Environmental Assessment for. North Palomas Allotment. Black Range Ranger District, Gila National Forest. United States Department of Agriculture

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Environmental Assessment for July 2010 North Palomas Allotment Black Range Ranger District, Gila National Forest

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper 2008 Page 2

3 Content Chapter 1 Purpose and Need...5 Introduction and Background... 5 Location... 6 Allotment Grazing Record... 7 Existing Vegetation Condition Existing Watershed Condition Existing Riparian Condition Desired Condition (Upland Rangeland, Riparian, and Soils) Purpose and Need for Action Gila National Forest Plan Goals and Standards Decision Framework Public Involvement Issues Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered Alternatives Considered Monitoring and Adaptive Management Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study Future Review of the Decision Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences Vegetation Condition Watershed, Riparian, and Soils Wildlife, Plants, and Fish Sensitive Wildlife, Plants, and Fish Management Indicator Species (MIS) Migratory Bird Species Social and Economic Concerns Other Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination Appendix Page 3

4 List of Tables Table 1. Permitted Numbers by Units on the North Palomas Allotment Table 2. Vegetative Condition Class and Scores by Pasture Table 3. Watershed/soil condition and trend data, North Palomas Allotment Table 4. Stream Surveys conducted in 2008, North Palomas Allotment Table 5. Approximate acreage of vegetation cover types Table 6. Historic Fires in project area Table 7. Comparison of Effects for the No Action Alternative with the Proposed Action List of Figures Figure 1 General Location Map, North Palomas Allotment... 7 Figure 2. Stocking of Livestock in correlation to precipitation from 1978 to Figure 3. Percentage of allotment by soil condition class, North Palomas Allotment Figure 4. Impaired Soil Conditions in GES Map Unit 149, North Palomas Allotment (Creek Pasture) Figure 5. Locations of unsatisfactory soil conditions Figure 6. Poverty Creek (Reach 1): High flows evident, no bedrock control, poor channel structure. Rating borders between Functional at Risk and Nonfunctional Figure 7. North Palomas Creek (Reach 1 above the wilderness boundary): High woody recruitment, rating is Proper Functioning Condition Figure 8 Map 1. North Palomas Allotment Map Figure 9. Map 2. North Palomas Allotment. Fences in blue are new enclosures to protect stream bottoms and riparian. Red dots indicated locations for proposed water developments Page 4

5 Chapter 1 SUMMARY The purpose of the North Palomas EA Project is to address livestock grazing management for the allotment within the analysis area. The North Palomas Environmental Analysis (EA) Project analyzes one grazing allotment located on the Gila National Forest and administered by the Black Range Ranger District. The analysis area is present exclusively in Sierra County. The project is comprised of approximately 15,159 acres and includes one cattle allotment, the North Palomas Allotment. The North Palomas Allotment includes lands identified in the Gila National Forest Plan (GNFP) as suitable for grazing. Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, there is congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). Where consistent with the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of plans, it is Forest Service policy to make forage from lands suitable for grazing available to qualified livestock operators (FSM , FSM , and 36 CFR (c)). Federal actions such as the authorization of grazing and approval of allotment management plans must be analyzed to determine potential environmental consequences (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA] and Rescission Act of 1995 [P.L ]). The Forest Service is preparing this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with these laws and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This EA will disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and other alternatives. Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Introduction and Background The Gila National Forest (GNF), Black Range Ranger District is in the process of determining whether, and under what conditions, to authorize continued cattle grazing on the North Palomas Allotment. At least three alternatives will be considered for the allotment to include no action, current management, and a proposed action. As directed by Forest Service Handbook , Chapter 90, Section 92.31, which reads: At least two alternatives must be analyzed; the no action alternative and the proposed action. A current management alternative was also considered as Alternative 2 for the allotment. However, that alternative was dropped from further analysis due to multiple North Palomas Allotment Page 5

6 Chapter 1 resource concerns occurring on the allotment. The proposed action alternative was displayed in Alternative 3 but since the current management alternative was dropped from further analysis the proposed action alternative became the new Alternative 2. The proposed action alternative implements entering into a Nonuse Agreement with the current permit holder to adjust the current permitted livestock numbers, and implementing a deferred rest-rotation grazing system of management with adaptive management identified for the allotment and would remain in effect until resource conditions improve. The focus of the project is on four key issues: condition of upland and riparian vegetation, soils and wildlife. The Forest Service has an established process for grazing administration. Term grazing permits authorize grazing on one or more allotments, generally for a period of 10 years, by a given permittee. Grazing on each allotment is conducted in accordance with an allotment management plan (AMP). The details of annual grazing operations on the allotment are provided to permittees in the form of annual operating instructions (AOIs). AMPs are periodically revised to reflect changes in resource base, the livestock operation, the regulatory setting, or Forest Service plans, policies, or procedures. Upon completion of the EA, an Allotment Management Plan (AMP) will be developed for the North Palomas Allotment, and added to the new term grazing permit Location North Palomas Allotment is located in the central part of the Black Range Ranger District (see Figure 1). The allotment is 15,199 acres with 40 acres of private land. Most of the allotment is covered by either pinyon-juniper (62%) or ponderosa pine/douglas fir (23%) with only one percent consisting of grassland. The North Palomas Allotment is within Sierra County and located within all or portions of T. 12 S., R. 8 W., Sections 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, and T. 12 S. R.9 W., Sections and There are 4 pastures, a trap, and a riparian enclosure. They are the Upper, Road, East and Creek, the House trap. The riparian enclosure restricts cattle from the lower part of North Palomas Creek. North Palomas Allotment Page 6

7 Chapter 1 Figure 1 General Location Map, North Palomas Allotment Allotment Grazing Record The North Palomas Allotment has had a long history of livestock grazing. The earliest date documented is 1929 with as high as 400 head of cattle. Historical records indicate the North Palomas Allotment was part of the Circle Seven Community Allotment and permitted 395 head of cattle, yearlong. In 1941, a portion of that land was fenced to create the North Palomas Allotment with 154 head of cattle. In addition, a 15% reduction in permitted livestock numbers was approved when the new allotment was formed. The rest of that land became part of the present day Hermosa Allotment (Project Record (PR) # 25). North Palomas Allotment Page 7

8 Chapter 1 In 1946, when the term grazing permit was waived it reflected an additional 10% reduction in permitted livestock numbers. From 1946 to 1979, 138 head of cattle were permitted on the allotment. From 1980 to 2006, the permit was again waived several times. From 1993 to 2001, the allotment was placed in non-use status (PR #25). At the present time, the North Palomas Allotment is recognized as a yearlong allotment with one term grazing permit assigned to the allotment. Livestock grazing is authorized via a term grazing permit. The permitted livestock numbers and season of use for the allotment are 136 head of cattle, cow/calf, and 2 horses yearlong for a total of 1656 Head Months (HMs). However, during the last 8 years, stocking has been authorized at 100 head of cattle, yearlong for a total of 1224 HMs. The permittee and the District agreed to have 36, of the total permitted head of cattle into nonuse. This was done as a result of consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (March 24, 2003) and to help remedy range management problems (PR #25). The analysis area consists of one allotment which contains up to four pastures. Two small holding pastures are also present on the allotment. A summary of current management is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Permitted Numbers by Units on the North Palomas Allotment. ALLOTMENT PASTURES PERMITTED NUMBER ACRES 1 North Palomas Upper, Road, East, Creek, House and Riparian Exclosure 136 cow/calf, yearlong 2 horses, yearlong 15,159 TOTAL cow/calf, yearlong 15,159 2 horses, yearlong 1 Acres are an estimate that does not include the 40 acres of private land. Livestock Grazing History and Climate Precipitation records at the Chloride Ranger Station 1 have shown annual precipitation extremes as low as 5.37 inches, and as high as inches annually. The growing 1 Precipitation data was collected from the Chloride Ranger Station Site # per the Western Regional Climate Center. Site # is the historic location of the Chloride Ranger Station, Chloride, New Mexico. The historic station is no longer administered by the USDA Forest Service and is owned by a private entity. Weather data is collected by volunteers participating in the Cooperative Observer Program of the National Weather Service. North Palomas Allotment Page 8

9 Chapter 1 season average is 9.47 inches between June 1 and September 30 and the annual average is inches based on district records from 1970 to present. The North Palomas Allotment has been grazed from 1946 to the present in a continuous deferred rotation 2. The maximum number of livestock that has been stocked was 262 head of cattle; however the 30 year average is 147 head of cattle. There appears to be no correlation between climatic conditions and stocking ( Figure 2) (PR #25). Inches of Precipitation (July, Aug, Sep.) North Palomas Allotment Year Livestock Numbers Growing Season Precipitation Livestock Number Figure 2. Stocking of Livestock in correlation to precipitation from 1978 to In recent years precipitation during the growing season (June 1- Sept 30) has been variable, and for the most part, the majority of this precipitation came late in the growing seasons. Sporadic warm season forage production has been the norm since The winters of 2000 through 2002 were below average with 2003 and 2004 being closer to average because of late precipitation in February and March. In 2003 precipitation recorded at the weather station indicates the moisture during the growing season (6/1-9/30) was 46 percent (4.33 inches) of the 9.47 running average and the 2003 annual precipitation (5.37 inches) was 40 percent of the running average. Statistical information shows an increased probability of below-normal precipitation during the December 2003 to March 2004 period across much of the Southwestern United States (PR #25). 2 Continuous grazing system is defined as grazing a particular area or pasture for the entire year, including the dormant season. Also called season-long grazing. A Summary of Livestock Grazing Systems Used on Rangelands in the United States and Canada University of Arizona Technial Bulletin AZ1184, Cooperative Extension. North Palomas Allotment Page 9

10 Chapter 1 Daytime high temperatures in mid-summer can reach the upper 90s F, and occasionally exceed 100 F. January 2003 was one of the driest on record followed in July 2003 with one of the hottest and driest July s on record. Winter daytime highs average around 30 F. Existing Vegetation Condition Existing Condition Overall, approximately 93 percent of the allotment is in satisfactory condition (Fair to Good) with the remaining 7% being unsatisfactory. A better understanding of the issues can be obtained by examining vegetative condition within individual pastures (Table 2). Most of the vegetation types on the North Palomas Allotment are either pinyon-juniper (62%) or ponderosa pine/douglas fir (23%) with a small portion of grassland (1%). Four pastures are present on the allotment. These are the Creek, East, Road and Upper. Two holding pastures are also present on the allotment. There is one permanent trend transect present in the Creek Pasture (C2), one in the Road Pasture (C3) and one in the Upper Pasture (C1) of the North Palomas Allotment. These transects were established in 1956 and were re-read in 1993, 2008 and The last recorded trend for the permanent trend transects was upward for C1, stable for C2, and upward for C3 (PR #25). Table 2. Vegetative Condition Class and Scores by Pasture Transect Location C1 Upper Pasture C2 Creek Pasture /2009 Long Term Trend from (Poor) 1 39 (Poor) 47(Fair) 64(Good) Up 21(Poor) 71 (Good) 27 (Poor) 25 (Poor) Static C3 Road Pasture 23 (Poor) 84 (Excellent) 27 (Poor) 45 (Fair) Up Condition ratings: Very Poor: 0-20; Poor: 21-40; Fair: 41-60; Good: 61-80; and Excellent: Creek Pasture Current authorized use for the Creek Pasture is 100 head of cattle, for approximately two months. In the lower elevation of the allotment, this pasture consists of rolling hills and drainages, and is used more in the summer. It is seasonally deferred every other year with North Palomas Allotment Page 10

11 Chapter 1 the East Pasture. The Creek Pasture is used in June and July one year, and then the next year it is used in August and September. Little to no riparian vegetation can be found in this pasture. Soils throughout the entire pasture are unstable or impaired with the soil condition determined to be impaired. See Watershed and Soil Survey section. Almost the entire area around C2 has unsatisfactory upland vegetative conditions determined to be in a high poor condition with upward trend. This area is in the vicinity of soils units with active gullies. It is an area in the foothills of Sugarloaf Peak near water where, due to poor distribution, livestock have concentrated. This has resulted in a decline in soil and vegetative conditions (PR #25). East Pasture Current authorized use is 100 head of cattle for approximately two months. This pasture is located on the east side of the allotment and consists primarily in the higher elevations of Montosa Mountain. No Riparian vegetation can be found within this pasture. As described for the Creek Pasture above, the East Pasture is seasonally deferred with the Creek Pasture during the summer months. The deferment allows the vegetation to be used at different times during with the growing season. Most of the soils throughout the entire pasture are in satisfactory condition. The areas near the East well have large active gullies. See Watershed and Soil Survey section. The vegetative condition throughout this pasture (except for small inclusions around East well) is currently in a satisfactory condition and has been since The vegetative condition trend is stable with some areas in an upward trend (PR #25). Road Pasture Current authorized use for the Road Pasture is 100 head of cattle, for approximately one and half months. In the lower elevation of the allotment, this pasture consists of rolling hills and drainages which are used more in the fall before calves are shipped. No riparian vegetation can be found in this pasture. Soils throughout the entire pasture at 0-15% slope were determined to be impaired. See Watershed and Soil Survey section for additional information. Almost the entire area around C3 has satisfactory upland vegetative conditions determined to be in a high Fair condition with upward trend. This area does not have active gullies present. The duration of livestock use seems to provide for adequate vegetation and soil improvement (PR #25). North Palomas Allotment Page 11

12 Chapter 1 Upper Pasture Current authorized use for the Upper Pasture is 100 head of cattle, for approximately five and a half months. The pasture has two sub-pastures because a drift fence at the wilderness boundary allows the pasture to be used at different times during the five and half months of use. The season of use for this pasture is during the dormant season November to May. The North Palomas Creek has sections that are perennial intermittent, within the wilderness boundary. The stream flows west to east. Historically, livestock have used the higher elevation range in the west side of the wilderness boundary from November to February, and the east of side of the boundary from March to May. Within the wilderness, livestock use is light and conditions are moving towards desirable conditions. There is high recruitment of riparian grass species such as sedges and riparian woody species, such as cottonwood. Riparian areas were evaluated and determined to be in stable condition. East of the drift fence and the wilderness boundary, there has been heavy use along Palomas Creek. Within this section of Palomas Creek drainage, heavy use and trampling has compacted soils and reduced productivity leading to poor riparian vegetative conditions (for further discussion see the watershed section). Unstable soils were evaluated and soil conditions were determined to be impaired. See the Watershed and Soil Survey section. Upland vegetative conditions in the east and west side of the wilderness boundary were determined to be satisfactory or improving since 2003 (PR #25). Existing Watershed Condition Watershed field reviews of the North Palomas Allotment were conducted in 2008 to assess current watershed condition at the project level. Bare soils were observed in the lower elevations, in particular adjacent to drainages, near watering sites, and on flat terraces and lowland meadows. Upland watershed conditions appeared to be satisfactory, especially on slopes greater than 40%. Some exceptions were noted, likely due to livestock distribution problems related to available water. North Palomas Allotment is located primarily within the Cuchillo-Negro Creek, Palomas Creek, and Wall Lake 5 th Code Watersheds. A very small portion (2 acres) of the allotment is within the Corduroy Canyon 5 th code watershed. Wall Lake and Corduroy Canyon Watersheds are located within the Upper Gila River Basin, while Cuchillo-Negro Creek and Palomas Creek watersheds are located within the Rio Grande Basin. The Gila National Forest manages 31% of the Cuchillo-Negro Creek watershed, 99% of the Wall Lake watershed, 23% of the Palomas Creek watershed, and 80% of the Corduroy Canyon watershed (PR #24). North Palomas Allotment Page 12

13 Chapter 1 Approximately 1,045 acres or 7 percent of the allotment have been degraded to the point where soil function is weakened and are classified as Impaired or unsatisfactory (Figure 3). Typical hydrologic function problems are platy subsurface soil structure, few tubular pores, ungulate induced compaction, significant increase (>15%) in bulk density, significant decrease in infiltration (10-50%) and a moderate increase in resistance (10-50%) leading to less water being able to soak into the soil and more surface runoff. In the stability function problems noted were actively expanding gullies; pedestalled grasses; exposed grass roots on downhill side of grass plants; soil and litter deposition was evident and the A horizon was not evenly distributed indicating active surface erosion and loss of top soil. In the nutrient cycling function problems noted were changes in vegetation composition indicating a shift toward a drier less productive site and little to no litter present except under trees indicating that the soil may be becoming less productive. Other observations included the presence of many gullies as a result of both road location and livestock induced soil compaction. Increased ground plant cover was occurring in some locations indicating some healing was taking place however other areas have bare ground with active soil loss and cutting occurring (PR #24). Approximately 93 percent of the North Palomas Allotment is currently classified as satisfactory (Figure 3) with almost all of the satisfactory soils being in the western twothirds of the allotment (Upper Pasture within the Aldo Leopold Wilderness) as indicated by a representative picture. The primary reason for increased function is less soil compaction and, more herbaceous ground cover resulting in reduced sheet, rill and gully erosion (PR #24 and #25). Soil Condition (Acres) Unsatisfactory 1, % Satisfactory 13, % Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Figure 3. Percentage of allotment by soil condition class, North Palomas Allotment. North Palomas Allotment Page 13

14 Chapter 1 Two sources of data were used to determine the existing watershed and soil condition. One utilized the three-step cluster transects described above in the vegetative condition section where data was collected for ground cover (plants, litter, and rock) at three sites. In addition, a Forest wide General Ecosystem Survey (GES) Report was completed in The GES consisted of a systematic examination, description, classification (soil, vegetation, and climate), and mapping of the general ecosystems in the area. It consisted of soil pits and vegetative samples collected within each map unit. Based on the three cluster transects adequate ground cover was indicated (Table 3) one of the three was in a downward trend. Soil stability ratings based on GES and soil condition ratings from 3 map unit indicated that there were some erosion problems with large areas being either unsuited or satisfactory condition. One map unit showed unsatisfactory condition at slopes between 0 and 15%. Slopes 15 to 40% were satisfactory within this map unit. Table 3. Watershed/soil condition and trend data, North Palomas Allotment. Transect Location Long Term Trend from 2003 C1 Upper 24 (Poor) 1 72 (Good) 57(Fair) 81(Excellent) Up C2 Creek 20(Very Poor) 61 (Good) 36 (Poor) 38 (Poor) Static C3 Road 20 (Very Poor) 63 (Good) 29 (Poor) 66 (Good) Up Condition ratings: Very Poor: 0-20; Poor: 21-40; Fair: 41-60; Good: 61-80; and Excellent: A general ecosystem is defined as the conceptual representation of the obligatory relationship between soil, vegetation, and climate. A general ecosystem survey consists of the systematic examination, description, classification (soil, vegetation, and climate), and mapping of ecosystems. The unique combination of ecosystems and appropriate phase criteria (i.e., slope, texture of the surface layer, soil depth, etc.) define an ecological map unit (terrestrial ecosystem unit or TEU). These are the basic land unit where the response to climatic conditions will be more uniform and predictable. The GES computes current, natural, and tolerance soil loss and soil stability is defined as follows: Stable Current soil loss is less than tolerance and tolerance is greater than natural North Palomas Allotment Page 14

