PINTO WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Transcription

1 Range Resource Specialist Report For The PINTO WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PINE VALLEY RANGER DISTRICT IRON COUNTY AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH Prepared by: Date: Randy Beckstrand, Range Specialist Pine Valley RD, Dixie National Forest Date: July 1, 2017

2 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, 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) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 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. 2

3 Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the effects of the proposed Pinto Watershed Improvement Project on range and grazing resources. The analysis effects are based on professional judgement and a review of the range monitoring and grazing permit administration files. The objectives of this report are to describe the rangeland setting and to analyze potential impacts to the rangeland grazing program. Project Overview The Pinto Watershed Improvement Project is designed to improve the Pinto Creek and Little Pinto Creek watersheds through protection of riparian resources and improving water quality, creating a more fire resilient landscape within the wildland urban interface and creation of defensible fire space along the main access roads while enhancing scenic integrity and habitat diversity across the landscape. This project strives to improve current conditions on public lands so that they would fall into alignment with the desired conditions set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1986 as amended). The proposed actions would aid in implementation of the Newcastle Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan (Utah Department of Environmental Quality 2008). For a complete description of the project and full environmental analysis, see the Pinto Watershed Improvement Environmental Assessment (EA) (USDA 2017) which is incorporated here by reference. The Pinto Watershed Improvement Project is located within the Pine Valley Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest. The project lies within both Washington and Iron County, Utah. The project area is located adjacent to and around the communities of Pinto and Old Irontown which are rural in character. The legal description for the project area is T37S, R13W, Sections 4-9, 17, and 18; T37S, R14W, Sections 1-23, 26-31, 34, and 35; T37S, R15W, Sections 1-3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20-29, and 31-36; T37.5S, R14W, Sections 31 and 32; T38S, R14W, Section 6; T38S, R15W, Sections 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 (Figure 1). Access to Pinto and Page Ranch are via Forest Road (FR) 30009, also known as Pinto Road. This through road runs east to west connecting HWY 56 to HWY18. This route intersects Forest Road which runs from the town of Newcastle South to Forest Road also known as the Pine Valley Highway. These two routes are the only ways to access the town of Pinto. The town of Old Irontown can be accessed by Forest Road off of HWY 56. The purpose of the project is to (1) improve water quality; (2) create a more fire resilient landscape; and (3) maintain and enhance landscape scenic quality. In order to fill the gap between the existing and desired conditions the Dixie National Forest has developed the following needs for action: 1. There is a need to improve water quality in accordance with the recommendations from the Newcastle TMDL Plan. 2. There is a need to reduce the risk of crown fire and projected flame lengths through vegetation modification to reduce and re-arrange fuels. 3. There is a need to improve scenic integrity of the project area from a Class C Landscape to a Class B Landscape. 3

4 Figure 1. Vicinity and proposed treatment map for the Pinto Watershed Improvement Project. Affected Environment Current fuel conditions within the project area would likely result in uncharacteristically large and severe fires. Preliminary fire behavior modeling indicates the potential for surface fire with four to eight foot flame lengths in grass/forb/sage vegetation and crown fire with eight to 20 foot flame lengths in P-J and riparian vegetation types at the 90th percentile weather conditions (see EA). Current conditions within meadows and chained areas, mature sagebrush (Aretemesia spp.), patches of mature mountain brush (Cercocarpus spp.), and encroachment of phase one pinyon-juniper (P-J) create uncharacteristically large areas of continuous fuels that are not limited by species diversity and mixed age classes. Within the P-J specifically, surface fuel loadings average approximately 5 tons per acre and range as high as 51 tons per acre. Presence of invasive cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) contributes to the continuous fuel loading, flammability, and potential for increased rate of fire spread. Existing vegetative treatments (historic chainings) are not adequate to slow or safely suppress an approaching wildfire due to their present width and configuration. Few fuel reduction treatments have been implemented within the WUI values zone or project area. Continuous dense vegetation could lead to high intensity large scale fires and increase risk to suppression forces and adjacent landowners. Existing conditions limit fire management decision space and options related to initial attack. The presence of 90 degree angles along the boundary between Forest Service administered lands and private lands has historically been shown to reduce the success of fire suppression actions from within 4

