history data for large fire perimeters dating back to the early 1900 s. Data is also available for all fires which have been suppressed dating back to the 1940 s. The Deer Jasper planning area has record of approximately 55% of the area having been burned historically. The majority of the area that has record of fire disturbance it is important to note that less than 1% of that area (47 acres) has burned since Similarly Page 18

19 within the cumulative effects boundary approximately 50% of the area has record of fire disturbance, with again less than 1% (109 acres) having burned since The proposed action plans to use prescribed fire to reduce fuel loading and introduce fire back onto the landscape. Domestic and game animals prefer to graze on recently burned areas. Animals are attracted to more palatable feed, to more easily available feed or to both (Heady and Child, 1994). By using prescribed fire in the proposed action livestock would have greater foraging opportunities leading to better livestock distribution. Forage would become more readily available in the uplands and reduce the amount of time spent foraging in riparian areas. Within Planning Area Boundary Within Cumulative Effects Boundary 58 Suppression Fires 13,934 Acres 92 Suppression Fires 23,760 Acres During the summer of 2016, the Stickpin fire burned approximately 14,203 acres of the Snowcap allotment. This means roughly 65% of the Snowcap allotment had some fire activity occur on it and 27% of this was at a high severity. The proposed action had several treatments planned for both prescribed fire and to reduce fuel loading on the landscape within the fire boundary. Due to the severity of the fire, these treatments would not occur. However, this high severity burn which occurred would have the potential to increase livestock distribution in the uplands by increasing the herbaceous production after the vegetation starts to recover. This would eventually lead to greater foraging opportunities because a grass/shrub component would be more prevalent on the landscape after some of the dense overstory was removed from the fire. The Deer Jasper planning area overlaps with part of the Boulder Grazing Complex. Thirteen projects were identified for construction or reconstruction within the proposed action alternative in the Snowcap allotment under this Boulder Grazing Complex Decision. Above is one example of Massie Water Development before and after reconstruction. The proposed action under the Page 19

20 Deer Jasper Planning area would create opportunities for improved livestock distribution by providing a forage base in areas where heavy, dense timber is dominate in the landscape. By improving the range infrastructure such as this water development, livestock would have better foraging opportunities in the uplands and the water resource could be obtained outside of riparian areas. The South Fork Boulder Road is outside of the Deer Jasper Planning area. This road system accesses the Bulldog and Lambert allotment, but under the proposed action neither one of these areas would benefit from having it open. The effects of having this road closed regarding the range resource in the Deer Jasper project are very minimal. Livestock management would be able to continue on the Snowcap allotment regardless of the status of this road. The proposed action should improve transitory rangelands and benefit permit/livestock management because it would produce additional upland grazing opportunities and therefore attract livestock away from riparian areas. As a result of the proposed action, overall riparian health should improve because of the creation of transitory rangeland in the uplands of the allotments. The proposed action also would allow the affected livestock permittees to continue grazing at current levels with greater economic returns. Federal lands are very important in the production of red meat to supply public demand (Holechek, 1981). This in turn would help maintain the local grazing industry, the ranching lifestyle and the local economy. The activities in the proposed action combined with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not cumulatively negatively affect range management within the affected Forest Service grazing allotments. Irreversible & Irretrievable Effects There are no irreversible and/or irretrievable effects concerning range management from the Currant Creek Salvage project if mitigating measures are implemented. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures identified here are those that address range management concerns that are specific to this project. Existing, known range improvement projects will be protected from damage which may result from harvest activities. Known range improvement projects are located in the following units; 1, 2, 3,6, 9, 12, 32, 36, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, 80, 84, 94, 383, 901 and All rangeland improvement projects, such as developed springs, water troughs, corrals and fences not previously identified by the NEPA inventory and analysis would be delineated during layout and protected during harvest and burning activities. Should Page 20