15 Chapter 1 Unstable Current soil loss is greater than tolerance and tolerance is greater than natural Impaired Current soil loss is greater than tolerance but tolerance is less than natural. Based on the soil losses estimated during the GES most of the allotment is either stable condition or in some cases impaired where some active soil erosion exists due to a lack of ground cover (Figure 4) (PR #24 and #25). Figure 4. Impaired Soil Conditions in GES Map Unit 149, North Palomas Allotment (Creek Pasture). Using the basic General Ecosystem Survey (GES) report soil condition was evaluated at various locations within the Gila National Forest. This report was used to interpret soil condition within the allotment to measure soil function. Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality based on an interpretation of factors which affect three interrelated primary soil functions as follows: 1. Soil Hydrology. To evaluate or observe soil elements indicating water infiltration, permeability and plant available moisture. 2. Soil Stability. To evaluate or observe soil elements that indicate surface erosion such as rills, gullies, pedestalling, soil deposition, erosion pavement, or loss of the surface A horizon. 3. Nutrient Cycling. To evaluate or observe elements that indicate soil organic matter, such as plant composition, litter, coarse woody material, root distribution and soil biotic crusts. North Palomas Allotment Page 15

16 Chapter 1 Based on soil functions soils can be classified into three categories: 1. Satisfactory. Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning properly and normally. 2. Impaired. Indicators signify a reduction of soil function. The ability of soil to function properly has been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to degradation. Impaired soil condition is not to be confused with impaired soil stability (as described above). 3. Unsatisfactory. Unlike being impaired which indicates only a reduction of soil function unsatisfactory indicates there is a loss of soil function (i.e., ability to hold moisture, prevent or halt erosion, and/or have sufficient soil nutrients). Figure 5. Locations of unsatisfactory soil conditions. Existing Riparian Condition North Fork Palomas Creek was evaluated for approximately 6 miles, starting in the southeast section of the allotment and continuing upstream to above the wire pen corral in Section 18 of the Upper Pasture. North Fork Palomas Creek Reach 1 was evaluated for approximately 1.5 miles from just above the wire pen corral downstream to the Forks Corral at its confluence with Hawaii Canyon (Table 4). This reach was rated as Proper Functioning Condition. North Palomas Allotment Page 16

17 Chapter 1 Portions of this reach have perennial flow with some stretches disappearing below the surface and reappearing downstream. This is a higher gradient channel with little floodplain development. A few areas of rocks and boulders are present in this reach. High vigor was noted on the narrowleaf cottonwood, with some recruitment limitations likely occurring from limited flow. Very little browsing was noted on the young cottonwoods, but was noted on the box elder. This reach is entirely located within the Aldo Leopold Wilderness. The north slopes received high burn severity during the circa Hermosa burn. There is some excess soil movement off of these slopes due to this fire, with the creation of some alluvial fans in the drainage bottom. Riparian species noted in this reach were narrowleaf cottonwood, box elder, Arizona walnut, amorpha, and bluestem willow. This reach is currently meeting Forest Plan standards (PR #24). For approximately one mile below Reach 1, the stream dries up and riparian vegetation is sparse and intermittent. Most of this section was considered non-riparian. North Fork Palomas Creek Reach 2 was evaluated immediately below this dry section of channel (near Dines Spring) for approximately ¼ - ½ mile (Table 4). This reach was rated as Functional At Risk Upward Trend and shows signs of incision and lacks desired width/depth ratio in many places. The woody riparian component in this reach is increasing, with new recruitment noted. There was a very limited amount of herbacious cover noted on the banks and at water s edge. A large amount of soil had moved through here, and may still be moving to some extent. This was likely a result of the Hermosa Burn. Raw banks were noted where the herbaceous component was missing. The reach held together after the burn demonstrating a fairly stable system. Desired future conditions in the reach are to increase herbaceous riparian plants on the banks and adjacent to the water. Riparian plants present in the reach included narrowleaf cottonwood, box elder, amorpa, Arizona walnut, Kentucky bluegrass, and bluestem willow. This reach is currently moving towards meeting Forest Plan standards (PR #24). The lower 4 miles of North Fork Palomas Creek were rated as non-riparian, thus no field evaluation forms were completed. Poverty Spring within Poverty Canyon was evaluated for approximately ¼ mile and was rated Functional At Risk Downward Trend (Table 4). This spring is heavily utilized by livestock as a drinker is located in the bottom within the riparian area. A large amount of browse was noted on the riparian woody vegetation within the system as well as heavy use on the herbaceous vegetation adjacent to the water. This reach has more potential for vigor and recruitment of riparian plants if some of the grazing pressure were to be alleviated. Older riparian species were not expected within this reach, as it is spring dominated and may not be reliable during times of drought. Little opportunity exists currently for riparian woody vegetation to reach pole size due to the amount of North Palomas Allotment Page 17

18 Chapter 1 continuous browse. The black willow within the channel appeared more vigorous than the amorpha, which appears to be more desirable to livestock. Bedrock is close to the surface in the reach, which provides some channel stability. Desired future conditions in this reach include improving vigor on woody riparian vegetation, improved herbaceous cover and more recruitment of riparian vegetation. Species noted include black willow, amorpha, Kentucky bluegrass, and sedge species. Plans at Poverty Spring include moving drinker out of bottom to a higher terrace, or to consider fencing a portion of the riparian area if relocation of drinker does not aid in improving conditions. This reach is currently not meeting Forest Plan standards (PR #24). Visual assessments of Moccasin John Creek and Honolulu Creek were completed during a field review in April Moccasin John Creek had little moisture or riparian vegetation present, thus was considered non-riparian. Honolulu Creek was non-riparian with the exception of a small spring that flowed for approximately ¼ mile. Some amorpha and willow species were observed, with hedging noted on these riparian woody species. No Proper Functioning Condition assessment was conducted, however discussion focused on possible construction a small exclosure of the spring area to protect riparian woody vegetation. Much of this riparian reach consisted of a bedrock substrate, providing for channel stability (PR #24). Photographs representative of riparian communities functioning at risk for Poverty and proper Functioning for Reach 1 of North Palomas Creek can be found at Figure 6 and Figure 7. Table 4. Stream Surveys conducted in 2008, North Palomas Allotment. STREAM (Reach) NAME Pasture PFC COMMENTS North Fork Palomas (Reach 1) Upper PFC - High vigor was noted on the narrow leaf cottonwood, with some recruitment limitations likely occurring from limited flow North Fork Palomas (Reach 2) Upper FAR- Upward Trend There was a very limited amount of herbaceous cover noted on the banks and at water s edge North Palomas Allotment Page 18

19 Chapter 1 STREAM (Reach) NAME Pasture PFC COMMENTS Poverty Spring Creek FAR- Downward trend This reach has more potential for vigor and recruitment of riparian plants if some of the grazing pressure was alleviated. Recommendations at Poverty Spring included moving drinker out of bottom to a higher terrace, or to consider fencing a portion of the riparian area if relocation of drinker does not aid in improving conditions. Desired Condition (Upland Rangeland, Riparian, and Soils) The desired condition for the North Palomas Allotment is to continue livestock grazing within the analysis area in a manner that would comply with the standards and guidelines addressed in the Forest Plan (Page 22 and 23 of this document). The desired conditions expected for the allotment associated with the North Palomas Allotment are as follows For the Upper (below the wilderness boundary), Creek and East pastures in the allotment, o Increase the quantity and quality of plant species, ground cover and species composition to reduce or prevent erosion and to restore impaired and unsatisfactory soil productivity o By 2020, Upland rangeland vegetation conditions should be in Fair to Good Condition satisfactory or moving toward satisfactory conditions based on Range Analysis. o Ecological condition in the riparian areas should be upper seral, or trending upward. All riparian areas will rate as Proper Functioning Condition or Functional At Risk with and upward trend. o No active gullying or head cutting should be evident on hillslopes or within grasslands. Gullies and headcuts created in the past should be healing. o Maintain water quality to meet State water quality standards. North Palomas Allotment Page 19

20 Chapter 1 o Compliance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act o Compliance with the 1976 Clean Water Act. o Compliance with the applicable Cultural Resource Regulations. For the Upper (above the wilderness boundary) and the Road Pasture (Shipping), the desired condition is to maintain satisfactory upland vegetative and riparian conditions. o No active gullying or headcutting should be evident on hillslopes or within grasslands. Gullies and headcuts created in the past should be healing. o Maintain water quality to meet State water quality standards. o Compliance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act o Compliance with the 1976 Clean Water Act. o Compliance with the applicable Cultural Resource Regulations. Figure 6. Poverty Creek (Reach 1): High flows evident, no bedrock control, poor channel structure. Rating borders between Functional at Risk and Nonfunctional. North Palomas Allotment Page 20

21 Chapter 1 Figure 7. North Palomas Creek (Reach 1 above the wilderness boundary): High woody recruitment, rating is Proper Functioning Condition. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for the North Palomas Allotment Environmental Assessment is to authorize livestock grazing in a manner consistent with the Gila National Forest Plan (GNFP) and other applicable laws and regulations and to provide long-term management direction on grazing through Allotment Management Plans (AMPs). This project is needed to meet the requirements of the Rescission Act of 1995 (P.L ) Sec The Rescission Act of 1995 requires that all range allotments undergo analysis as outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Gila National Forest Plan Goals and Standards Direction for range is found in several different places within the Gila National Forest Plan (GNFP). The North Palomas Allotment is completely within Management Area 2F (GNFP pages 4, 11, 32, 78 and 81). The management emphasis for MA 2F is best summarized in the GNFP by the desire to achieve a management situation that can respond to local or national demands for livestock production and concurrently improve range, soil stability, and riparian conditions in areas that are currently unsatisfactory to satisfactory conditions (PR #1). Specific plan directions applicable to this project are as follows: North Palomas Allotment Page 21

22 Chapter 1 (Goal) Provide forage to the extent benefits are commensurate with costs without impairing land productivity and within the constraints of social needs (GNFP, page 11). Permitted numbers will be balanced with grazing capacity by the end of the second decade (GNFP, page 32). Manage to bring all grazing allotments to satisfactory management by the midpoint of the third decade. Satisfactory management occurs on allotments where management actions proceed according to a schedule (Allotment Management Plan) that will not permit regression in range condition or trend (GNFP, page 32). Grazing in riparian zones will be managed to provide for the maintenance and improvement of riparian areas (GNFP, page 32). Manage riparian areas in accordance with legal requirements regarding floodplains, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and cultural and other resources (GNFP, page 30). Manage riparian areas to protect the productivity and diversity of ripariandependent resources by requiring actions within or affecting riparian areas to protect and where applicable, improve dependent resources (GNFP, page 30). Give preferential consideration to resources dependent on riparian areas over other resources (GNFP, page 30). Improve riparian ecosystems in unsatisfactory condition to satisfactory condition and maintain riparian ecosystems currently in satisfactory condition (Amendment No. 10, 2005). Manage for a diverse, well-distributed pattern of habitats for wildlife populations and fish species; maintain and/or improve habitat for threatened or endangered species and work toward the eventual recovery and delisting of species through recovery plans (GNFP, page 12). Provide for the management of sensitive soils in all surface-disturbing activities to minimize or control erosion (GNFP, page 36). Maintain or improve watershed conditions to a satisfactory condition on 70 to 90 percent of the unsatisfactory watersheds by the end of the fifth decade (GNFP, page 36). Decision Framework Considering the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and additional alternatives developed based on issues identified by the interdisciplinary team and public comments, in order to make the following decisions: In consideration of the best available science and direction found in the Gila National Forest Plan as amended, the District Ranger will decide whether or not to authorize North Palomas Allotment Page 22

23 Chapter 1 livestock grazing on the North Palomas Allotment. If livestock grazing is authorized, the District Ranger will determine the type and duration of permits to issue with the associated AMP. The District Ranger may select any of the alternatives analyzed in detail, or may modify and select a combination of alternatives, so long as the resulting effects are within the range of this analysis and disclosed in this document and the supporting reports. If a permit is issued, the District Ranger would decide on the following: Where and when grazing would take place. How the allotment would be managed (management practices, grazing systems, supplements, standards, livestock numbers, timing of grazing, seasons of use, utilization guidelines, etc.). What connected actions such as resource treatments, new range developments or reconstruction of existing improvements would be implemented and on what schedule these actions would occur. What design features would be implemented. This assessment is not a decision document. Rather, it discloses the environmental consequences of implementing each alternative. The analysis incorporates by reference (as per 40 CFR ) the Project Record, including specialist reports and other technical documentation used to support the analyses. Although analysis was completed for range, wildlife, hydrology, soils, and heritage; it is acknowledged that in some instances there may be incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and the variability inherent in complex systems. Information from these reports has been summarized in this environmental assessment. A Decision Notice, signed by the District Ranger (deciding official) after the completion of the assessment, would document the decisions made as a result of this analysis. Future actions will be evaluated through the NEPA process and will stand on their own as to environmental effects and project feasibility Public Involvement The proposed action was listed in the 2008 Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning in 3 rd quarter, April through June, 4 th quarter July to September, 1 st, 2 nd, and 3 rd quarters of the 2009 SOPA, and 1 st and 2 nd quarters of 2010 (PR #12). A draft Proposed Action and preliminary alternatives was provided to the grazing permittee. A scoping letter was mailed on August 4, 2008, to state, Federal, Tribal governments, non-government organizations, and individuals detailing the Proposed Action for the North Palomas Allotment (PR #16). A variety of individuals, environmental, professional, multiple-use organizations, and government agencies were represented on the mailing list. Four North Palomas Allotment Page 23

24 Chapter 1 Comments were received. All the comments that were received, no new concerns were raised that had not already been considered by the interdisciplinary team of resource specialists (PR #26, #35 #48). Two legal notices for the North Palomas Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) were published in the Truth or Consequences, NM Herald. The first notice was published on August 5, 2009 (PR # 29) and the second on February 24, 2010 (PR # 40). These notices initiated a 30 day comment period during which comments on the Draft EA were accepted from the public. During the two periods, 9 mailed or ed submissions were received from an interested environmental organizations and individuals. The responses to comments made from both notices are included in this document located in the Appendix-Response to Comments section. Issues The Forest Service identified four primary concerns (listed as follows) that will be used in the analysis of impacts of the Proposed Action. Impacts will be quantified to the extent practicable, but when they cannot, a qualitative assessment based on the expertise of an appropriate resource specialist will be presented. Grazing effects on vegetation: Grazing at the proposed utilization levels may impede the attainment of GNFP objectives for range vegetation. Grazing effects on riparian vegetation: Grazing at the proposed utilization levels may impede the attainment of GNFP objectives for riparian vegetation. Grazing effects on soils: Grazing at the proposed utilization levels may impede the attainment of GNFP objectives for soils. Grazing effects on wildlife: Authorization of grazing may have adverse effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, sensitive (TEPS) species or on management indicator species (MIS) or their habitats. Additional environmental components to be considered in the Final EA include air, economics, and heritage resources. North Palomas Allotment Page 24

25 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the North Palomas Allotment, presenting the alternatives in comparative form to sharply define the differences between each alternative and provide a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Alternatives Considered Alternative One (No Action) Forest Service Policy (Forest Service Handbook ) requires the Forest Service to identify no grazing as the no-action alternative. Under this alternative, grazing would not be authorized and use of the allotments by domestic livestock would be discontinued. Existing boundary fences would be assigned to adjacent permittees. Interior fences would be removed to mitigate potential adverse impact to wildlife and public users. Water developments, important for wildlife, would be maintained where feasible using other program funds or volunteers. Alternative Two Proposed Action This alternative proposes to authorize grazing on the North Palomas Allotment under the following terms and conditions that define the limits for the numbers, duration, intensity, frequency and timing of grazing (PR #16). Numbers and Duration: Permit grazing for up to 136 cattle, cow/calf pairs and two horses (or equivalent use by other kind or class of livestock) for up to 12 months. Initially authorized use would be limited to no more than 100 cattle, cow/calf pairs, and two horses for up to 12 months. A total of 36 head will be administratively placed in nonuse for resource protection until conditions show an improving trend. The proposed action will incorporate management flexibility by providing a range of allowable numbers (0 136) that reflects variations in resource conditions and management objectives over time. Within this range, annual authorized livestock numbers will be specified in annual operating provisions. An initial stocking rate of up to 100 cow/calf pair will be set and is based on existing resource and infrastructure conditions. Changes in stocking level (up to 136 cow/calf pair) would occur as a result of changes in resource conditions or implementation of the improvements described below. North Palomas Allotment Page 25

26 Chapter 2 Intensity: Set herbaceous forage utilization at a conservative use level, approximately 31 to 40 percent utilization (Holechek et al ), including wildlife use, throughout all areas. In addition, implement a 25% use standard of use for riparian herbaceous species (grasses and grasslikes). The 25% use standard will mitigate heavy use on riparian woody species. Cattle tend to graze woody species when there is more than 25% use on riparian grasses (Clary and Webster, 1989) 4. Frequency and Timing: A growing season rest rotation management system using one herd will be used. One of the four pastures will be rested during the growing season, one out of three years. For example, the Creek and East pastures will need growing season rest to improve ground cover with perennial plant species. As stated in the Numbers and Duration section above, a stocking level number that is lower than the upper stocking level will be used until range, riparian, and Soil stability conditions show an improving trend. Timing of pasture moves will be based on incorporation of a rest rotation into the 5 best pasture grazing system, dictated by amount of available forage, grazing intensity, availability of water, and management objectives specified in allotment management plans. Herd movements would be determined by utilization levels, forage conditions and water availability and will be specified in annual operating instructions. Timing of pasture moves will be dictated by amount of available forage, grazing intensity, availability of water, and management objectives specified in an allotment management plan. In order to meet the resource objectives for the allotment it will be necessary to monitor grazing intensity while livestock are present in each pasture. The best pasture system may involve turning on (or shutting off) watering points in grazed (deferred or rested) pastures. Cattle learn within a year to follow active watering points. When localized heavy grazing around watering points was controlled, perennial grass forage production 6 nearly doubled with the best pasture system compared to continuous grazing. 3 Holecheck, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt Grazing studies: what we ve learned. Rangelands 21(2), 5 pg. 4 Clary, Warren P. and Bert F. Webster Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-263, 11 pp. 5 Best pasture is the pasture with the most favorable combination of water and forage that will provide for sustained use of pasture by scheduled numbers and time and allow proper distribution of livestock use (Holechek JL, RD Peiper, and CH Herbel Range Management Principles and Practices. 2 nd ed) 6 Howery, Larry D., Sprinkle, James E., and Bowns, James F A Summary of Livestock Grazing Systems Used on Western Rangelands in the Western United States and Canada. The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Report # AZ1184. North Palomas Allotment Page 26