5 the defensible fire space area. Pinto road, the main egress route for several rural communities within the Pinto vicinity, may be compromised in the event of wildfire and not provide safe passage for residents and firefighters. Proposed Action The following vegetation treatments (A-E) are designed to provide a multiple resource benefit and address all of the needs of the project. The P-J woodlands and brushlands lack species diversity. This lack of diversity allows more surface runoff to occur and less infiltration causing more sedimentation to the streams. P-J and brush treatments are designed to increase species diversity and promote infiltration thus helping to improve water quality within the Newcastle Watershed. These treatments will lower potential wildfire flame lengths under the 90 th percentile weather conditions below what the current flame length model shows (see EA) and lower the risk of active crown fires. Treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan and will also create conditions where firefighters can directly attack fires adjacent to private property. These proposed treatments would allow for and include the maintenance of the desired vegetative conditions within the area to maintain effectiveness. Lastly, these treatments were designed to make the landscape more aesthetically pleasing by removing hard lines and increasing overall visual diversity. Each of the treatments A-E involve 2 main components. 1) Brush treatment to promote early seral conditions and 2) P-J density reduction. For treatments A-D, the brush component will be treated to accomplish a target of 80-85% early seral stage condition for vegetation and have more diversity in grass, forb, and shrub species. P-J densities across the area will be reduced to approximately trees per acre. For treatment E, the brush component will be treated to accomplish a target of 80-85% early seral stage condition for vegetation and have more diversity in the representation of riparian species. P-J will be removed from these areas unless they are identified by the forest hydrologist and fisheries biologist to be required for bank stability or other aquatic concerns. To minimize the risk of additional cheatgrass establishment and to reduce soil erosion, project design feature WL-9 has been developed. A. Existing Chaining Re-treatments (3957 Acres) These areas were chained in the 1970s and created open meadows. Since then, P-J has been encroaching into these areas and they currently lack species diversity. These treatments in conjunction with the other treatments create defensible fire space around the communities of Pinto, Old Irontown and surrounding private property within the project area and provide access and egress routes for these communities in the event of a wildfire. B. Defensible Fire Space (3210 Acres) These treatments in conjunction with the other treatments would create an effective defensible fire space around the communities of Pinto, Old Irontown and surrounding private property within the project area in the event of a wildfire. C. P-J Removal (2492 Acres) Implementing these treatments in conjunction with the other treatments would create an effective defensible fire space around the communities of Pinto, Old Irontown and surrounding private property 5

6 within the project area and provide access and egress routes for these communities in the event of a wildfire. They would also improve stormwater infiltration due to greater vegetative cover after recruitment and seeding of forbs and grasses. D. Ingress/Egress (850 Acres) Treating along these routes would improve access and egress routes, allowing vehicles and machinery to enter and exit the area as needed in the event of a wildfire. F. Riparian Pastures (117 Acres) Approximately 22,000 feet of fencing will be constructed to create riparian pastures which will limit cattle access throughout most of the year. These pastures will be open to feed during certain parts of the grazing season as determined by the range specialist according to established guidelines and vegetative response. This will promote stream channel stability and maintain and increase representation of riparian species. G. Revetment Area (75 Acres) Stream bank armoring in the form of Juniper revetments will be implemented on approximately 1,200 feet of stream bank. These revetments will be situated on the outside bends in order to stabilize the bank and prevent further lateral stream migration. Revetment material will be selectively harvested from the adjacent hillsides. Approximately 100 trees will be cut and dragged into the stream. They will be secured into the bank with steel cable and anchored. Trees will be overlapped and cabled together to eliminate gaps in coverage of the streambank. While the full range of fuel reduction methods are authorized consistent with forest management area emphasis and direction, the treatments will likely fall into general implementation categories of: Mastication Dixie Harrow Hand cut, lop, and scatter Hand cut, pile, and pile burn Mastication is a treatment which is done by using tracked heavy equipment outfitted with a masticating head which grinds up vegetation. An operator will treat P-J or brush on slopes less than 30% and in areas which are accessible to the equipment without driving on slopes greater than 30%. Woody debris would be left in place scattered across the project site. Dixie Harrow will be used to treat brush on slopes less than 30%. On slopes greater than 30%, the P-J and brush will be treated one of two ways. The first option is hand cut, lop, and scatter. Using chainsaws, hand crews would selectively cut pinyon and juniper. Brush would be cut and scattered where appropriate as determined by the fuels specialist. The second option is hand cut, pile, and pile burn. Using chainsaws, hand crews would selectively cut P-J and brush on slopes greater than 30%. The slash would be piled in preparation for curing and pile burning in appropriate locations as determined by the fuels specialist. Mechanical treatment should focus mainly on P-J removal with some shrub removal in areas of thick density. Selective thinning should be designed to leave different age classes of browse species, may 6