21 identified range improvement projects become damaged as a result of the proposed action, contract provisions would provide for their repair. 2. Grazing permittees will be notified prior to implementing any prescribed fire, or pile burning within the project area by district fire staff. This is to mitigate effects to livestock safety and grazing rotations from prescribed fire/pile burning operations. The Fire Management Officer is responsible for ensuring this measure is met. 3. Contract provisions would require all gates located in fences and next to cattle guards within the project area be left in the condition with which they are found. If the gate is found to be closed, it must be closed again immediately after use of the gate in order to keep permitted livestock in the appropriate pasture. If gates are found to be open, they should remain open. 4. Timber sale project will not have landing operation located near Snowcap Corral and Third Creek Corral where operation could impair livestock management during the grazing season. Log landing should be placed on an area other than a grass/forage meadow to avoid project conflicts with livestock management and utilization of forage by livestock. 5. Protect and preserve Natural Barriers that act as allotment and pastures boundaries. This includes all treatment types, including shaded fuel breaks. We cannot afford to fence these areas and permittees cannot take on additional maintenance responsibilities if these natural barriers are compromised. 6. Motorized access for completing range improvement maintenance and salting activities. Allowing permittees the access to accomplish project maintenance on their allotments. 7. Do not propose vegetation treatments in RHCAs that would allow livestock to gain access to streams. This includes all treatment types including shaded fuel breaks. This is to reduce the potential for livestock to negatively impact water quality or riparian areas. 8. Treat or remove slash and fuels resulting from commercial harvest to allow for quality transitory rangelands. This is to leave treated units relatively free of slash, so that they can become good transitory rangelands. 9. Seed non-native, non-invasive grasses to improve forage quality for livestock and reduce the risk for noxious weed establishment and spread in upland (non-riparian) areas of disturbed soils such as road construction, reconstruction or maintenance, skid trails and landings. This is to improve forage quality in upland areas for livestock. 10. Drain dips will be designed and constructed for low clearance vehicles. This is to allow for permittee access with horse trailers. Page 21

22 Adaptive Management Adaptive management provides an implementation tool that goes beyond the predict-mitigateimplement model and incorporates an implement-monitor-adapt strategy that provides flexibility to account for inaccurate initial assumptions, to adapt to changes in environmental conditions or to respond to subsequent monitoring information that indicates that desired conditions are not being met. So long as monitoring indicates that the environmental effects of each action do not exceed the bounds of those anticipated in the original decision and the actions serve to move the project toward the intended effects, implementation continues using the implement-monitor-adapt cycle without the need for new or supplemental NEPA review (FSH Chapter 10). In an adaptive management approach, implement-monitor-adapt, monitoring provides the essential information to determine what response, if any, is needed. Use monitoring information to: 1. Determine if desired conditions are being met. 2. Identify inaccurate initial assumptions. If monitoring demonstrates that desired conditions are not being achieved through the initial management action, modify the action to one or more of the identified adaptive management actions disclosed in the environmental document (FSH Chapter 50). The proposed action is the only alternative which includes adaptive management. This adaptive management proposal has to be clearly identified and adjustments occur after monitoring has indicated the project implementation is not having the desired effect, or is causing unintended effects. This may include and is not limited to any effects by alternatives under the proposed action. The action to correct undesired effects taking place within the project area or at any time after the project is approved must describe the monitoring. The monitoring is used to identify where proposed activities are having an undesired effect. The responsible official during this process must also be informed if the resulting adaptive management has achieved its intended effect of resource protection. Adaptive management is the process to correct issues identified after the implementation and monitoring section is completed. Areas of concern Kettle Crest trail south of the Boulder Highway summit Natural Boundaries getting removed which currently provided a vegetative barrier High fuel loading after proposed action within the project area Areas not previously accessed by livestock now open Recreation area northwest of Deer Creek Campground Page 22

23 The proposed action within the Deer Jasper project area prescribes vegetative treatments which change the structure and forage availability of the vegetation resource. Areas on the border of the project area having heavy, dense timber function as a natural barrier. By removing or changing this vegetative structure, livestock may be allowed to drift off of their current administrative and physical boundaries. Adaptive management offers a tool for mitigation of this concern by monitoring the results of the proposed action and applying changes to benefit the livestock management. The sequence of predict, mitigate and implement offers a solution for undesirable changes occurring on the landscape. Under this plan, a variety of tools would be offered to bring livestock management back into compliance, or prevent undesirable results in the livestock management. Adaptive management preventive measures Decrease fuel loading to provide viable forage resource by removal of fuel or prescribed fire on a priority bases determined by range specialist Construction of range improvements such as fencing and water developments to aid in livestock distribution/management Monitoring of cattle sign such as livestock trails, livestock in unauthorized area and presence of grazing on forage base Use of debris barriers to detour livestock movement Placement of debris through proposed action to maintain a viable natural barrier Monitoring Recommendations 1. In accordance with the Colville National Forest s Environmental Management System (EMS), any new structures installed to manage livestock access will be checked at least once within one year of installation and will be recorded in the INFRA database. 2. The Rangeland Management Specialist that administers the grazing permits affected by the Deer Jasper project would be responsible for monitoring natural boundaries identified as at risk due to implementation of the Deer Jasper project. The Rangeland Management Specialist would determine what would be needed to create effective allotment and pasture boundaries. Effects Summary Generally the Deer Jasper project would be beneficial to range management by producing a more open timber stand and removing shrubs and other fuels from the understory. These treatments would create an approximate additional 10,347 acres of transitional rangelands that would be able to provide quality forage to permitted livestock for up to 30 years. Page 23