27 Chapter 2 When there are indications that livestock are concentrating in any part of a pasture or on special sensitive areas, action will be taken to reduce the potential impacts by moving the livestock to other portions of the pasture or to another pasture on the allotment or removed from the allotment. Livestock Management: A new allotment management plan (AMP) would be developed. The plan would include mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to avoid or minimize effects to wildlife, soil and water quality. Monitoring of forage availability and utilization, range readiness and resource conditions will be used to determine whether management is being properly implemented and whether the actions are effective at achieving or moving toward desired conditions. Provide supplement for livestock as follows (to strategically manage livestock distribution and forage use): Locate supplement sites 0.25 mile or more from waters except where prior written approval has been obtained from District Ranger for each grazing season. Place supplements where forage is abundant and current grazing use levels are low. Supplements should not be place at any one location more than once during the grazing season to prevent the concentration of livestock. Limit supplement types to salt, protein, and mineral blocks to reduce risk of spreading noxious weeds and to reduce the risk of creating areas of concentrated livestock use. If there is a need to use energy supplements such as grain, hay, surplus milk products, ethanol production by-products or molasses based products; a supplemental plan will need to be developed and approved by the District Ranger prior to placing these energy type supplements on National Forest lands. Restore all current range infrastructures, such as fences and waters, to good condition where needed and continue to maintain the current infrastructure that is currently in good condition. Ensure all future range fence reconstruction would be designed to be wildlife friendly including appropriate installation of elk crossings, use of smooth bottom wire, standard spacing to prevent entrapment, maximum height limits, and locations. Improvements: Distribution of livestock would improve and may reduce impact to riparian bottoms (Figure 9). Upper Pasture Construct two small riparian enclosures within the Honolulu and North Palomas Creek drainages to improve stream bank stability, riparian herbaceous ground cover, and regeneration of woody species such as willow, box elder and walnut. North Palomas Allotment Page 27

28 Chapter 2 Install French drain system, pipeline and trough near the two proposed riparian enclosures to supplement available water sources for livestock and wildlife. Construct, at least, two drift fences at North Palomas Creek to reduce livestock grazing impacts to riparian vegetation. Install several trick tank water developments near the Sugarloaf Peak and Moccasin John areas to deter livestock grazing away from North Palomas Creek. Install a pipeline and several troughs downstream of the existing Ben Lilly Spring. East Pasture: Construct two earthen stock ponds (Stock Tank #1 and #2) at northeast side of pasture to provide additional water sources. Install one trick tank with storage and trough at Montosa Mountain to supplement water sources, in case, earthen stock ponds is dry. Construct an enclosure around the existing East Well to minimize heavy use around the site. Install an additional trough near the existing East Well pipeline to increase amount of available water. Install a pipeline and trough, with solar pump, south of the existing Oak Well to deter livestock grazing away from the north corner of the pasture. Creek Pasture: Install an additional trick tank with storage and trough at ridge between Poverty Creek and Willow Creek to provide additional water sources when other areas are dry. Construct two earthen stock ponds/erosion control dams in Grapevine drainage to improve water catchment capability and reduce soil erosion runoff. Relocate Poverty Spring livestock drinker out of the drainage bottom and if resource conditions do not improve, construct an enclosure fence around the riparian area (PR #16 & #24). Possible Future Improvements. In the Upper pasture, add a pipeline and drinkers downstream of the existing Ben Lilly Spring development. North Palomas Allotment Page 28

29 Chapter 2 In the East pasture, add a pipeline and drinker with solar pump south of the Oak well to pull cattle out of the north corner to provide better distribution within the pasture. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Implementation and focused effectiveness monitoring are critical to determine when or if adaptive management changes should be made and to guide the direction that those changes take. Monitoring protocols may change over time based on available resources and the best available science. Acceptable Adaptive Management Options: The acceptable adaptive management options associated with the North Palomas Allotment would provide tools that would best meet or move the allotment toward achieving the desired conditions within an acceptable timeframe. Adaptive management options are implemented when monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met within defined timeframes. The following describes the acceptable options that the District Ranger of the Black Range Ranger District may choose from. In most cases, the actions are not prioritized from first or last, but offer options; any of which would likely be successful. If, after 5 years, areas that are actively eroding in the gentle sloping pinyon/juniper-oak areas of the East, Creek, Road Upper pastures do not show a substantial reduction of active erosion based on photo points and ground cover transects; Initially, ride and salt to minimize utilization in these problems areas. Change the season of use for the pasture, to improve livestock distribution and lessen impacts. Implement rest in the specific pasture once in every 3 years, thereby reducing the total days for the allotment by the capacity of that pasture during the year rested. If, after 10 years, monitoring of Parker 3 Step and/or nested rooted frequency shows that vegetative and soil conditions are not improving toward desired conditions: Reduce numbers and/or season in the allotment 10%. In subsequent years, if allowable use levels cannot be met, continue to reduce days until specified levels are reached. If prescribed allowable use levels cannot be met within upland key areas, or if prescribed allowable use standards (25% utilization of current year s growth on riparian herbaceous species and 25% utilization of current year s growth on riparian woody species) cannot be met in key riparian areas, or if browse transects show unacceptable use of desirable shrubs: North Palomas Allotment Page 29

30 Chapter 2 Change the season of use for the pasture, if possible, to change livestock distribution and lessen impacts. Within the specific pasture, reduce number of days initially by 10%. In subsequent years, if allowable use levels cannot be met, continue to reduce days until specified levels are reached. Implement option above, but reduce a combination of numbers and season. If Proper Functioning Condition evaluations for defined riparian reaches within North Palomas Creek and Poverty Spring are nonfunctioning or functioning at risk with downward trend, and monitoring after 10 years show no improvement: Reduce the number of days in the pasture to 20 or less, which would result more overall days in the other pastures of the allotment. Implement rest in the specific pasture once in every three years. If feasible, fence the riparian area with hard fence. If fencing is not feasible, rest the pasture until positive improvement is observed and measured. If browse transects show unacceptable use of desirable shrubs by livestock grazing; Reduce the number of days initially by 10%. In subsequent years, if allowable use levels cannot be met, continue to reduce days until specified levels are reached. Implement option above, but reduce a combination of numbers and season. Allotment Management Plan: A new allotment management plan (AMP) will be developed. The plan will also include mitigation measures and Best Management Practices to avoid or minimize effects to wildlife, soil and water quality. Monitoring of forage availability and utilization, range readiness and resource conditions will be used to determine whether management is being properly implemented and whether the actions are effective at achieving or moving toward desired conditions. Provide supplement for livestock as follows (to strategically manage livestock distribution and forage use): o Locate supplement sites 0.25 mile or more from waters except where prior written approval has been obtained from District Ranger for each grazing season. o Place supplements where forage is abundant and current grazing use levels are low. Supplements should not be place at any one location more than once during the grazing season to prevent the concentration of livestock. North Palomas Allotment Page 30

31 Chapter 2 o o o o o Limit supplement types to salt, protein, and mineral blocks to reduce risk of spreading noxious weeds and to reduce the risk of creating areas of concentrated livestock use. If there is a need to use energy supplements such as grain, hay, surplus milk products, ethanol production by-products or molasses based products; a supplemental plan will need to be developed and approved by the District Ranger prior to placing these energy type supplements on National Forest lands. Restore all current range infrastructures, such as fences and waters, to good condition where needed and continue to maintain the current infrastructure that is currently in good condition. Ensure all future range fence reconstruction would be designed to be wildlife friendly including appropriate installation of elk crossings, use of smooth bottom wire, standard spacing to prevent entrapment, maximum height limits, and locations. New Improvements for distribution of livestock will be authorized under an AMP and implemented as necessary to improve range, soils and watershed resources Monitoring Plan: A monitoring plan would be developed and included as part of the Allotment Management Plan (AMP.). Implementation monitoring would indicate whether actions are being implemented as planned and are meeting standards and design criteria. Effectiveness monitoring would determine if those actions are effective in meeting or moving toward desired resource conditions. If monitoring indicates that management is meeting standards, and is meeting or moving toward the desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe, the initial management options may continue or an increase in stocking would be considered based on previous year s average precipitation and production/utilization studies. If monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not being met, other pre-determined management options may be selected for implementation. Compliance Monitoring: Compliance monitoring is articulated in the Annual Operating Provisions (AOPs). The AOP documents a decision on the livestock numbers and management that authorizes grazing each year and which becomes part of the term grazing permit. As an example, components of the 2008 AOP for North Palomas Allotment were the following (the Line Officer is not limited to only these instructions) (PR # 25). Number of livestock and the season of use authorized. The grazing intensity standards measured by percent utilization. Directions on livestock management North Palomas Allotment Page 31

32 Chapter 2 o What dates livestock are to be in a particular pasture. o Maintenance of infrastructure responsibilities o How monitoring will be conducted. Special management instructions o Within Mexican spotted owl critical habitat there can be no salt or mineral blocks and no concentrations of livestock from February 1 to August 31. Effectiveness Monitoring: Poor vegetative, riparian and soil conditions are the primary concerns for the North Palomas Allotment. Based on range surveys it was also determined that the existing number and location of monitoring locations do not always represent the remainder of the allotment. Therefore, additional monitoring points would be established. Monitoring protocol is established that can be used to determine if resource conditions are improving. Two examples are publications that outline monitoring protocol developed for New Mexico (Report No. 53, Range Improvement Task Force and a Monitoring Manual developed by the Jornada Experimental Range) 7. Regardless of the protocol or method used information would need to be collected on plant species density, plant species cover, overall ground cover (includes rock, etc), vegetative composition, plant species frequency, and livestock use of woody riparian vegetation. As stated above initial stocking would be less than permitted numbers while new infrastructure is being constructed and until resource conditions improve. Under the initial stocking and livestock management (including new infrastructure) if resource conditions improve, livestock numbers up to the permitted number could be authorized. If resource conditions do not improve, changes in livestock numbers and/or livestock management would be implemented as follows. Possible scenarios are not limited to these listed. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study One additional action alternative was considered, but not carried forward. The alternative would evaluate the merits of continuing current management for the allotment, as is. Under Alternative 3, referred to as the Current Management Alternative, livestock grazing would continue at the same level. Existing conditions described for the allotment in Chapter 7 Allison, CD, TT Baker, JC Boren, BD Wright, and A Fernald. date unknown. Monitoring rangelands in New Mexico: range, riparian, erosion, water quality, and wildlife. RITF, Report #53. Herrick JE, JW Van Zee, KM Havstad, LM Burkett, and WG Whitford Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, Vol II Design, supplementary methods and interpretation. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. North Palomas Allotment Page 32

33 Chapter 2 1 of this document would continue to deteriorate. Within those vegetation types where apparent trend is down, conditions would continue to steadily decline. Some pastures would continue to be used at the same time during the growing season, each year. Riparian areas would continue to be grazed for the same amount of time with a large number of permitted livestock. Suitable rangeland is expected to decline at a steady rate over time. The herbaceous vegetation present on the allotment is expected to decrease in composition and plant vigor, which in turn, would make it difficult to move towards meeting desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan. For these reasons, the alternative was considered but dropped from further analysis and eliminated from detailed study. Future Review of the Decision In accordance with Forest Service Handbook direction (FSH (18)) an interdisciplinary review of the decision would occur within 10 years or sooner, if conditions warrant. If this review indicates that management is meeting standards and achieving desired condition, the initial management activities will be allowed to continue. If monitoring demonstrates that management options beyond the scope of the analysis are warranted or if new information demonstrates effects not previously considered, further analysis under NEPA will occur. Minor additions to existing infrastructure such as fencing or waters to achieve the objective of restoring range conditions are tiered to this Environmental Assessment and are allowed providing that all new structures would have heritage and biological clearances prior to implementation and all Forest Plan Standards and Guides are followed. North Palomas Allotment Page 33

34 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences This chapter summarizes the current state of each affected resource and a predication of the effects of each alternative. The chapter is organized by resource. Within each section, the affected environment is briefly described followed by the environmental consequences (effects) of each alternative. Vegetation Condition Affected Environment The vegetation on the North Palomas Allotment consists of species typical to the east side of the Black Range Mountains. The majority of the country has open ridge tops with pinyonjuniper on the side-slopes and in the canyons. The upper elevation areas are dominated by ponderosa pine, Gambel oak, Arizona fescue, and nodding brome. At mid elevation, narrow leaf cottonwood, ponderosa pine and a small amount of Gambel oak, box elder with pinyon/juniper encroachments. Nodding brome, sideoats gramma and blue gramma are the dominant grass species. The lower zones are dominated by narrow leaf cottonwood in the drainages, Arizona walnut, box elder, ponderosa pine and increasing amounts of shrubby oaks and juniper with grass species dominated by sideoats gramma, blue gramma, and sand dropseed. In addition, there are several forbs, such as annual filaree and buckwheat. The common browse species are hairy mountain mahogany, gray oak, silktassel, cliff fendler bush and Apache plume. Mesquite and snakeweed are commonly found on the more arid parts of the allotment. Juniper is the dominant overstory species in many areas, with one-seed juniper occurring at lower elevations. Juniper is encroaching upon many of the open ridge tops and grassland areas. Treatment to limit juniper encroachment has not been conducted since the 1970 s. Some grasslands need treatment to maintain plant productivity and cover, which in turn provides for soil protection. The vegetation types include juniper/chaparral with 63%, ponderosa pine with 23%, mixed conifer with 7%, gambel oak & mahogany with 6%, grassland with 2%, and riparian with <1% (PR #25). North Palomas Allotment Page 34

35 Chapter 3 Table 5. Approximate acreage of vegetation cover types Vegetation Types Acres Grassland 248 Shrubland (Gambel Oak & Mahogany) 843 Mixed Conifer 1,046 Ponderosa Pine 3,483 Riparian 59 Juniper/Chaparral 9,480 TOTAL 15,159 Environmental Consequences (Vegetative Condition) Alternative One (No Action): With the permanent removal of livestock grazing from the grassland communities, areas that are functioning as desired would continue to function. Adequate litter would be left every year to provide ground cover to protect the soils from erosion and add organic matter. Grasses and forbs would be able to produce seed and in adequate quantities to establish new seedlings. The plants on site would continue to reproduce and provide for the desired species composition and density for which the site is capable (PR #25). Over time, this alternative would result in the increase of litter and fine fuels which may contribute to the return of fire to the grassland community. In pinyon-juniper woodland communities, fire would serve as a beneficial mechanism to achieve the desired ecological condition (PR #25). Where range analysis determines the soil and vegetative community is functioning at risk or downward trend, the complete removal of grazing by livestock should provide for an upward trend and improvement in the health of the site through increased productivity or vigor of individual plants as well as an increase in the number of plants and a decrease in bare ground due to the entire plant being left as residue. This alternative would improve sites that are currently at risk more quickly than the other two alternatives. If the deciding factor for a site, which has crossed a threshold, is a high canopy cover of shrubs, this alternative may not improve these areas. In this situation, fire or some other disturbance North Palomas Allotment Page 35

36 Chapter 3 would be required to improve condition, specifically, to reduce pinion/juniper stands within the Creek, East and Road pastures (PR #25). Alternative Two (Proposed Action): There are numerous range management publications and books but one that will be used as a basis for this environmental discussion is Range Management, Principles and Practices (Holechek et al, ). Basic range management principles that are based on an extensive scientific literature base that apply to this project are as follows: Excessive removal of plant leaves destroys photosynthetic capability and ultimately kills the plant (pg 133). Vegetation residue plays an important part in sustaining plant welfare throughout the year. Although more herbage can be removed during dormancy, adequate residues must still be maintained to protect the plant crown and soil (pg 133). Plants that are highly resistant to grazing are generally less productive and palatable than those with low grazing resistance (pg 133). The four basic components of grazing management are proper stocking rate, proper timing of use, proper distribution, and proper grazing system. Proper stocking is the most important part of successful range management (pg 239). Lighter grazing intensities are necessary for sustainability in the arid range types (pg 239). Conservative stocking is a low cost and low risk approach with proven effectiveness in improving forage production on most degraded ranges (pg 239). Rotational grazing systems are most effective in rugged terrain (pg 284). Grazing intensity rather than rotation grazing system is the primary factor determining long-term grazing outcomes on vegetation, livestock and financial returns (pg 284). Approximately seven percent of the allotment is in unsatisfactory range condition, some of the riparian areas are functioning at risk, and low elevation soils are unstable or impaired with impaired soil condition. The riparian in North Palomas Creek and the uplands in East, Creek and Road pastures, there is an overriding need to increase herbaceous ground cover, forage plant frequency and composition in order to improve vegetative, riparian, and soil conditions (PR #25). To a large degree, the proposed action alternative utilizes all of the management principles listed above to develop design criteria to improve vegetation, riparian, and soil 8 J.L. Holecheck, R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel Range management, principles and practieces. Prentice Hall, Inc. North Palomas Allotment Page 36

37 Chapter 3 conditions. The critical criteria used are listed below (see Alternatives Considered in Chapter 2 for greater detail): Flexible stocking rates with initial stocking rates being set based on existing resource and infrastructure conditions. In addition to initial stocking based on existing resource and infrastructure conditions the number of livestock will also vary annually based on climatic conditions, forage and water availability. Conservative grazing intensity (31 to 40 % utilization) in the upland and light grazing intensity (21 to 30 % utilization) in the riparian bottoms. Flexibility to use all pastures in different rotational schemes during the grazing year to change the timing of when plants are grazed. Some sensitive riparian areas will be fenced to exclude livestock. Additional waters will be constructed to aid in distributing livestock. Drift fences will be strategically located to also aid in livestock distribution. An adaptive management approach based on monitoring will be used to make future changes in livestock management. Of all of the criteria the one thought to be most important by Holechek et.al. was grazing intensity. In addition to providing a criteria of conservative use in the upland and light use in the riparian bottoms not already excluded from all livestock use, several criteria deal with mechanisms such as additional waters, drift fences, salting, etc. to achieve better livestock distribution drawing cows away from areas historically over-used to keep grazing intensity within acceptable levels that will lead to improved resource conditions (PR #25). The proposed action utilize an adaptive management approach that will be based on climatic conditions, grazing intensity, forage, water availability, and working condition of all current and future range infrastructure (fences and water developments) within the allotment. The livestock management system will be a seasonally deferred system designed to provide growing season rest. Grazing intensity will be kept to a conservative to light utilization level. Livestock dispersion or movement will be accomplished by limited herding and the use of water developments where livestock are drawn to move to other areas of the pasture. All of this is expected to improve vegetative conditions throughout the allotment (PR #25). The effect of past livestock grazing, in combination with fire suppression has resulted in an increase in woody species and a corresponding loss of herbaceous vegetation. These conditions are not likely to change significantly in the absence of fire. Monitoring demonstrates that current management has resulted in degradation in vegetative condition. The proposed action alternative with a combination of adaptive management and light to conservative grazing intensity and seasonally deferred grazing, in North Palomas Allotment Page 37