7 include planting bitterbrush, willow or other plants where appropriate. Due to the prolific nature of juniper and less aggressive re-establishment of pinyon pine, in mixed stands, juniper will be selected for treatment and pinyon left standing for habitat where possible in conjunction with fuels reduction efforts. These treatments were designed to make the landscape more aesthetically pleasing by removing hard lines and increasing overall visual diversity. This will be accomplished by: Leaving P-J in clumps varying from 1-15 trees per clump along the length of roadways and trails. These clumps will need to leave 50% big game hiding cover along the length within 200 feet of the edge of the roadway and trails. Leaving P-J in clumps varying from 1-15 trees per clump along the forest/private boundaries. The boundaries of the areas being treated and the areas outside the treatments will follow an undulating pattern. This will be accomplished by following natural vegetative changes; landscape features such as rock outcroppings, ridgelines, and drainage bottoms; or in a pattern determined by the forest landscape architect during implementation. Although the treatments will undulate along their extents, they will remain within the footprint of the mapped treatment areas. Brush will be left in managed clumps and patches varying in size and in irregular shapes. Sizes will vary from 1 50 acres. Seeding would be accomplished using multiple tools such as; aerial seed, rangeland drill, and seed hopper and harrow. Two approved seed mixes would be used as determined by the Forest Botanist and other specialists. The seed mix used within the IRA would focus on native species appropriate for elevation and site potential. Outside of the IRA a seed mix including more non-native species would be allowed for the purposes of out-competing invasive plants and noxious weeds. Timing and sequence of treatment efforts would be strategically timed to give germinates a competitive advantage against invasive plants such as cheatgrass. For example, where feasible, the site would be seeded prior to mastication and harrowing, so that the mastication and harrowing process would further cover the seed and prepare the seed bed. Some of the treatments above occur in an IRA. Table 1 summarizes the number of treatment acres for each action which will occur in IRA. Table 1. Treatment acres and type proposed within an IRA for the Pinto Improvement Project. Roadless Area Treatment Type Atchinson Cove Mountain Kane Mountain Stoddard Mountain Grand Total Defensible Fire Space Ingress/Egress PJ Removal