38 Chapter 3 combination with the other design features, is not expected to result in significant direct or indirect negative effects to vegetation. With an expected improvement in plant cover, the proposed action should provide sufficient fine fuels to support natural fires and return the area to a more natural fire regime (PR #25). Cumulative Effects (Vegetative Condition) See next section Watershed, Ripairan, and Soils for cumulative effects on vegetation. Watershed, Riparian, and Soils Affected Environment (Watershed Riparian and Soils) North Palomas Allotment is located primarily within the Cuchillo-Negro Creek, Palomas Creek, and Wall Lake 5 th Code Watersheds. A very small portion (2 acres) of the allotment is within the Corduroy Canyon 5 th code watershed. Wall Lake and Corduroy Canyon Watersheds are located within the Upper Gila River Basin, while Cuchillo-Negro Creek and Palomas Creek watersheds are located within the Rio Grande Basin. The Gila National Forest manages 31% of the Cuchillo-Negro Creek watershed, 99% of the Wall Lake watershed, 23% of the Palomas Creek watershed, and 80% of the Corduroy Canyon watershed (PR #24). Most of the allotment outside of the Creek and East pastures is in satisfactory condition. However, observations during watershed field reviews of the North Palomas Allotment completed in 2008 revealed bare soils in the lower elevations, in particular adjacent to drainages, near watering sites, and on flat terraces and lowland meadows. Upland watershed conditions appeared to be satisfactory, especially on slopes greater than 35%. Some exceptions were noted, likely due to distribution problems related to available water (PR #24). Assessments of the riparian areas disclosed soil compaction and lack of vegetative ground cover in two of three reaches in the allotment. These two reaches were evaluated to be in unsatisfactory condition (PR #24). The State of New Mexico has identified no water quality concerns within the allotment. State water quality standards would continue to be met with the proposed action on the allotment. There are no designated municipal watersheds in any of the watersheds impacted by the North Palomas Allotment. Public water supply systems near the North Palomas Allotment Page 38

39 Chapter 3 allotment are associated with groundwater wells. This alternative would have no effect on municipal water supplies (PR #24). Environmental Consequences (Watershed, Riparian, and Soils) Effects of No Action or No Grazing Alternative: No direct or indirect effects would occur from livestock, as there would be no permitted grazing on the allotment. This alternative proposes to remove the least amount of vegetation, retain the most litter and provide the least trampling on upland sites. There would be a low risk of exceeding allowable use levels since there would be use only by wildlife and/or recreational livestock. Wildlife grazing would continue and use may increase if competition with livestock is removed, however limited populations of wildlife exist within or adjacent to the allotment. The elimination of stocking would improve watershed and soil conditions across the allotment over the next ten years. This improvement would be a result of reduction in forage removal, increased vegetative ground cover, improved vigor on herbaceous and woody riparian plants, and removal of hoof compaction in areas that currently receive livestock concentration. An increase in infiltration and reduction in soil bulk density (compaction) would be achieved from the above-mentioned improvements to watershed condition. Forage plants in the uplands would retain several years growth as a standing crop of litter. This would provide additional cover to protect soils, and to help to reverse current erosion levels observed on the allotment (PR #24). The No Grazing Alternative would improve riparian conditions in all riparian areas by decreasing the quantity of herbaceous and woody forage consumed by livestock. North Palomas Creek would see an increase in riparian woody recruitment and deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation (sedges), which would aid in stream bank stabilization during high flows. Herbaceous understory within all riparian corridors would increase, as well as stream bank vegetation, and the density and diversity of riparian species. Soil compaction in the bottoms adjacent to stream channels would begin to break up. Existing soil compaction is attributed to historic and current livestock grazing as very little other surface compacting activities occur on the allotment. In similar allotments, removal of livestock, or a change to dormant season grazing has demonstrated upward trends in watershed condition. Wetlands associated with riparian areas, particularly near springs, would improve in function, and stream channel and floodplain integrity would be improved across the allotment. Drought conditions in the Southwest may be a limiting factor for riparian recovery. Wildlife use is still expected to occur at the spring areas (PR #24). In the uplands, herbaceous ground cover and plant vigor would increase, and soil compaction would start to break up, thus allowing for increased water infiltration and a North Palomas Allotment Page 39

40 Chapter 3 reduction in surface runoff. Accelerated erosion levels currently observed on the allotment would decrease, with vegetation becoming reestablished within gullies. Compaction to the soils related to historic grazing activities may take many years to break up due to the dry/hot conditions and lack of freeze thaw action. An increase in herbaceous vegetation and plant vigor would accelerate this break-up by increasing plant roots and rooting depth below the initial surface horizon. Although limited in quantity, microbiotic crusts would improve, helping to increase the available nitrogen, as well as other nutrients in the soil. Reduction of soil compaction and improved soil infiltration would reduce soil movement during runoff events and prevent it from ultimately moving into downstream channels. Reduced soil loss, increased soil infiltration, and improved nutrient cycling would also improve overall soil productivity (PR #24). Key elements addressed in this alternative include an increase in herbaceous ground cover, improvement in woody riparian vegetation, and reduction of soil compaction, whereas the opposite has led to current unsatisfactory watershed, soil and riparian conditions. Implementation of these key elements provides for the highest rate of upward trend, and would result in the best improvement of watershed conditions over the next ten years. This alternative would move riparian, soil, and watershed conditions towards Forest Plan standards over the next decade, recognizing that recovery of degraded watershed conditions to satisfactory conditions is often a slow process (PR #24). Effects of Alternative Two (Proposed Action): Alternative Two would allow for deferment of pastures within each allotment, but no year-long rest would be implemented under this alternative. The Proposed Action closely resembles current management since 2002, with the exception of the riparian enclosures, new drift fences, and proposed new water developments to improve livestock distribution. Stocking since 2002 has been limited to 100 head (see Range Specialist Report) due to resource concerns, in effort to reverse documented long-term downward trends. Field reviews and recent monitoring indicate that current resource conditions in some locations on the allotment are still not meeting or moving towards Forest Plan standards and guidelines, despite lowered stocking levels. In particular, riparian drainage bottoms, adjacent floodplains and associated terraces, and flat and gentle sloping terrain receive the most livestock concentration and the greatest negative resource impacts. There are short-term indications that watershed conditions are improving at two key areas (Cluster 1 and 3). With the additional waters and drift fences proposed under this alternative, livestock distribution is anticipated to improve. Such an improvement is projected to lead to reduced concentration of livestock in areas currently receiving negative impacts from livestock concentration. However, it is imperative that utilization standards and best management practices are adhered to, as North Palomas Allotment Page 40

41 Chapter 3 well as monitoring in areas of unsatisfactory condition to determine if an improvement in livestock distribution has rendered an improvement in riparian and watershed resources. If livestock distribution continues to negatively impact key resources, then other methods would have to be employed to meet Forest Plan standards. Proper stocking levels, improved distribution, and removal of livestock during periods of drought all would play a key role in resource recovery. If the proposed waters are not developed, then watershed and soil conditions are anticipated to remain the same, with areas of concentration near available waters receiving high use and continuing to remain in unsatisfactory condition (PR #24). Some riparian reaches evaluated on the allotment are currently in unsatisfactory condition by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The reaches proposed for exclusion in both Honolulu Creek and North Palomas Creek would be expected to move in an upward trend over the next decade, similar to the No Grazing Alternative. North Palomas Creek Reach 1 would be expected to remain in satisfactory condition (riparian and wetland) under implementation of the Proposed Action. In addition, there would be a 25% utilization rate on herbaceous riparian vegetation, with proposed establishment of new water developments outside of North Fork Palomas Creek to draw cattle away, and one to two drift fences within the drainage bottom. These measures are expected to result in continued Proper Functioning Condition of the riparian area; however monitoring is critical to determine if the riparian herbaceous utilization limit can be translated to a reduction of browse on riparian woody vegetation (amorpha, willow and cottonwood species). If monitoring indicates downward trends, other exclusionary methods may be required to keep riparian resources in satisfactory condition. Wetlands associated with the excluded portions of Honolulu Creek and North Palomas Creek are expected to move towards satisfactory condition similar to the No Grazing Alternative. The riparian area associated with Poverty Spring is currently in unsatisfactory condition with a downward trend. Utilization rates on riparian herbaceous vegetation would be set at 25%, similar to North Fork Palomas Creek. Mitigation measures at Poverty Spring are important for improvement under this alternative. Recommendations at Poverty Spring included moving drinker out of bottom to a higher terrace and fence a portion of the riparian area if relocation of drinker does not aid in improving conditions (PR #24). Monitoring of all riparian areas on the allotment would be critical to determine if riparian and wetland improvement is occurring. This alternative provides some, but not as much, relief from grazing pressure as the No Grazing Alternative. However, the excluded reaches of the Honolulu drainage and North Palomas Creek would see improvements similar to the No Grazing Alternative. Vital to success of this alternative is to ensure that mitigation measures and (BMPs) are adhered North Palomas Allotment Page 41

42 Chapter 3 to and proper stocking levels are observed. These improvements would be at a slower rate than the No Grazing Alternative. Forest Plan standards and guidelines may not be met within a 10-year period due, thus monitoring is critical to determine if a change in management is needed to achieve success in reversing unsatisfactory conditions (PR #24). Cumulative Effects (Watershed, Riparian and Soils) Cumulative Effects for the alternatives will focus on the Palomas Creek 5 th code watershed as the majority of the North Palomas Allotment is located within this basin. Wall Lake, Corduroy Canyon and Cuchillo-Negro Creek watersheds will not be addressed in this portion of the analysis as less than 1% of these basins are impacted by grazing activities on the North Palomas Allotment (PR #24). Other Lands Approximately 23% of the Palomas Creek watershed is on National Forest system lands while the remainder falls on private, state, or other federally owned lands. The majority of these other lands within this watershed are range lands used for grazing (PR #24). Mining The Gila National Forest has had a long history of mining activities that have occurred, or are still occurring, on patented land within the Forest s boundaries. Mining activity in the Palomas Creek watershed occurring within Forest boundaries is limited. A search of the Bureau of Land Management on-line records indicated that there are no active claims occurring on Forest lands within the Palomas Creek watershed ( There are a few active claims occurring low in the watershed near the Rio Grande (RBD claims). There are less than 10 closed claims within the allotment boundary, all related to the past Hermosa mining operation south of the allotment. Closed claims occurring on Forest within Palomas Creek watershed, off the allotment, include the Hermosa, Silver Queen, Elk, Graves, Palomas, Pretty, Calebra, and Wolford claims. Closed claims occurring completely off-forest in the Palomas Creek watershed include the Turtle Dove, Sandy, Jeck, Gold Queen, Graves, Red Hill and Salado claims (PR #24). North Palomas Allotment Page 42

43 Chapter 3 Livestock Grazing Primarily since 1995, grazing by livestock has been analyzed for compliance with Forest Plan standards and other laws. Decisions to balance permitted livestock use with capacity (Gila National Forest Plan p ) have been made and others are planned in compliance with the Chief's schedule and direction. To date, decisions such as these have generally resulted in downward changes in permitted grazing from 33 to 50 % on the Forest, although some decisions have resulted in less of a decrease and a few have resulted in an increase in permitted grazing. Impaired watershed condition is estimated to improve to satisfactory on fully capable range within one to three decades following full implementation of grazing allotment decisions resulting in permitted cattle numbers balancing grazing capacity. Permitted use is currently at, or below, capacity on most of the allotments in the Palomas Creek fifth code watershed. Actual stocking levels have been at less than permitted use numbers on many allotments for various reasons. Examples include administrative action to reduce season of use or numbers for resource benefit or due to drought conditions, and permittee preference to graze lower numbers for economic reasons or to protect the environment. All Gila National Forest grazing decisions to date incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs), which implement Clean Water Act requirements and all upcoming grazing decisions will incorporate them as well. Monitoring of BMP effectiveness and implementation is accomplished as part of grazing permits administration (PR #24 and PR#25). Timber Sales and Fuelwood Harvest There has been very limited timber harvest activity in the Palomas Creek watershed in the past. The watershed is open to down and dead fuelwood harvest. No roads are constructed to accommodate this activity and impacts are minimal. Incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is required on all timber sales and other activities. These address the Forest s responsibilities to implement the Clean Water Act, which is accomplished through implementation and monitoring of BMPs. Monitoring of BMP implementation and effectiveness is generally accomplished as part of any timber sale administration (PR #24 and #28). Recreation and Travelway Use Road density is low on Forest system lands within the Palomas Creek (0.10 mi/mi 2 ) watershed. The watershed is used for many types of forest recreation. Hunting, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and motorized off-highway driving are common North Palomas Allotment Page 43

44 Chapter 3 activities. Many of the roads in the watershed are unimproved roads, lacking adequate maintenance and drainage. These roads may be used during wet weather, which can cause ruts and affect the water drainage on the road. Soil loss and downstream sedimentation is occurring on many of these roads that lack proper drainage features. Presently, the forest is implementing a Travel Management Rule, through which all roads on the forest will be located and analyzed. A decision for this process is planned for completion in Fiscal Year After this process is completed, no off-road vehicle travel will be allowed except for on designated travel routes (PR #24 and #28). Fire During the past thirty years, wildland and prescribed fires of all sizes have burned in the watershed. A majority of these fires have been relatively small in size, however some large fires have burned. Large fires are most likely to have the greatest effect on water flow and watershed condition. There is not complete record of the number of acres that have burned within the Palomas Creek watershed over the last two decades. The Hermosa prescribed burn in 1996 had severe negative impacts to the upper watershed of North Fork Palomas Creek, resulting in loss of large amounts of vegetation and ground cover. Field inspection in 2008 showed that very little vegetation recovery has occurred on some of the most severely burned slopes. Artemesia and New Mexico locust are the dominant species occurring on the severely burned sloped. Full watershed recovery of areas disturbed by high intensity wildfires within the watershed is typically expected within 25 years of the fire. While little vegetation exists on the high intensity burned areas of the Hermosa Burn, North Fork Palomas Creek has remained intact over most of its reaches on Forest. The table below lists the largest fires in the watershed by year, type and name (PR #24). Table 6. Historic Fires in project area. Palomas Creek 5th Code Watershed Fire Name Type Burn Intensity Year Acres Divide Wildland Fire High Hermosa Prescribed Fire High circa-1996 unknown Total Acres of Fire in Watershed unknown North Palomas Allotment Page 44

45 Chapter 3 Current and Future Activities Activities currently occurring in the watersheds are expected to continue. Other ongoing actions include the adjustment of grazing levels over the next 1 to 11 years as a result of grazing permit decisions to align permitted numbers with grazing capacity. Road system analysis could result in reductions in or improvement of poorly located and eroding roads. Some roads could potentially be closed. Other vegetation treatment projects within the watersheds will be identified as a result of the Forest s ongoing efforts to restore fire adapted ecosystems. There has been an increased emphasis on the reduction of fuel loading on the forest to reduce the risk of replacement-type wildfires. Conclusion Currently, the Palomas Creek watershed is experiencing minimal adverse cumulative watershed effects for the areas managed by the Gila National Forest, considering the size of the watershed and the area (23%) managed by the Forest. In this watershed, past activities on Forest include fuelwood harvest, prescribed burns, wildland fires, and road and trail construction. Timber sale activities have been minimal and small, and fuelwood cutting has been dispersed and would continue to be. Mining activities do occur within the watershed, but to a minimal extent. Current activities include road maintenance, hunting/camping, wildlife use, OHV use, water impoundments, and fuelwood harvest. Current road density within the watershed is low, although roads within the allotment boundary may be one of the larger contributors of sediment to the drainage network. Many of the roads interior to the allotment are used for fuelwood harvest, or recreational activities, and lack adequate drainage features. Several of these roads have gullied and rutted because of this. Adjacent allotments would continue to be grazed at levels consistent with Forest Plan direction. Livestock grazing has seen reductions with added measures taken to either exclude riparian areas or implement riparian specific management along streams. Future impacts should be consistent with current impacts. Wildland Fire Use fires, and mechanical thinning, would continue to play a role in this watershed, when possible, in attempts to restore fire-adapted ecosystems (PR #24). No long-term negative effects to soil productivity, riparian resources, water quality or quantity would be expected with implementation of the No Grazing Alternative or the Proposed Action. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in positive cumulative effects for the watershed, as sediment movement downstream would be reduced over time as watershed and riparian conditions improve. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may result in positive cumulative effects for the watershed, although recovery of degraded watershed conditions would be expected to be slower than the No Action Alternative. Upward trends in watershed condition would be required to realize these positive cumulative effects, however considering the size of the Palomas North Palomas Allotment Page 45

46 Chapter 3 Creek watershed and the proportionate size of the North Palomas Allotment, these effects may become diluted and negligible, overall (PR #24). Industries and human presence (recreational use) would continue to affect the airsheds in the analysis area similarly to current conditions and the No Action Alternative, but the effects under the control of the Forest Service would not be significant and would be within New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) standards. Potential wildfires and planned prescribed burns within the North Palomas Allotment area and areas immediately adjacent may have some significant short-term detrimental effects on the airsheds. Individually and cumulatively, the proposed action will not have any measurable effect on air quality (PR #24). Wildlife, Plants, and Fish Threatened and Endangered Species Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.) declares that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. Section 7 directs Federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats (16 U.S.C et sq.). Federal agencies also must consult with the Secretary of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) whenever an action authorized by the agency is likely to affect a species listed as threatened or endangered or to affect its critical habitat. The act mandates conference with the Secretary of the Interior whenever an action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or whenever an action might result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed for listing (16 U.S.C. 1536(a) 4). The following discussion on affected environment is summarized from the Biological Assessment (PR #23). Affected Environment Eight listed and two candidate wildlife, fish, and plant species occur within Sierra County, New Mexico 9. It was determined that only the Mexican spotted owl, Chiricahua leopard frog, and the Mexican gray wolf could be present within the allotment or may be 9 North Palomas Allotment Page 46