8 Existing Chaining- Retreatments Grand Total PROJECT MANAGEMENT AREAS The project area includes the following Forest Plan Management Areas: 1 - General Forest direction, 2A Semi-Primitive Recreation Opportunities, 4C Wildlife Habitat (Brushy Range), 5A Big Game Winter Range (Non-Forest), 6A Livestock Grazing, and 9A Riparian Management. Guidance for development of the purpose and need for action came from the Forest Plan (USDA 1986), Utah Fire Amendment(USDA 2001), and the Scenery Management System Amendment (USDA 2000a). DURATION AND TIMING The timing and duration of the Proposed Action would be as follows: (1) Mechanical thinning, mulching activities and seeding in the fuel break areas could begin as early as fall of 2017; (2) Pile burning could begin in the spring or fall of 2017 and continue 1 to 2 years post treatment. In general, project activities may remain active for up to 15 years post decision. Climate Change Effects Climate change can have direct effects on wildlife lifecycles and can indirectly affect factors such as food availability, quality and quantity (Chambers, Devoe, & Evenden, eds. 2008). Some animals have very specific climatic adaptations, such as requirements for snow, sea ice, or temperatures within a narrow range for hibernation. Some have distributions that are dependent on climate. The effects of climate changes on mammals can sometimes be ascertained directly through the study of their biology and physiology. For most mammals, however, climate broadly defines their ecological niche (McKelvey, Perry, & Mills 2013). Managing lands in the face of climate change requires an acknowledgement of both the range of different effects and the high levels of uncertainty involved in local projections. Overall, a connected landscape allows animals to seek appropriate habitats and prevents the negative consequences faced by small isolated populations. Diverse landscapes increase overall resilience and provide opportunities for adaptation. Habitat improvement helps maintain a large, healthy population, which may improve its likelihood of persistence (McKelvey, Perry, & Mills 2013). Discussions regarding climate change effects to vegetation are summarized from the report Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector and is incorporated into this report by reference (Vose, Peterson and Patel-Weynand 2012). Human activities such as fuel burning, land-use change, and agriculture have led to increases in ambient greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. GHGs contribute to the greenhouse effect and are causing the surface temperature of the Earth to increase with a number of associated large scale changes (USDA 2015). Carbon sequestration by forests is one way to mitigate GHG emissions by offsetting losses through removal and storage of carbon. Carbon dioxide uptake by 8

9 forests in the conterminous United States offset approximately 16 percent of our national total carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 (US EPA 2013). Recent estimates of net annual storage indicate forests are an important carbon sink, removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they are emitting (Pan et al. 2011). Carbon stored in U.S. forests is projected to peak between 2020 and 2040 and then decline through This decline will be primarily due to removal of trees as private forest lands are converted to urban and other developed land uses (USDA 2012). Western forest ecosystems may also emit greater amounts of carbon if wildfire and insect disturbance increase as expected (Vose et al. 2012). Cumulative Effects Area The cumulative effects area (CEA) selected for this analysis, is based on known or suspected habitat used by identified wildlife species of concern during all or a large portion of their life cycle that is continuous with and surrounds the proposed project area. This determination is based on information, experience, and recommendations in coordination with the district biologist. The CEA consist of a mix of federally managed and private land. It represents a landscape surrounding the project area where past, present, and future management actions by humans have and/or will occur. The wildlife species discussed in this document use all or parts of these areas. Delineation of the CEA for this project is based on estimated species use of the landscape and includes the project boundary plus Little Pinto Creek 6 th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), Pinto Creek 6 th HUC, and portions of Dry Wash, Big Hollow Wash, Duncan Creek, and Holt Canyon 6 th HUC watersheds and encompasses 84,646 acres (Figure 2). Ongoing actions, or actions expected to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future include livestock grazing, recreation projects (such as trails maintenance), access management (road maintenance), private land development, and recreation. Recreational use within the project areas includes dispersed camping, hiking, mountain biking, ATV/UTV use, and hunting. Private in-holdings include the hamlets of Pinto and Old Irontown and several private subdivisions within the project boundary. The cumulative effects area (CEA) in this analysis has seen considerable vegetation management activity over the past years that has contributed to the characteristic of the landscape over time. Approximately 3,957 acres within the project were previously chained in the 1970s and again around Pinyon pine and juniper are again encroaching into these areas. Active livestock allotments within the project include portions of the West Pinto, East Pinto and Iron Town cattle allotments. In total, these allotments are permitted to have up to 496 cow/calf pairs annually. Total general season of use ranges from May 21 to October 15. Capable grazing areas are located mainly in the sagebrush and mountain brush vegetation types. Cows will generally trail through denser conifer types to access other more suitable grazing areas. 9