47 Chapter 3 affected by either of the action alternatives being proposed. It was determined that either action alternative would have no effect or that other listed or proposed species, or their habitat, does not occur within this allotment. Consistency determinations for the North Palomas Allotment were made using the Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities (PR #6). It was determined that the project may affect but not likely to adversely affect the Chiricahua leopard frog and Mexican spotted owl, and would not likely to jeopardize the Mexican gray wolf (Table 8) (PR #19 and #23). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this determination in a letter received August 11, 2008 (PR #19). Table 8. Summary of Determinations. Name Determination Common Scientific Species Critical Habitat Mexican gray wolf Canis lupus baileyi Not Likely to Jeopardize N/A Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus No Effect No Effect Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis MANLAA N/A Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida MANLAA MANLAA N/A Not Applicable; MANLAA May effect but not likely to adversely affect Mexican Spotted Owl There are 5 known Protected Activity Centers (PACs) within the allotment, however, these PAC s are in terrain that is inaccessible to livestock as the terrain is very steep where the PAC s are located. This was determined on a site visit by the Forest Biologist on April 25, Approximately 3,195 acres of MSO Critical Habitat are present on the allotment that is not located within any PAC s. All critical habitat is located within the wilderness boundary and was surveyed in Approximately 639 acres of critical habitat was burned in the 1989 Divide Wildfire. The proposed action does not include any action that would adversely affect Critical Habitat. New improvements are being proposed within the allotment including fences and water North Palomas Allotment Page 47

48 Chapter 3 sources. Several miles of interior and boundary fence, trick tanks, and dirt stock tanks will be constructed as well as several dirt stock tanks will need to be cleaned out. A breeding season restriction will be implemented so none of these activities will occur during the breeding season within PAC s. An exception to this would be if a cow is sick or injured and needs attention, then management activity could occur as these incidents will likely be infrequent and of little impact (PR #23). In accordance with criteria identified in the document Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities all of the following criteria were met leading to a determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the species (PR #19 and #23). 1. Livestock grazing or livestock management activities will occur with PACs, but no human disturbance or construction actions associated with the livestock grazing will occur in PACs during the breeding season. a. Because of the lack of survey we are considering the protected habitat occupied. New improvements are being proposed within the allotment including fences and water sources. Several miles of interior and boundary fence, and several dirt stock tanks will be cleaned out. A breeding season restriction will be implemented so none of these activities will occur during the breeding season within un-surveyed protected habitat. An exception to this would be if a cow is sick or injured and needs attention, then management activity could occur as these incidents will likely be infrequent and of little impact. 2. Livestock grazing and livestock management activities within PACs in the action area will be managed for levels that provide the woody and herbaceous vegetation necessary for cover for rodent prey species, the residual biomass that will support prescribed natural and ignited fires that would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in the Forest, and regeneration riparian trees. a. Since we are considering the protected habitat occupied, then it is possible that grazing would occur within possible foraging and nest/roost habitat. Grazing will be managed for conservative use levels of percent in uplands, and percent utilization in riparian areas that are not fenced to exclude livestock, which will allow for riparian tree regeneration and maintain sufficient residual biomass to carry prescribed and natural fire 3. In owl foraging areas, forage utilization will be maintained at conservative levels (defined as forage utilization maintained between 30-40% of annual forage production by weight). North Palomas Allotment Page 48

49 Chapter 3 a. Since we are considering the protected habitat occupied, then it is possible that grazing would occur within possible foraging areas. Grazing will be managed to conservative utilization levels of percent in uplands, and percent utilization in riparian areas that are not fenced to exclude livestock. The following assessment led to a determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect for MSO critical habitat (PR # 19 and #23). Approximately 3,195 acres of MSO Critical Habitat are present on the allotment that is not located within any PAC s. All critical habitat is located within the wilderness boundary and was surveyed in Approximately 639 acres of critical habitat was burned in the 1989 Divide Wildfire. The proposed action does not include any action that would adversely affect Critical Habitat. Conservative utilization levels have been established to provide prey species cover, and residual biomass will be maintained to provide opportunities for natural and prescribed ignitions to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Chiricahua Leopard Frog In New Mexico and on the Gila National Forest, Chiricahua leopard frogs are thought to be most abundant in the Gila and San Francisco River drainages, west of the allotment. The allotment is located mostly within the Palomas Creek fifth code watershed. There are no documented historical accounts of Chiricahua leopard froms on the North Palomas Allotment. Chiricahua leopard frogs have been documented in the South Fork Palomas Creek, and North Fork Palomas Creek drains into the South Fork approximately 7 miles downstream of the allotment boundary. The 3 miles of North Fork Palomas Creek leaving the allotment is classified as perennial interrupted and flows only during the monsoons. The lower 4 miles where North Fork Palomas Creek merges with South Fork Palomas Creek is classified as ephemeral. Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently known to occur in five drainages east of the Continental Divide. Las Animas, Seco, Palomas, Monticello and Cuchillo Negro. In South Fork Palomas Creek, the frogs are known from Hermosa and approximately 2.5 miles below Hermosa (PR #23). In accordance with criteria identified in the document Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities all of the following criteria were met leading to a determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (PR # 15 and #23). 1. There will be no livestock use or livestock management activities where the species is reasonably certain to occur or there is occupied aquatic habitat (grazing is allowed in non-occupied suitable habitat). North Palomas Allotment Page 49

50 Chapter 3 2. Indirect effects occurring within the action area, where the frog is reasonably certain to occur, which result from upland livestock grazing are determined to be insignificant or discountable. 3. Proposed livestock management activities, within the action area, will not increase the likelihood that non-native predators or chytrid fungi will colonize or be introduced to such aquatic sites. The potential habitat within the allotment has been surveyed many times with no frogs found. There is no occupied habitat and it is not believed the species is reasonably certain to occur on the allotment (PR #15 and #23). There are sections of North Palomas and Poverty Canyons that contain riparian areas functioning at risk. It is unknown if there is suitable or occupied habitat along North Palomas Creek on private land, but it is unlikely as the stretch of North Palomas Creek from the allotment boundary downstream is classified as perennial interrupted and only having water during the monsoons for 3 miles and ephemeral the next 4 miles to the junction with South Palomas Creek. The distance to known suitable/occupied habitat is approximately 10 miles along a stream course and within a different drainage. North Palomas Creek merges with South Palomas Creek below known suitable/occupied habitat. Still it is unknown if there is any suitable/occupied habitat further down the drainage. Since the distance is over 7 miles to the junction of South Palomas Creek and the lower portion of North Palomas Creek classified as ephemeral, then the downstream effects would be considered insignificant and discountable (PR #15 and #23). Public access will not be increased by the Alternative Two which in turn will not increase the likelihood that non-native predators or chytrid fungi will colonize or be introduced to aquatic sites. Proposed livestock management activities will also not increase the likelihood that non-native predators or chytrid fungi will colonize or be introduced to aquatic sites (PR #15 and #23). Mexican Gray Wolf On January 12, 1998, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service published an Endangered Species Act section 10(j) rule for the Mexican gray wolf that provided for the designation of specific populations of listed species in the United States as experimental populations. The Mexican gray wolf is in the process of being reintroduced on the entire 3.3 million acres of the Gila National Forest in New Mexico and on the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona. These wolves have been designated as a nonessential experimental population, pursuant to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act as amended. North Palomas Allotment Page 50

51 Chapter 3 By definition, a non-essential experimental population is not essential to the continued existence of the species. Therefore, proposed livestock grazing and livestock management activities in the 10(j) area with Mexican gray wolves are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the wolf (PR #4). The Nantac Pack was located north of this allotment in late May and June of The Nantac Pack was lethally removed as a result of a series of depredations on the Black Range allotment (PR #23). Single wolves 863 and 864 were located in the same area in February, Many wolves have been located on adjacent allotments within three miles, close to the boundary of this allotment including: the Campbell Blue Pack (2001), 584 (2003), the Sycamore Pack (2003), 859 (2005), 859 and 924 (2006), and the Aspen Pack (2007) (PR # 14). Since resident wolves, other than re-introduced wolves, are no longer believed to occur in the Southwest, there will be no direct effects to naturally occurring wolves from the proposed action; and the numbers and reproduction of naturally occurring wolves will not be affected (PR #23). The Middle Fork territory home range extends from just northwest of the allotment westward. The project area contains suitable habitat for the translocated Mexican gray wolves, however no wolves have been documented as regularly using the allotment, or having established den or rendezvous sites within the allotment. The Ladder Ranch lies just east of the allotment outside of the forest boundary. There are wolf rearing pens located on the ranch and soft releases have occurred on the allotment just south of the North Palomas allotment. Transient wolves could occasionally travel through the area, but over the last 3 months there have been no radio collared wolves found within the project area. There is also a possibility that uncollared wolves could use the project area (PR #23). As defined in the ESA 10(j) rule for the Mexican gray wolf, disturbance causing land use activity means any land use activity that the USFWS determines could adversely affect reproductive success, natural behavior, or survival of Mexican gray wolves. However, the following activities are specifically excluded from this definition under the ESA 10(j) rule for the wolf (PR #23): 1. Legally permitted livestock grazing and use of water sources by livestock; 2. Livestock trailing or drives (only if no reasonable alternative route or timing exists); 3. Vehicle access over established roads to private property and to areas on public land where legally permitted activities are ongoing (only if no reasonable alternative route exists); North Palomas Allotment Page 51

52 Chapter 3 4. Use of lands within the national park or national wildlife refuge systems as safety buffer zones for military activities; 5. Prescribed fire and associated management actions (except in the vicinity of wolf release pens); and 6. Any authorized, specific, land use that was active and ongoing at the time wolves chose to locate a den or rendezvous site nearby. On the North Palomas Allotment, a determination of not likely to jeopardize has been made for the Mexican gray wolf in compliance with the criteria identified in the document Framework For Streamlining Informal Consultation For Livestock Grazing Activities (USDA Forest Service, March 15, 2005) (PR #6). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this determination in a letter received August 11, 2008 (PR # 19). Even though it has been determined that continuation of current management will not jeopardize the Mexican gray wolf the Forest Service has additional responsibilities for recovery under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery under 7(a)(1): The USDA Forest Service, including the Gila National Forest, is a signatory of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (PR #4) between all government agencies responsible for Mexican gray wolf recovery. The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, including the Gila National Forest, is a key member of the Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC) which articulated standard operating procedures (SOP), including SOP 11 (PR #5) and 13 (PR #2) which deal with the control of wolves and procedure for investigating livestock depredation. The AMOC completed the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review (PR #7) in 2005 as a requirement of the Final Rule to determine whether, and how, to modify the Reintroduction Project. No recommendation was proposed which directed additional on-the-ground management actions to be performed by the Forest Service. Depredations have not occurred within the North Palomas Allotment. If depredations occur, the Black Range Ranger District will follow the recommendations to address conflicts provided in the Framework For Streamlining Informal Consultation For Livestock Grazing Activities (PR #6). The Black Range Ranger District will continue to work with the affected livestock permittee and the Mexican Wolf Field Team to arrive at a solution. Examples of additional actions that may be taken include placing temporary restrictions around a wolf den site, amending Annual Operating Provisions to change pasture rotations to reduce conflicts, rendering livestock carcasses unpalatable, etc. North Palomas Allotment Page 52

53 Chapter 3 Sensitive Wildlife, Plants, and Fish Sensitive species are defined as those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution (FSM (19)). It is the policy of the Forest Service regarding sensitive species to: (1) assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species; (2) as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species; (3) avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern; (4) if impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole (the line officer, with project approval authority, makes the decision to allow or disallow impacts, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing); and (5) establish management objectives in cooperation with the state when projects on National Forest System lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distributions. Establish objectives for Federal candidate species, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state of Arizona (FSM ). Affected Environment The North Palomas Allotment was evaluated to determine which USFS R3 Sensitive Species (mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, insects, snails, and plants) or suitable habitat may be present in or adjacent to the project area. It was determined that five animal, insect, or plant species either has habitat or is suspected of occurring or it is unknown but there may be habitat present (Table 9). All other sensitive species listed within Region 3 Sensitive Species List either clearly do not occur or that either action alternative will have no impact on the species (PR #23). Table 9. Sensitive Animal, Insect, or Plant Species that May Occur or have Habitat within North Palomas Allotment. Species Scientific Name Determination of Affect (Alternatives 2 and 3) Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus microscaphus May Impact Individuals but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability. North Palomas Allotment Page 53

54 Chapter 3 Species Scientific Name Determination of Affect (Alternatives 2 and 3) Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis May Impact Individuals but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability. Gray vireo Vireo vicinior May Impact Individuals but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability. Botta s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae May Impact Individuals but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability. Wright s dogweed Adenophyllum wrightii var. wrightii May Impact Individuals but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability. The determination for all species that may be possibly affected is that the Alternative Two may impact individuals, but will not cause a trend toward federal listing or affect the viability of any of the species. This determinations are based on the design of both action alternatives that limits utilization (from both wildlife and livestock) to conservative use (31 to 40 % or less) in the upland and 21 to 30 percent in riparian bottoms, creation of additional waters to gain better distribution, a deferred rotation grazing system to provide growing season rest, and adaptive management that will change livestock management if objectives are not met to restore and maintain vegetative and watershed conditions (see Alternatives Considered, Chapter 2) (PR #23). Cumulative Effects (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species): Cumulative effects include the incremental effects of actions likely to occur in the same area or in adjacent areas in the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future. The following is an analysis of potential cumulative effects (PR #23). The past, present and future activities each affect species and their habitats in different ways. Some activities are beneficial to certain species while others may be detrimental. The removal of overstory trees through timber sales, wildfire or hazard-tree removal, some vegetation treatments and the removal of fuelwood may reduce the amount of nesting and roosting habitat for some species while at the same time providing better foraging habitat through the opening of the overstory which encourages herbaceous understory growth. These activities may also increase habitat suitability for ground nesting birds or other species that require a greater amount of edge or open habitat. North Palomas Allotment Page 54

55 Chapter 3 Water developments may impact habitat during construction, but they increase the acreage of habitat close to water thereby increasing its suitability for various species overall. To the extent that these activities have occurred and will likely continue into the future, wildlife, plant and animal species and their habitats will continue to be impacted. The impacts created through livestock grazing and the adaptive management described for the alternatives analyzed here, when added to these other past, present and future activities do not together accumulate to levels that are considered to be significant for the wildlife, fish or rare plant resources (PR #23). Management Indicator Species (MIS) Twenty-six Management Indicator Species (MIS) were designated in the 1986 Land and Management Plan for the Gila National Forest. MIS were selected based on what was thought to be their ability to indicate changes in habitat and/or ecosystems that are related to land management activities (e.g., grazing, fire management, roads, water developments, etc.). The 1986 MIS list was amended to reflect current research on indicator species and current management emphases. The current MIS list now consists of 10 species representing nine habitat and/or vegetation types (PR # 3). MIS are addressed in order to implement National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations. They are selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities (36 CFR (a)(1). The MIS approach is designed to function as a means to provide insight into effects of forest management on plant and animal communities. Species are selected to represent several categories, such as commonly hunted or fished species, non-game, and threatened and endangered species (TES). They may be used as a tool for assessing changes in specialized habitats, formulating habitat objectives, and establishing standards and guidelines to provide for a diversity of wildlife, fish, and plant habitats. Population trend is most appropriately addressed at scales above the project level. Many of the selected Management Indicator Species occur and range far beyond a local scale such as a project analysis area. Individuals, family groups, or herds such as elk, annually use areas much larger than the project level and population trend must be examined on a much larger scale to be meaningful. For NFMA implementation, the appropriate scale is that of the Gila National Forest (see Forest Wide MIS report, PR #3). Evidence from long-term censuses suggests that few natural populations or communities persist at or near equilibrium on a local scale. At a site-specific project level, there is a great deal of fluctuation in wide ranging populations. For most species, it would be technically and practically inappropriate to conduct population trend sampling at the scale of individual projects. North Palomas Allotment Page 55

56 Chapter 3 Project Level Analysis: Out of 10 forest-wide Management Indicator Species only four occurred or had habitat within the North Palomas Allotment: mule deer, northern goshawk, Mexican spotted owl, and Mearn s quail (Table 10). Due to the relatively small scale of the proposed project in relation to the overall size of the Forest meaningful population level trends for the identified species cannot be determined. These four species were selected and analyzed within the context of a forest wide analysis which documents status and population trends (PRs, #3 and #23). Table 10. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Selection Matrix. NORTH PALOMAS ALLOTMENT MIS SELECTION MATRIX Management Indicator Species Vegetation Type Species is Indicator For Selected for Analysis YES NO Rational for Selection or Elimination of MIS for analysis Mule Deer Desert Shrub Piñon- Juniper/Shrub Oakland X Species and habitat present on allotment. Mearn s Quail Plains/Mountain Grassland X Species and habitat present on allotment. Plain Titmouse Piñon-Juniper/Shrub Oakland/Cavity Trees X Grazing or associated activities will not impact cavity trees. Northern Goshawk Mexican Spotted Owl Ponderosa Pine X See threatened, endangered, and sensitive species section. Mixed Conifer X See threatened, endangered, and sensitive species section. Hairy Woodpecker Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Snag Component X Grazing or associated activities will not impact snag component. Black Hawk Low/Mid Elevation Riparian X No low to mid elevation (< 6,300 feet) riparian present on allotment. Beaver Low to High Elevation Riparian X Not present on allotment. Native Trout High Elevation Riparian X No fish present on allotment. Long-Tailed Vole Wet Meadow/Wetland X No wet meadow or wetland habitat present on the allotment. North Palomas Allotment Page 56

57 Chapter 3 Mule Deer Mule deer are an indicator of desert shrub and pinyon-juniper/shrub oak woodland types. Grazing managed to the light to conservative use levels have been established for both action alternatives to move rangeland conditions toward desired future conditions. The adaptive management proposed for this allotment will have a large emphasis on utilization monitoring which will identify when action is needed to ensure the conservative use levels are not exceeded. This will ensure overgrazing doesn t occur which tends to shift domestic livestock grazing from grasses to browse species that mule deer are more dependent upon, particularly in winter (PR #23). Grazing managed to the light to conservative use levels have been established to move rangeland conditions toward desired future conditions. The adaptive management proposed for this allotment will have a large emphasis on utilization monitoring which will identify when action is needed to ensure the conservative use levels are not exceeded. This will ensure overgrazing doesn t occur which tends to shift domestic livestock grazing from grasses to browse species that mule deer are more dependent upon, particularly in winter (PR #23). Construction and maintenance of all water improvements on the allotment will also be beneficial for mule deer by providing reliable water sources across the allotment. This will spread out deer herds and make more habitat available that would not be otherwise available due to lack of water. All of these factors combined should maintain to increase the quantity and quality of habitat for mule deer (PR #23). Cumulative effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment have the potential to decrease the quality and quantity of browse plant species by out-competing the browse plants and reduce the forage to cover ratio. There are no vegetation improvement projects planned within the suitable habitat associated with the allotment NEPA. However, there are habitat maintenance and enhancement projects associated with other programs (i.e. fuels) that will minimize or reduce the effects of pinyon-juniper encroachment within the allotment (PR #23). Since management is going to be more proactive and dependent on monitoring, then it is my determination that this alternative would maintain or increase the quantity and quality of suitable habitat within the allotment, district, and forest-wide over time for this species. The forest population is currently in a long-term downward trend likely due to drought and inferior habitat, but has the potential to increase with increased quantity and quality of suitable habitat (PR #23). North Palomas Allotment Page 57

58 Chapter 3 Mearn s Quail The habitat component analyzed for Mearn s quail is moderate to high seral stage woodlands and high seral stage grassland habitat. Grazing managed to the light to conservative use levels have been established for both action alternatives to move rangeland conditions toward desired future conditions. The adaptive management proposed for this allotment will have a large emphasis on utilization monitoring which will identify when action is needed to ensure the conservative use levels are not exceeded. This will ensure overgrazing doesn t occur (PR #23). Grazing managed to the light to conservative use levels have been established to move rangeland conditions toward desired future conditions. The adaptive management proposed for this allotment will have a large emphasis on utilization monitoring which will identify when action is needed to ensure the conservative use levels are not exceeded (PR #23). The effect of the implementation of the proposed action on the amount of mid- to highseral pinyon/juniper would be minimal. There would be continued re-establishment of pinyon-juniper on the allotment. There is the potential for some gains of habitat due to succession, as some low-seral woodland succeeds to mid-seral. However, due to the slow succession of pinyon/juniper it is unlikely that there would be a measurable change in the proportions of seral stages during the next 10 years. There would be no change in the amount of mid- to high-seral pinyon/juniper woodland on the allotment as a result of the proposed action; therefore, there would be no change in the amount of Mearn s quail habitat (PR #23). Proper grazing (where 50% or less of the current annual growth is taken) does not appear to be detrimental (Dixon and Knight, 1993). The proposed action calls for conservative utilization levels (31-40%) which will provide suitable habitat conditions for quail (PR #23). Since management is going to be more proactive and dependent on monitoring, then it is my determination that this alternative would maintain or increase the quantity and quality of suitable habitat within the allotment, district, and forest-wide over time for this species. The forest population is expected to remain stable, but has the potential to increase with increased quantity and quality of suitable habitat (PR #23). Northern Goshawk There are no known Post-Fledgling Family Areas (PFAs) or nests within the North Palomas Allotment. Grazing will continue to occur within suitable and potential nest/roost and foraging habitat of the allotment. Grazing could affect foraging habitat North Palomas Allotment Page 58

59 Chapter 3 structure and composition of prey cover, as well as the availability and diversity of prey in certain areas of the allotment. However, managing to conservative use levels will ensure that foraging habitat structure and composition of prey cover are maintained. As goshawks are known to make use of a variety of foraging habitats, the impacts to foraging habitat resulting from the proposed action are not expected to result in foraging habitat becoming a limiting factor for this species (PR #23). No impacts on the forest canopy would result from grazing, new improvement construction, or existing improvement maintenance. New improvements are being proposed within the allotment including fences and water sources. Several miles of interior and boundary fence as well as riparian area enclosures, several dirt stock tanks will be cleaned out, and springs developments constructed. Existing nesting habitat would not be affected which is the primary limiting factor for this species. Maintenance of existing improvements would consist of ensuring fences, dirt tanks, pipelines and troughs are operational. Since there are no known PFA s but it s unknown if all suitable habitat has been surveyed, then there may be an impact to reproduction with construction and/or maintenance activities occurring during the breeding season. The construction and maintenance activities are short-term activities and would not continue over long periods of time. They would not put the goshawk on a trend toward listing (PR #23). Foraging and nest/roost habitat would not be reduced, but reproduction may be disturbed by range improvement maintenance or new construction. Foraging opportunities within some areas of the allotment may be reduced, but this will be minimized by managing for conservative use levels (PR #23). Mexican Spotted Owl In accordance with criteria identified in the document Framework for Streamlining Informal Consultation for Livestock Grazing Activities (PR #6) all of the following criteria were met leading to a determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (See discussion under Wildlife, Plants, and Fish-Threatened and Endangered Section, pg 44). Migratory Bird Species No significant effects will occur to migratory birds because the action alternatives will not substantially alter existing habitat for migratory bird species of concern. The grazing of grasses has the potential to impact some migratory birds but this activity has actually North Palomas Allotment Page 59

60 Chapter 3 been shown to be beneficial to some species of birds. There will likely be some disturbance to some species associated with management activities as a result of the action alternatives. Disturbances to or loss of birds or nests due to livestock presence, such as through trampling or dislodging of a nest, or from other activities resulting in unintentional take are expected to be infrequent and will not rise to a level that affects the total population size for any species (PR #23). Social and Economic Concerns Ranchers contribute to the social structure of communities around the allotments by providing some direct and indirect job s for residents of those communities, revenues for county, city, and Federal governments, and the lifestyle associated with ranching for their family, their employees and other people associated with ranching. The number of people involved in ranching today in Sierra County is very low compared to the rest of the population. Domestic livestock grazing contributes to the livelihood of permittees as well as to the economies of local communities and counties. A total of 100 cattle, cow/calf pairs are authorized on the North Palomas Allotment and the economic effect on the local economy are small. The permittee directly contribute revenues to Sierra County through property taxes on private land. Investment Analysis The Quick-Silver Investment Analysis Model was used to compare the economic performance (costs and benefits) for the various alternatives. The investment analysis anticipates the rate of return for projected expenditures by the permittee and Forest Service. Measurements used to conduct an investment analysis include: present value of benefits, present value of costs, present net value and the benefit/cost ration. The investment analysis is available in the administrative record for this project (PR # 36). Present value of benefits represents the present value of grazing on the North Palomas Allotment area over the next 10 years (permittee), along with the present value of the grazing fees over the next 10 years (Forest Service). Present value of costs represents the present value of maintenance and range improvements (permittee), the present value of the costs of range inspections, permit administration, monitoring (Forest Service). Present net value represents value of benefits minus present value of costs. The benefit/cost ratio represents the present value of benefits divided by the present value of costs. It is important to recognize that although projections from the Quick-Silver model are very precise in measurement, there are a variety of assumptions under which these calculations are performed, thus they serve best as an indicator of change rather than a North Palomas Allotment Page 60

61 Chapter 3 precise measurement. Additionally, identifying some of these effects is difficult, it not impossible, as economic effects tend to deal with very personal issues. The economic analysis compares the costs and benefits of no grazing to an action alternative that continues current stocking with adaptive management to protect soil and watershed conditions. Quantifiable factors such as economic costs and outputs, along with 1,224 projected head months (HMs) and 1,613 animal unit months (AUMs) have been used to help describe the economic effects of grazing on the North Palomas Allotment area. The value to the Forest Service for grazing one head of livestock for a month (HM) is $1.35 (2010) and the value to the permittee of one months of forage (AUM) is $ Economic Concerns Local and Federal Economy If there is no grazing, Sierra County and the Forest Service will lose revenues from grazing fees and taxes. It is estimated that for every 100 head of cattle there will be approximately 1.14 jobs within the County. Not continuing with 100 head there will be a loss of 1.14 jobs. Continuing with the current stocking there will be no change in jobs within the Sierra County (PR # 36). Benefits for the Forest Service are estimated by taking the head months (HMs) grazed and multiplying by the grazing fee received for each HM. This was $1.35 per HM in For the Proposed Action alternative, grazing fees total $1,659. Because the proposed action puts 36 head of cattle in nonuse status, $ would not be collected. There are no grazing fees received by the Forest Service under the no action alternative. Gross revenue estimates for the Permittee are created by estimating the number of animal unit months (AUMs) produced under each alternative and multiplying by the value of each AUM. Under the no grazing alternative, the permittee would have to pay approximately $11.00 per AUM on private leased land in New Mexico in 2008 or $24,013. For the Proposed Action alternative, the estimated gross revenue (savings) for the permittee for AUMS on the National Forest would be $17,743 for 100 head of cattle and 2 horses for one year (Because the proposed action alternative places 36 head of 10 National Agricultural Statistics Service "Grazing Fee Rates for Cattle by Selected States andregions" (table). Page in AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. Washington, DC. (July 2008). ( North Palomas Allotment Page 61

62 Chapter 3 cattle in nonuse, the permittee would have to pay approximately $6,270 to place cattle on private land). Social Concerns Effects of the No Action or No Grazing Alternative: The No Grazing Alternative will eliminate a source of income and possibly a way of life for the North Palomas Allotment permittee. This may cause conflicts within the permittee s family and the local community. Planned livestock grazing will not be used to meet the overall biological, social, and economic objectives (PR #36). Effects of Alternative Two: Continuing with current authorized stocking levels should not affect the economic and social objectives and the economic feasibility of the North Palomas Allotment s permittee. However, the additional 36 head of cattle that are placed in nonuse may result in lost revenue to the permittee. Vegetation, riparian, and soil/watershed restoration is key to meeting the overall biological, social, and economic objectives. Project design of a planned livestock grazing system with adaptive management is one of the ways to meet these objectives. The number of livestock authorized through the permit will not change however the actual numbers will be lower until there is an upward trend in resource conditions and may vary from year to year based on climatic conditions and the need to restore impaired and/or unsatisfactory soil conditions (PR #36). This alternative will maintain a viable ranch operation, thereby maintaining the incomes of the permittees and any employees. As long as the ranches continue to operate the permittees and any employees will help perpetuate the customs, traditions, and lifestyle long associated with cattle grazing. This, in turn, will contribute rural sense of the community in Sierra County, New Mexico (PR #36). Other Environmental Justice Environmental Justice On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This executive order was designed to focus the attention of Federal agencies on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and lowincome communities. It requires Federal agencies to adopt strategies to address environmental justice concerns within the context of existing laws, including NEPA. The goal of environmental justice analysis is not to shift risks among populations, but to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse effects, and to identify alternatives that may mitigate these impacts. There were few effects expected to occur to minority North Palomas Allotment Page 62

63 Chapter 3 populations and low-income populations from any of the alternatives. The no grazing alternative is expected to negatively affect the ranchers and local economy that depends on the rancher s expenditures for economic survival. This includes employees of the ranches, as well as providers of goods and services that ranchers use on a regular basis. Recreation There is approximately 5,078 acres of the Aldo Leapold Wilderness within the allotment. Recreation opportunities are very limited due to the limited motorized access. It appears that the allotment receives little use during the hunting season because of the remoteness from the closest public motorized access (PR #28). A majority of the allotment is in a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) of Primitive Non-motorized or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and a smaller portion in Roaded Natural. Historically, because of non-use, the remoteness of this area and no new road construction proposed in any alternative, it is anticipated that there is no effect from grazing activities on the ROS within the allotment. The amount of distress expressed by recreation users appears to dramatically increase as the utilization levels increase far in excess of any alternative identified. There have been no documented conflicts with grazing and recreational use in this area in the recent past. None of the proposed alternatives are considering excessive utilization, so little to no conflict with recreation users is anticipated by this proposal (PR #28). There are approximately 8,747 acres of Roadless Area within the allotment. Existing roads are primarily used for administrative and allotment management purposes. Since no alternative proposes the construction of any new roads, no effect to the Roadless Area resource will occur (PR #28). There are approximately 7.80 miles of designated trails within the allotment. (There is approximately 6.40 miles on FT 105, 1.40 miles on FT 74 (Continental Divide National Scenic Trail)). Based on past experience, cattle grazing have had little effect on well constructed trails. Also, past experience indicates that the grazing permittee contributes to trail maintenance in proportion to use. Only a small proportion of total Black Range trails exist within the allotment. FT 48, 105 and 74 receive very little use except during hunting seasons and have received minimal maintenance over the last five years. The majority of FT 74 (CDNST) within the allotment crosses back and forth along the west portion of the allotment. Past experience along the Divide Trail has not identified any major concerns or issues relating to cattle grazing (PR #28).. In summary, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated under any alternative to the ROS classes, dispersed camping, Roadless Areas, trails, or wilderness within the North Palomas Allotment Page 63

64 Chapter 3 allotment. No indirect, direct or cumulative effects are anticipated for any proposed alternative (PR #28). Lands and Minerals Resources There has been no land exchanges, including easements purchased in this area in the recent past. There are no lands activities, including land exchanges, easements, or rightsof-way cases open in this area or planned for the foreseeable future. There have been no gravel excavation pits within the allotment. There are no other known recent past, present, or foreseeable future mining or mineral operations in this area. Historically, grazing activities have no effect on the Lands and Minerals resource. Because of the lack of lands or mineral activities in this area and no projects in the foreseeable future, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the lands or minerals resources are anticipated under any of the proposed alternatives. (PR #28). Water Quality The potential adverse effects from livestock grazing and most other forest management activities are non-point sources, as opposed to point sources of water pollution. To ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act, water quality standards are set by the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. New Mexico s Surface Water Quality Standards define water quality goals by designating uses for waterbodies, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to perserve water quality. These water quality standards are examined for changes on a 3-year rotating basis. The current standards (2002) are documented in "Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Streams." Under Section 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to develop a list of waters within a state that are not in compliance with water quality standards and to establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each pollutant. Reaches of streams that are in some state of non-attainment are documented in " Integrated 303d)/305(b) List of Impaired Waters (State of NM, 2007) (PR #24). Several water bodies have been assessed for overall water quality in the Cuchillo-Negro Creek, Wall Lake, Palomas Creek, and Corduroy Canyon fifth code watersheds. No stream reaches are currently listed as being in non-attainment of state water quality standards within the North Palomas Allotment (PR #24). Air Quality Air quality across the Gila National Forest is currently impacted by emission generating smelters established south, southwest and west of the Allotment, which are the directions from which the winds blow during most of the year. These smelters are large sources of North Palomas Allotment Page 64

65 Chapter 3 sulfur dioxide and particulates. In addition to the smelters, several coal-fired power plants are located in the same upwind areas. These power plants emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. Four very large power plants are situated north and north-northwest of the project area, including the Cholla Plant (Joseph City, AZ), the Four Corners Plant, the San Juan Plant (Farmington, NM), and the Navajo Plant (Page, AZ). These four power plants may affect air quality during periods in which winds are from those directions, primarily during the winter season. Currently, the Air Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department has not designated any airsheds in or around the Gila National Forest as being in non-attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (PR #24).. The Gila Wilderness Area Class I Airshed is certified for visibility impairment due to regional haze. The North Palomas Allotment is approximately 16 miles northeast of the Gila Wilderness (PR #24).. Localized conditions that may affect air quality on the allotment include smoke generated from fire, including burns related to wildland fire, wildland fire use fires, and prescribed burns. This smoke would be intermittent, transient, and having different source locations every year. Some fires may generate large volumes of smoke for a brief period of time (PR #24). Impacts to air quality because of implementing the proposed action would be negligible. Any dust generated by livestock activities is expected to stay within the analysis area, as fugitive dust settles out relatively quickly. The project area is not within a recognized area of non-attainment for Particulate Matter-10, Carbon Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Ozone or Total Suspended Particulates, therefore, no analysis is necessary or provided to determine conformity with the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality (PR #24). Heritage Resources In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the effects of continuing current management and the proposed action were evaluated and after consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); a determination of No Adverse Effect was made, with concurrence from SHPO (PR #32). In addition, a scoping letters were mailed to state, federal, tribal governments, nongovernment organizations, and individuals (PR # 16 and #30). No issues regarding archaeological sites or historic properties or areas were identified as a result. Because this project will have No Adverse Effect on cultural resources and no issues were identified regarding Archaeological sites or historic properties or areas, there is no extraordinary circumstance with regard to this resource. North Palomas Allotment Page 65

66 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination Persons and Agencies Consulted The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping correspondence took place August 2008, addressing the North Palomas Allotment EA Project. The NEPA scoping mailout included affected permittee, county, state and federal government offices, interested public and tribal representatives. The current NEPA mailing list is filed in the project record (PR #17, #30, #38). List of Preparers The Interdisciplinary (ID) Team for the North Palomas Allotment EA Project is as follows: RESOURCE NAME TITLE Range Kameron Sam Range Staff Archaeology Chris Adams Archeologist Fire Management Dennis Fahl Fire Management Officer Hydrology Carolyn Koury SO, Hydrologist Soils Mike Natharius SO, Soil Scientist Wildlife Rene Guaderrama Wildlife Staff Range Shannon Shane Range Technician Recreation Les Dufour Recreation Staff NEPA Debby Hyde-Sato SO, NEPA Specialist Range Annette Joseph SO, Range Specialist FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: US Fish and Wildlife Service New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office North Palomas Allotment Page 66

67 Literature Cited Literature Cited The sources reviewed and referenced in association with the North Palomas EA Project are as follows: Allen, D. R. and C. B. Marlow ; Effects of cattle grazing on shoot population dynamics of beaked sedge. Pages In: Clary, W. P., E. D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C. L. Wambolt. (Eds.). Proceedings-Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-289. Allison, CD, TT Baker, JC Boren, BD Wright, and A Fernald. date unknown. Monitoring rangelands in New Mexico: range, riparian, erosion, water quality, and wildlife. RITF, Report #53. BISON-M. Biota Information System of New Mexico. BISON-M home page. Accessed September 24, Blankenship, Jim Air Quality Related Values, Sensitive Receptors, and Levels of Acceptable Change for the Gila Wilderness. Earth Resource Consultants. Tucson, Arizona. Prepared for the Gila National Forest. Blankenship, Jim Existing and Potential Sources of Change Which May Affect Air Quality in the Gila Wilderness. Earth Resources Consultants. Tucson, Arizona. Prepared for the Gila National Forest. Blankenship, Jim Issues and Concerns Regarding the Identification and Protection of Air Quality Related Values of the Gila Wilderness. Earth Resource Consultants. Tucson, Arizona. Prepared for the Gila National Forest. Clary, Warren P. and Bert F. Webster Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-263, 11 pp. North Palomas Allotment Page 67