10 Range Resources Affected Environment General Setting The East Pinto, West Pinto and Iron Town Allotments are located in Washington County and Iron County, Utah on the Dixie National Forest Pine Valley Ranger District (PVRD). These grazing allotments lie adjacent to the towns of Pinto and Iron Town, Utah. The rangeland vegetation communities on these allotments have been used for livestock grazing since European settlement. Early livestock grazing had limited intensive management, with no established livestock numbers or seasons of use during this early settlement period. When grazing allotments were created the number and kind of livestock, as well as season of use, were established for the area. Over time, adjustments have been made to ensure vegetation communities are grazed in a sustainable manner. Table 1 below identifies the permitted seasons of use for allotments in the proposed project area. Permitted Livestock Use Allotment Number Class Season East Pinto 146 Cow/calf 06/01-10/15 West Pinto 257 Cow/calf 05/21-10/10 Iron Town 93 Cow/calf 06/01-10/15 Table 2. Grazing Allotments and permitted use for allotments within the Pinto Watershed Improvement Project. Resource Review Overall the proposed action would result in a modest impact to range and grazing resources. The short term impact of the proposed action would be that livestock may not have access to an area while vegetation treatment activity was occurring. Livestock could also access unauthorized locations if gates were left open and/or fences were compromised by fuel break activities. The long term impact would likely be a modest increase in the amount of available forage on the allotments. However, such an increase in available forage is not expected to result in an increase in cattle numbers or available forage allotted for the allotments in the proposed project area. It could however, result in an increase in extra forage available to help defer drought impacts and decrease likelihood of needing to leave areas sooner due to hitting utilization standards. 10

11 Mitigation Measures: 1) Temporary fences and/or existing fence or gate repair may be required at the discretion of the authorized officer and the appropriate technical specialists if livestock are in the area at the time of vegetation treatment activity. 2) Proper notification of the Rangeland Management Specialist who would then notify the affected permitees when vegetation treatment work activity is scheduled to occur within a given allotment or pasture. 3) Every effort should be made to ensure that livestock in the area are not disturbed. 4) Any suspected impacts to livestock should be reported to the Rangeland Management Specialist. Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed Action The timing and duration of the Proposed Action would be as follows: (1) Mechanical thinning, mulching activities and seeding vegetation treatment areas could begin as early as fall of 2017; in general, project activities may remain active for up to 5 years post decision. In general, there is a potential for short-term direct disturbance to livestock if project activities were to occur during the authorized grazing season. Vegetation treatment activities would produce noise and commotion in the area. The presence of people, noise, and equipment could disturb livestock in the immediate vicinity for one-to-seven days. For this analysis, short term is defined as effects occurring during implementation and up to 5 years afterwards. Long-term effects are defined as occurring 5 years or more after implementation of treatments are completed. No-Action Alternative Maintaining the Project Area in its existing condition would preclude any vegetation treatment. The habitat conditions described in the affected environment section would continue in the short term. In the long term, pinyon-juniper and pinyon-pine trees will continue to encroach into the project area and will decrease the amount of ground cover leading to a lack of diversity of grass and shrub component for livestock to use. Under the no action alternative, current fuel levels would remain high and may increase as fuel loading and fuel continuity across the surface increases. Snags would continue to increase from disturbance 11

12 from disease and insects and eventually fall and accumulate on the forest floor which increases the surface fuels that contribute to increased fire intensity, burn severity on soils and crown fire initiation. Increased fuel loading and continuity would increase the chance of wildfires with high burn severity within the project area (See Fuels Specialist Report). III. Cumulative Effects Common to all Action Alternatives There are no foreseeable cumulative impacts to Range and Grazing Resources. Range/Grazing Project Design Features RG-1.Treated areas would be rested from livestock grazing for two to three growing seasons post implementation where residual understory vegetation is at less than 40% desired effective ground cover, and possibly three years in some areas to reduce livestock browse pressure on new aspen sprouts where present. RG-2. Livestock grazing will continue to be administered through existing range allotment decisions and annual operating instructions to minimize impacts on regeneration and seeding establishment of vegetation. Measures may include livestock management activities such as herding, salt placement, timing of grazing, fencing, and rest. Rest will follow established DNF guidelines. Normally, the Forest requires that burned or treated areas be rested for two full years. Prior to stocking these areas an evaluation is needed to make sure that the rangelands are within 80% of desired effective ground cover values for the site and desirable plant species are established and producing seed. These timeframes may be modified based on documented consensus from an Interdisciplinary Team. Utilization standards are described in the Forest Plan and apply to this project. Table 3. Project design features to minimize impacts of the proposed actions on range and grazing. 12