68 Literature Cited Dechant, J. A., D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Wilson's Phalarope. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version 12DEC2003). Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Ferruginous Hawk. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version 12DEC2003). Dixon, C. and J. Knight Mearn s Quail in New Mexico. College of Agriculture and Home Economics New Mexico State University. Herrick JE, JW Van Zee, KM Havstad, LM Burkett, and WG Whitford Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems, Vol II Design, supplementary methods and interpretation. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. Holecheck, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt Grazing studies: what we ve learned. Rangelands 21(2), 5 pg. Holechek J.L., R.D. Peiper, and C.H. Herbel Range Management Principles and Practices. 2nd ed. Holechek, J. L., Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbal Range Management Principles and Practices. 5th ed. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey p. 278 Holechek, J. and D. Galt Grazing intensity guidelines. Rangelands 22 (3): North Palomas Allotment Page 68

69 Literature Cited Holechek, J. and D. Galt More on stubble height guidelines. Rangelands 26 (4):3-7. Howery, Larry D., Sprinkle, James E., and Bowns, James F A Summary of Livestock Grazing Systems Used on Western Rangelands in the Western United States and Canada. The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Report # AZ1184. Hull, S. D Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Eastern Meadowlark. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version12DEC2003). Johnson, Douglas H., Lawrence D. Igl, and Jill A. Dechant Shaffer (Series Coordinators) Effects of management practices on grassland birds. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Version 12AUG2004). Johnson, W. M Rotation, rest-rotation and season-long grazing on a mountain range in Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper. RM-14. Martin, S. C., and K. E. Severson Vegetation response to the Santa Rita grazing system. Journal of Range Management. 41: Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region and the State of New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2002 North Palomas Allotment Page 69

70 Literature Cited NatureServe Accessed nature serve web-site on September 24, us New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior) recovery plan. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Conservation Services Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 30 p. New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council New Mexico Rare Plants. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Rare Plants Home Page. (latest update: 14 August 2008). RAMTG (1997): Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Region State of New Mexico Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Streams. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico. State of New Mexico State of New Mexico Clean Water Act 303(d)/ 305(b) Integrated Report, Appendix A, List of Assessed Waters. New Mexico Environment Department. Surface Water Quality Bureau, Santa Fe, New Mexico State of New Mexico Water Quality and Water Pollution Control in New Mexico A State Report Required By the U.S. Congress under 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico. North Palomas Allotment Page 70

71 Literature Cited Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis Version , USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD United States Department of Agriculture Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation System (RASES). Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. United States Department of Interior. Bureau of Land Management Riparian Area Management; Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. Tech. Ref pp. United States Department of Agriculture Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. United States Department of Agriculture, Southwestern Region Forest Service Manual 2500 Watershed and Air Management, R-3 Supplement , effective 1/31/91. Chapter 2520 Watershed Protection and Management, page 2 of 8 United States Department of Agriculture Allotment Analysis Handbook, Forest Service Handbook Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico United States Department of Agriculture Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Handbook. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. United States Department of Agriculture Gila National Forest Plan, as amended. Forest Service, Gila National Forest, Silver City, New Mexico. North Palomas Allotment Page 71

72 Literature Cited USDA Forest Service. October R3 Regional Forester Sensitive Species List. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-263, 11 pp. Best pasture is the pasture with the most favorable combination of water and forage that will provide for sustained use of pasture by scheduled numbers and time and allow proper distribution of livestock use (Holechek JL, RD Peiper, and CH Herbel Range Management Principles and Practices. 2 nd Ed) USDI USFWS species currently listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, and species of concern by the USFWS, downloaded on 7/30/2008 from their web-site & Catron Western Regional Climate Center. Chloride Ranger Station Site # , Chloride, New Mexico. Weather data is collected by volunteers participating in the Cooperative Observer Program of the National Weather Service. North Palomas Allotment Page 72

73 Appendix Appendix RESPONSE TO COMMENTS: MAPS: o Map 1: North Palomas EA Project_Allotment & Pastures North Palomas Allotment o Map 2: North Palomas EA Project_Proposed Range Improvements North Palomas Allotment o Comparison of Effects for the No Action Alternative with the Proposed Action. GLOSSARY OF TERMS North Palomas Allotment Page 73

74 Appendix Response to Comments on Draft EA: Two legal notices for the North Palomas Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) were published in the Truth or Consequences, NM Herald. The first notice was published on August 5, 2009 and the second on February 24, These notices initiated a 30 day comment period during which comments on the Draft EA were accepted from the public. During the two periods, 9 mailed or ed submissions were received from an interested environmental organization and individual. Table 1 lists the number of assigned to each submission, the name and organization, if appropriate, of each commenter, and each commenter s city and state. Table 1. Respondents to the North Palomas Draft EA Letter # Legal Notice Name Organization City, State 1 August, 2009 Suzanne Freeman Ingram, TX 2 August 2009 Eric Ryberg Western Watersheds Project Tucson, AZ 3 February 2010 Suzanne Freeman Ingram, TX 4 February 2010 Wally Murphy United States Fish and Wildlife Service 5 February 2010 Georgia Cleverly New Mexico Environment Department Albuquerque, NM Santa Fe, NM 6 February 2010 Larry Mclaud Silver City, NM 7 February 2010 Brian Bird Wild Earth Guardians 8 February 2010 Merry Jo Fahl Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District 9 February 2010 Eric Ryberg Western Watersheds Project Santa Fe, NM Truth or Consequences, NM Tucson, AZ Determination of Substantive Comments on Draft EIS Recent revisions to Forest Service regulations regarding the administrative appeals process affect the definition and practical significance of the term substantive as it applies to comments on a draft NEPA document (36 CFR 215, Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 107, June 4, 2003). Substantive comments provide useful information on public North Palomas Allotment Page 74

75 Appendix issues and concerns that can enhance project planning and analysis. To be considered substantive, comments must be within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, directly related to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the decision makers to consider. The decision makers read all comments, written and oral, submitted during the comment period and determined which were substantive. Each submission was recorded upon receipt. Following the comment period, individual comments were extracted from each submission, entered into a spreadsheet, categorized according to the issue addressed, and screened to determine whether or not they were substantive. Non-substantive comments were identified as such and not carried further into this process. Substantive comments were summarized and carried forward into this Response to Comments document. All submissions, with or without substantive comments, will be reviewed by the decision maker. The individual submissions and the spreadsheet breakdown of full comments by category are included in the project record (PR # 35 and #38). RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Issue 1: Resource Livestock denude landscapes, trample and foul riparian areas, compact and erode soils, and compete with wildlife (including threatened or endangered species) for habitat (Submission 1). Response: Thank you for your comment. It will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Also you do not reveal much of anything about wildlife and riparian condition or the effects of your plan on them (Submission 2). Response: A summary of riparian condition is included in Chapter One of the preliminary Environmental Assessment. In addition, grazing effects on riparian and wildlife resources is summarized in a table in Chapter 4. We offer the following recommendations to reduce potential effects to wildlife from implementation of the alternatives (Submission 4). Apply ecosystem management to preserve, maintain, or restore native biodiversity and ecological integrity of natural biotic communities in large areas to avoid fragmentation. North Palomas Allotment Page 75

76 Appendix Protect migratory bird resources in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Conserve all species in the action area listed by the State of New Mexico as threatened or endangered in accordance with state law and Forest Service regulations and guidance. Continue managing developed and natural water sources for wildlife to support viable wildlife populations and to minimize conflict with Forest Service-related activities. Response: Thank you for the recommendations, the decision maker will review this information and provide for the appropriate grazing management of the allotment. General Recommendations for Threatened and Endangered Species (Submission 4): Document the distribution of federally listed and candidate species in the action area and monitor their status and population trends. Conserve all federally listed and candidate species and their habitats in the action area in accordance with federal law and Forest Service regulations and guidance. Consult or conference with the Service on any Federal actions (funded, permitted, or authorized) that may affect federally listed species or species proposed for listing or their designated or proposed critical habitat. Complete any Endangered Species Act section 7 consultations for any listed and candidate species or critical habitat affected by the proposed action in the action area. Response: Thank you for the recommendations, the decision maker will review this information and provide for the appropriate grazing management of the allotment. Recommendations for Northern Goshawk If proposed construction of fencing, stock ponds, trick tank, pipelines and trough developments occurs within potential or suitable habitat or near a goshawk nest, those activities could create noise with the potential for disturbance of northern goshawk. The Service recommends (Submission 4): Minimizing impacts to the northern goshawk by conducting all construction activities (fences, ponds, pipelines, tanks, etc.) planned within suitable habitat during October 1 through February 28th, to avoid goshawk disturbance during their breeding season. Survey for potential or suitable goshawk habitat in areas affected by the proposed action during the wet periods from May 1 through June 30. Identification of suitable habitat could help reduce the potential for direct impacts to individuals or their nests during the breeding season. If completed presence/absence surveys North Palomas Allotment Page 76

77 Appendix (in May/June) were negative for their response, then construction at that site could proceed with no seasonal restrictions. Response: Thank you for the recommendations, the decision maker will review this information and provide for the appropriate grazing management of the allotment. Recommendations for Arizona Toad (Submission 4): Maintain and enhance existing Arizona toad habitat. The existing Arizona toad habitat could be used for future recovery actions or introduction of Arizona toads into the area. Surveys for Arizona toad where suitable habitat exists within the project area prior to any planned project construction activities. Suitable habitat is usually associated with ponds, rocky streams, irrigation ditches, or areas of shallow water flowing over sandy or rocky bottoms associated with riparian vegetation, grassland, pinion-juniper or ponderosa pine. Response: Thank you for the recommendations, the decision maker will review this information and provide for the appropriate grazing management of the allotment. Recommendation for Gray Vireo (Submission 4): Minimize impacts to pifton-juniper habitat with shrubby understory and protect pifton-juniper by avoiding wildland fire suppression. Response: Thank you for the recommendations, the decision maker will review this information and provide for the appropriate grazing management of the allotment. Recommendations for construction of fences, fencing and earthen dams (Submission 4): Access routes into and out of project areas should be clearly flagged and designed to minimize habitat disturbance or fragmentation. Maximize the use of existing roads and trails during the planning process. Any new roads should be designed to avoid stream crossings and arroyos and should minimize the risk of erosion or impacts to the form, function or natural processes of water movement over the landscape and avoid all floodplain or wetland habitats. To the extent possible, disturbed areas or areas that are scheduled for construction should be used for staging, parking, and equipment storage. Locate any new roads and close unnecessary roads with the goal of minimizing habitat fragmentation and any adverse impacts to ecological integrity. North Palomas Allotment Page 77

78 Appendix Response: Thank you for the recommendations, the decision maker will review this information and provide for the appropriate grazing management of the allotment. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the EA. We commend your staff for the analyses provided in this EA and appreciate your efforts to protect fish and wildlife. In future communication regarding this project, please refer to Consultation # O-CPA-0007 (Submission 4). Response: Thank you for the recommendations. While the EA provides an abundance of information on soils and vegetation, there is not a specific section on water resources (Submission 5). Response: A Water Quality discussion is included final EA, pp. 64. A more detailed watershed report can be found in the project record (PR #24) located at the Black Range District Office. Elsewhere in the EA it states that assessments of the riparian area disclosed soil compaction and lack of vegetative ground cover in two of three reaches in the allotment. These two reaches were evaluated to be in unsatisfactory condition. The only specific mention of water quality states the State of New Mexico has identified no water quality concerns within the allotment. State water quality standards would continue to be met with the proposed action on the allotment. (Submission 5). Response: Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the previous response regarding water quality. It is true the state has not identified water quality concerns on the allotment because water quality on the allotment has not been assessed. Since the water resources have not been assessed, it is unknown if the water resources on the allotment are currently impaired or not, and as a result, there is no foundation for suggesting water quality standards would be met under the proposed alternative (Submission 5). Response: The desired resource conditions of the allotment would require all wetland and riparian areas to meet water quality standards sent the State of New Mexico (EA pages 19-20), (PR #24). While there is no mention of wetlands in the allotment current conditions section prior to addressing the effects of the proposed action, it is stated "wetlands associated with excluded portions of Honolulu Creek and North Palomas Creek are expected to move toward satisfactory conditions similar to the No Grazing North Palomas Allotment Page 78

79 Appendix Alternative." It is unknown if other wetlands exist on the allotment or if they may be impacted by the proposed alternative (Submission 5). Response: In the allotment, there exist small areas of the riparian/wetland type other than what is mentioned in the EA (pp. 38). North Palomas Creek, of which Reaches 1 and 2 were established, contain most of the riparian/wetland community type in the allotment. The desired conditions for all riparian areas are to improve to Proper Functioning Condition or Functioning at Risk With an Upward Trend (EA pp ). The proposed alternative authorizes grazing on the allotment under a variety of terms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to, an adaptive management strategy which would provide flexibility to monitor some of the key variables utilized to develop or change the grazing management plan, restoring or repairing fencing, constructing two riparian enclosures, installing alternate water sources including stock ponds, trick tanks, troughs, drinkers, and relocation of at least one drinker. The management plan appears labor intensive and includes rotating animals based on monitoring available forage, utilization, grazing intensity, available water, and turning on and off water source (Submission 5). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. The Proposed Action closely resembles current management with the exception of the addition of enclosures, fencing and water resource development. (Submission 5). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. While the proposed action appears to provide the Forest Service increased flexibility to monitor some of the key variables to develop or change the grazing management plan, there is limited information provided to determine the impacts to water quality. The management strategy described, and the proposed additions of fencing and watering facilities appear to be sound activities. However, there is insufficient information provided to determine the potential impacts to surface waters under the Proposed Alternative (Submission 5). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. North Palomas Allotment Page 79

80 Appendix Biological soil crusts are important elements of arid and semi-arid ecosystems. These crusts contribute to increased organic matter, increased minerals, increased soil stability, reduced water run-off, enhanced germination and seedling establishment of native plants, decreased germination of some alien plant species, and increased survivorship of native vascular species. Biological soil crusts provide little fuel to carry fire and may act as refugia, slowing fire, decreasing its intensity, and contributing to the mosaic pattern of vegetation. 1ivestock negatively impact biological crusts through trampling and compaction, especially during dry seasons. Both cover and biomass of the biological soil crust has been found to be reduced on areas grazed by domestic livestock and exposed soil to increase. Significant correlations can exist between biological soil crust cover and the composition of vascular plant communities, so that damage can result in an altered vascular flora. Importantly, it may take centuries for biological soil crusts to recover from the effects of cattle grazing in arid climate (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. We are particularly disappointed that you are not undertaking immediate measures to raise the riparian areas to Forest Plan standards. (Submission 9). Response: The desired resource conditions for the allotment include improving the riparian areas to Forest Plan standards (EA pp ). Managing the allotment using an adaptive management strategy, will allow flexibility to make changes after monitoring resource condition. Management changes such as adding growing or full season rest, use of water and supplement to distribution and constructing exclosure fences in riparian areas. Please refer to the Monitoring section (EA pp ) for adaptive management options. You have known for many years that these riparian areas are not meeting mandatory standards, but even so you are only offering to consider putting in fences to keep livestock out. You say you will monitor conditions to see if they will improve. But the Forest Service has had many years to monitor these areas, and they have not improved, and something needs to be done. (Submission 9) Response: Please refer to the previous response regarding monitoring and using an adaptive management strategy. Thank you for your comment, your opinion will be made available to the decision maker. You need to show how your new monitoring scheme is really going to work given the problems of the past. You have had utilization standards in place for many North Palomas Allotment Page 80

81 Appendix years and it has not caused the riparian areas to improve to a proper functioning condition (Submission 9). Response: Please refer to the previous response regarding monitoring and using an adaptive management strategy. Thank you for your comment, your opinion will be made available to the decision maker. And, is it not true that the permittee will be conducting the monitoring? And is it not true the monitoring will be ocular? That is, you are going to ask the permittee to eyeball it and self-report any violations. It doesn't seem like a very reliable system (Submission 9). Response: Short term and long term monitoring is completed by the Forest Service and the allotment permittee. Short term is annual monitoring and long term is typically 5-10 years (EA pp ). Ocular monitoring is used but is validated with on the ground measurements. This allotment is home to wolves, to perennial water, and to many unusual and declining species. It does not currently offer the kind of robust health that may be needed to see it endure climate change, and its systems are not in good shape (Submission 9). Response: Thank you for your comment. It will be made available to the decision maker. The East Pasture has no transect presented in table 2. Areas in this pasture have "large active gullies" page 11 of EA (Submission 6). Response: Thank you for your observation. Additional monitoring area will be developed to assess range condition in all pastures when necessary. A more detailed monitoring plan will be made part of an Allotment Management Plan (AMP) (EA pp ). The Road Pasture shows "soils impaired throughout the entire pasture at 0-15% slope" page 12 (Submission 6). Response: Through an adaptive management strategy, changes to this pasture may include a lower stocking rate and/or growing season rest to improve soil resource concerns (EA pp ). The Upper Pasture shows "heavy use and trampling along Palomas Creek" page 12, soil conditions are impaired (Submission 6). Response: Thank you for your observation, please refer to the previous response regarding an adaptive management strategy. North Palomas Allotment Page 81

82 Appendix The existing watershed condition shows evidence of poor livestock management due to heavy use in riparian and relatively flat areas. This suggests little management of pushing livestock out of these critical resource areas. The steeper slopes get little or no use while the flatter areas with water are overused. "Bare ground with active soil loss and cutting occurring" page 13. What is the GNF plan on doing to alleviate these problems? What about the use of out riders to move the livestock on a regular basis? Drift fences only work if livestock is regularly monitored and moved when they go around a drift fence. (Submission 6). Response: The use of supplement and active riding is a key part of livestock distribution to reduce impacts to riparian bottoms and flat areas. An AMP will include these adaptive management options (EA pp ). Thank you for your observations and recommendations. These will be made available to the decision maker. North Fork Palomas Creek reach 2 is functioning at risk with "very limited amount of herbaceous cover noted on the banks", "raw banks were noted where the herbaceous component was missing" page 18. How will changed management fix these problems? (Submission 6). Response: As mentioned in the previous responses regarding the adaptive management strategy, if annual and long term monitoring determines a decrease in resource condition, changes to management will occur such as reduced stocking rate, improved livestock distribution and growing season rest. How will the changes proposed in the EA change the resource condition on the ground to bring this allotment into compliance with the Forest Plan? What happens if it does not? (Submission 6) Response: As previously mentioned, if resource conditions are not meeting or moving toward Gila National Forest LMRP Standards and guides, changes to grazing management will be implemented such as reducing stocking rate, growing season rest, structural improvements and removal of cattle from one or all pastures (EA pp ). Improvements on page may help this allotment's resources but at what economic cost to the taxpayer? (Submission 6) Response: The Forest Service will determine the need to implement all or just some of the improvements listed in the proposed action. A few improvements in a pasture may increase resource condition and it may determine that the rest are not needed. This decision will be at the discretion of the Forest Service with consultation of the permittee. North Palomas Allotment Page 82

83 Appendix Page 29 it states "if monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not being met other pre-determined management options may be selected for implementation." What are these pre-determined management options? (Submission 6). Response: As previously mentioned, if resource conditions are not meeting or moving toward Gila National Forest LMRP Standards and guides, changes to grazing management will be implemented such as reducing stocking rate, growing season rest, structural improvements and removal of cattle from one or all pastures (EA pp 29-32). Climate change is an important issue, according the Chief of the Forest Service. The Chief has stated the USFS will have a coordinated agency-wide response to climate change. This proposed allotment will produce an increase of greenhouse gases due to increased livestock grazing It is important for the Gila NF to do a complete analysis of environmental impacts, including impacts on climate change so the decision-maker and the public can gauge the effects on public lands and the planet. According the sustainable framework presented by the USF8, "Sustainable operations (will) reduce the environmental footprint of Forest Service operations and be a leading example of a green organization." Please explain how the North Palomas allotment management reduce the environmental footprint. (Submission 6). Response: The Gila National Forest will follow direction in regard to climate change and if needed will be incorporated in the management of the National Forest System Lands including the North Palomas Allotment. We remain concerned for the natural resources on this allotment, and we echo the comments made to you this week by Larry McLaud of Silver City in his letter to you of today commenting on this allotment. (Submission 9). Response: We recognize your concern for the natural resources and proposed changes to the current management by adding flexibility with an adaptive strategy and conservation practices such as riparian fencing. Please see the Monitoring and Adaptive Management secion of the EA pp The Sierra SWCD strongly supports Alternative Two of the proposed actions. We believe that proper grazing through a rotational grazing system would improve forage health and vigor. In addition, livestock fencing and increases in livestock water storage and availability will enhance livestock distribution that will also improve plant diversity and health. The proposed conservation practices will further the overall health of the North Palomas watershed by reducing sediment loads into the watershed. North Palomas Allotment Page 83

84 Appendix Response: Thank you for your comment. It will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Issue 2 : Livestock Grazing In light of these important issues, there is no justification for continuation of livestock grazing on public lands (Submission 1). Response: Thank you for your comment. It will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. I strongly urge the Forest Service to adopt the No Action alternative, and to explore other nontraditional options for dealing with the grazing issue, such as paying ranchers not to graze their cattle on public lands. Subsidizing forest health, which would enhance public lands for future generations, would be a wiser use of taxpayer dollars than subsidizing grazing, which benefits only a few at the expense of the resource (Submission 1). Response: Thank you for your comment. It will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Will you be requiring that this permittee immediately remove livestock carcasses? (Submission 2). Response: Removal of known livestock carcasses will be decided, on a case by case basis, in coordination with the Interagency Field Team established for the Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Area BRWRA (that includes the North Palomas Allotment). Dead livestock will be moved away from areas such as roads, trails, water sources and camp sites (PR #2). Will open range calving be permitted? (Submission 2) Response: Livestock grazing is authorized for a cow/calf operation for year-long grazing, therefore open range calving will occur. Will livestock be turned out in or near areas used by wolves? (Submission 2) Response: The North Palomas Allotment lies within the Blue Range Wolf Reintroduction Area, therefore it is possible livestock would be turned out in or near areas used by wolves. Will livestock carcasses be removed or rendered unpalatable immediately? Will you insist on these measures in the AMPs? (Submission 2) North Palomas Allotment Page 84

85 Appendix Response: Removal or rendering unpalatable will depend on recommendations provided by the Interagency Field Team (PR. #2). The AMP will address livestock-wolf issues on a general level. The Annual Operating Instructions will address livestock management on an annual basis. Measures to avoid or mitigate livestock-wolf conflicts would be addressed in the AOI. After reviewing the document, I must once again urge you to adopt the no grazing alternative. Livestock grazing is so detrimental to the health of the forest soil, water, and vegetation that the practice should be discontinued immediately. (Submission 3). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted for the Decision Maker. The Forest Service should abandon the outmoded concept of providing cheap pasture to a few ranchers and instead focus on improving and safeguarding public land resources. (Submission 3). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted for the Decision Maker. The Service supports the Forest Service's proposed management of allotment improvements. (Submission 4). Response: Thank you for your comment. It is noted for the Decision Maker. As we are sure you are aware, the effects of cattle grazing have long subjected our southwestern public lands to ecological disrepair. Recent scientific studies have indisputably shown that grazing in the arid areas of our country, such as those in New Mexico, eradicates native flora and fauna and degrades water quality. These devastating effects stem from the fact that cattle drive out native wildlife and denude the landscape while trampling soils and destroying stream banks. Modern scientific thought on southwestern cattle ranching is rapidly altering public opinion of the same. Many concerned citizens, including those in our own membership, seek change for range management on our public lands (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Because continued grazing on this allotment specifically -and on our public lands in general -wreaks havoc on the environment, depletes public resources, and impairs recreational opportunities, any decision to reauthorize grazing at this time cannot be taken lightly. Indeed, the need for sound agency decision-making North Palomas Allotment Page 85

86 Appendix is reflected in myriad federal rules and regulations that now govern your decision. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Cattle grazing denudes the landscape, removes native vegetation, encourages invasion by exotic species, compacts soils, reduces water infiltration rates, and accelerates erosion. In the arid southwest, collective cattle grazing has reduced the density and biomass of many plant species, reduced biodiversity, aided in the spread of disease, altered ecological succession and landscape heterogeneity, altered nutrient cycles and distribution, and diminished both the productivity and land use options for future generations. Livestock grazing also disturbs the soil surface through the destruction of biological soil crusts-the assemblages of tiny, often microscopic, organisms, such as cyanobacteria, green algae, fungi, lichens, and mosses, living on or just beneath the soil surface. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Cattle grazing destroys riparian areas and impairs water quality. Riparian and stream ecosystems represent only 0.5 to 1 percent of the surface area of arid lands in the eleven western United States, yet support an estimated 60 to 70 percent of Western bird species and as many as 80 percent of wildlife species in Arizona and New Mexico. Despite the immense ecological importance of these areas, grazing by livestock has damaged 80 percent of the streams and riparian ecosystems in arid regions of the western United States. As recently as 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that, "extensive field observations suggest that riparian areas throughout much of the West are in their worst conditions in history. In addition, a joint Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service report concluded that "riparian areas have continued to decline" since grazing reforms in the 1930's. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. The result of cattle grazing in and around riparian areas is nothing short of ecological collapse. A recent survey of scientific literature reported on the effects of livestock grazing on Western streams and riparian zones. Cattle have a negative effect on water quality and seasonal quantity, stream channel North Palomas Allotment Page 86

87 Appendix morphology, hydrology, riparian zone soils, in stream and stream bank vegetation, and aquatic and riparian wildlife. Strikingly, this comprehensive survey of peer reviewed, experimental and comparative studies found no positive environmental impacts due to cattle grazing. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Cattle not only destroy wildlife habitat through the degradation of water quality; they also impair human water supplies. Agriculture is the major source of water quality impairment in this country. Siltation, introduction of excessive "nutrient" materials, bacteria, proliferation of oxygen depleting substances, and pesticides rank as the top causes of water quality decline in rivers, and agricultureincluding livestock production-is linked to all of them. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Cattle grazing additionally harms wildlife and imperils species. The detrimental effects of cattle grazing on wildlife and threatened and endangered species are numerous and far reaching. Nearly one-quarter of all of the imperiled species listed under the ESA are imperiled by livestock grazing; in the southwest, grazing is a leading cause of species endangerment. Large numbers of permitted livestock on lands completely unsuitable for such grazing pressure causes ecosystem disruption and imbalance. Livestock production negatively impacts approximately 114 threatened and endangered species nationwide. In some cases, livestock production is the ultimate cause of species decline, even if it is not the proximate cause. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Grazing injures wildlife in many ways, ranging from food depletion to habitat fragmentation to complete removal due to livestock conflicts. Specifically, fencing and other so-called range "improvements" fragment habitat, creating edge effects and isolating populations. Barbed wire fencing in particular causes significant mortality in raptor and other bird species populations. Even water developments, which are typically assumed to benefit wildlife, are often detrimental in the context of natural adaptations of species. However, perhaps the most disturbing direct impact to wildlife from public lands ranching operations is injury and death through government sponsored predator control programs (Submission 7). North Palomas Allotment Page 87

88 Appendix Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. We have identified five measures that would serve individually and collectively to conserve and recover the endangered Mexican wolf in the BR WRA: 1) reduce or eliminate livestock; 2) increase native prey, especially elk and deer; 3) remove, or render unpalatable, livestock carcasses; 4) eliminate open-range calving by livestock; 5) adjust the seasonality of grazing. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your recommendations will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. As always, we hope that you will seriously consider, and eventually adopt, a decision that eliminates cattle from the Gila National Forest, including, but not limited to, the North Palomas Allotment. Response: Thank you for your comment. Your recommendations will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. These areas do not belong to the local rancher, they belong to the American public, and it is your task to make the proper decision for these areas' well-being. Please consider an alternative that takes into consideration real protection of the areas that have been so damaged by livestock grazing (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Livestock are the problem here, and the Forest Service has not had the budget to properly manage livestock on the allotment for many years now, if ever (Submission 9). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker Your new plan will only cost more, if it were to be properly implemented, but you have offered no reason to believe that it will be fundable and no escape clause should it prove not to be. That is, if you get no funding to someday build that Poverty Spring fence, what is going to happen? Will the livestock be removed from the area? Not under your current plan, they won't. Under your current plan, things will just continue and the area will continue to degrade. We think more is needed (Submission 9). North Palomas Allotment Page 88

89 Appendix Response: Under an adaptive management strategy, options to improve resource conditions are available for the Forest Service to use. Management options include reducing time or number of cattle in a pasture or resting during the growing season or for one whole year if needed. The Poverty Spring exclosure as well as the other enclosures in the proposed action will be planned and will become part of the adaptive management strategy to reduce grazing effects and improve these areas to standard (EA pp 28 & 29-32). Please refer to the monitoring section of the EA for a list of adaptive management options. Thank you for your comment. The 15,159 acres of the North Palomas allotment where identified as suitable lands under the Forest Plan in 1986 but 24 years later conditions have changed according to the EA. These changes call into question the validity of this decision. For example the erosion process has accelerated; new species have been added the endangered species list and grazing science have significantly changed since Lands on steep slopes (>30 degrees) are rarely or ever are used by livestock and should be evaluated to consider dropping these lands from suitable grazing lands. In this allotment land in the ponderosa pine habitat (3,483 acres) are likely to have steep slopes, minimal forage, offer Mexican Spotted Owl habitat and should be considered to be dropped from this allotment. (Submission 6). Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree that conditions on the allotment have changed. Through an adaptive management strategy, annual changes to the livestock management are the primary management objective to improve unsatisfactory resource conditions toward Desired Conditions (EA pp ). The allotment was in non-use status from 1993 to 2001 due to the need to remedy range management problems (see page 8 of the EA). From 2002 to 2008 livestock numbers where decreased to 100 AUMs. Over these 16 years grazing continues to cause problems and the information in the EA shows this level of grazing has not significantly improved conditions. Given this fact why does the GNF think a few minor proposed changes will alleviate the past condition ofthis allotment? What evidence does the GNF have to support this view? (Submission 6). Response: Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the previous response regarding an adaptive management strategy and resource conditions on the allotment. Table 2 of the EA presents vegetative condition from 1956, 1993, 2003 and The long-term trend is decided by looking at this data. What about the 37 years between 1956 and 1993? The poor condition in 1956 seems to have helped push North Palomas Allotment Page 89

90 Appendix the long term trend for Creek Pasture and Road Pasture to either static or up. If you were to look at only the data from 1993 to 2008 would you come to a different conclusion? (Submission 6). Response: Trend is viewed over the long term because changes on rangeland can take years to show improvement. To move away from the desired conditions set for the allotment will require changes to livestock management including stocking rate, grazing pasture rotation, and rest (EA pp ). The increased monitoring as described in the EA will increase the cost of management by how much? (Submission 6). Response: Monitoring is required to implement an adaptive management strategy (EA pp ). The cost is not within the scope of this project. What actions will the GNP take to ensure "proper distribution? page 34. Providing more dispersed water sources will marginally help with proper distribution but much more needs to be done to balance use on this allotment. (Submission 6). Response: As previously mentioned, distribution practices, not limited to, the use of supplement and active riding are key parts of livestock distribution to reduce impacts to resources. An Allotment Management Plan (AMP) will include these adaptive management options. "Several miles of interior and boundary fence; trick tanks and dirt stock tanks will be constructed" page 46. I observed interior fences down during a visit to the allotment in November Where specifically will they be located? (Submission 6). Response: A proposed improvement map will be part of the final EA illustrating the location of these proposed improvements (EA pp. 99). The AMP will have a more detailed map of the locations. Any grazing conflicts with the Mexican Spotted Owl should be avoided and this offers one reason why the allotment should be redrawn to exclude potential Owl habitat Most, if not all of these acres are little used by livestock. Same holds true for Northern Goshawk habitat (Submission 6). Response: Thank you for your comment. It will be made available to the Decision Maker. North Palomas Allotment Page 90

91 Appendix Issue #3: NEPA Unfortunately, your brief document, which contains no affected environment section and only a skeleton of an environmental consequences section, is not complete enough to comment upon (Submission 2). Response: The Affected Environment was combined with the Environmental Consequences in the EA (EA pp 34). The affected environment for each resource emphasis area (riparian, watershed, wildlife) will be described in detail in that section of the final document. We do not understand how you can sign a FONSI without knowing what will be in the AMP, particularly given that this AMP will be so important in implementing your plan to improve the condition on the allotment. (Submission 2) Response: AMP is designed to implement the NEPA decision, and is developed after that decision document is approved. Management actions to improve affected resource conditions will be described in the AMP as described in Section 94.1 of the Forest Service Handbook, Chapter 90, R3 Supplement which reads: Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) will each be unique based on the individual landscape and ranch operation. However, certain components are common to almost all AMPs The allotment management plan must be modified to be consistent with the NEPA decision and must be included in Part 3 of the term grazing permit. All allotments must maintain a current AMP developed within the bounds of the NEPA based decision. The EA or EIS for the reauthorization of grazing on the North Palomas Allotment should include a proper cost-benefit analysis, which realistically takes environmental quality into account. Accordingly, forthcoming NEPA review should attempt to accurately quantify the income of enhanced hunting and recreation, along with the non-monetary ecological and social benefits, which would arise from the cessation of grazing, and the devotion of the allotment to wildlife and other unique resources. The Forest Service must consider socio-economic benefits not only to permittees and local communities, but also to the entire public now and in future generations, as they are the ultimate owners and inheritors of this land. Any North Palomas Allotment Page 91

92 Appendix consideration of the "lifestyle and culture" of ranching interests must be weighed explicitly against the lifestyle and culture" of the far more numerous hikers, hunters, fishers, and professional or amateur mycologists, ornithologists, entomologists, herpetologists, botanists, mammalogists and other zoologists, wilderness lovers and bird watchers that frequent and enjoy the biodiversity and landscape of this allotment. Through appropriate social survey, the Forest Service should estimate the actual demand for these services. Surely, the only "benefit" of continued grazing on the North Palomas Allotment is that of a financial subsidy to the associated permittee. The public has no obligation to financially support ranchers who are engaged in an economically dwindling and environmentally destructive industry. This is especially true when evidence shows that putting our public land to other uses is more ecologically and fiscally responsible (Submission 7).. Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Indeed, when we review this plan we don't see much that has changed from the past few years. It doesn't seem like a new alternative at all (Submission 9). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available to the decision maker. Not only must the EA for the North Palomas Allotment meet the procedural requirements of NEPA, all range management decisions concerning this allotment must comply substantively with NEPA, the APA, the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C et seq., the National Forest Management Act ("NMFA"), 16 U.S.C 1600 et seq., the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C et seq., and the Gila National Forest LRMP. In short, the Forest Service is compelled to manage our National Forests in the public interest by preserving their natural integrity and balancing competing uses. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. The purpose of an EA is to determine whether the federal action is significant enough to require an EIS, i.e., whether the federal action will have a significant effect on human health or the environment. To facilitate such a determination, the EA must contain, inter alia, brief discussions of the need for the proposed action, alternatives to the proposal, and the environmental impacts of the North Palomas Allotment Page 92

93 Appendix proposal and the alternatives? Additionally, an EA must consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed action. (Submission 7). An EA is meant to be a concise public document, which serves to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or, on the other hand, make a finding of no significant impact ("FONSI,,). Although not as thorough or as detailed as an EIS, an EA requires enough of an investment of agency resources to carry out a preliminary environmental inquiry. Should such inquiry reveal that the federal action may significantly affect the quality of the environment; the Forest Service must prepare an EIS. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Any EA must provide enough evidence and analysis of environmental impacts for the Forest Service to make an informed decision as to whether it should prepare an EIS. NEPA procedures must insure that high quality environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEP A. Most importantly, NEP A documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action. Livestock grazing often has significant effects on the environment, which must be disclosed and examined in an EA. These impacts typically affect range condition, watershed and riparian health, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. To date, no one on the Gila National Forest has disagreed with WildEarth Guardians that the potential for wolf-livestock conflicts poses a significant issue for grazing management and wolf recovery within the BRWRA. However, the Forest Service consistently dismisses the significance of wolf-livestock conflicts by unjustifiable falling back on ESA 10(j) when this designation impacts only the potential for a substantive jeopardy finding under ESA 7(a)(2). (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. To be clear, WildEarth Guardians is not arguing that reauthorizing grazing on the North Palomas Allotment will jeopardize the continued existence of the North Palomas Allotment Page 93

94 Appendix Mexican gray wolf. Rather, we are arguing that, by reauthorizing grazing on the North Palomas Allotment without first taking a "hard look" at how grazing is harming one or more Mexican wolves and implementing any proactive measures to stave off wolf-livestock conflicts, the Forest Service is violating NEPA. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Nevertheless, Forest Service neglected to even ask the question of whether additional removals would cause a potentially significant impact to the wolf, but instead simply relied on its NLJ findings as cover for its conclusions. This is a direct and blatant violation of the NEP A "hard look" mandate. Forest Service could increase the chances the Mexican wolf recovery program might succeed if it did a better job of managing its grazing program to reduce conflicts with wolves. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. NEPA requires that you disclose sufficient evidence and analysis of the real impacts of reauthorizing grazing on the North Palomas Allotment to range resources, riparian and watershed health, and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. In order to be "sufficient," under NEP A, an EA or EIS must Put interested persons on notice of the significant impacts of [the] project on the environment. That includes putting the public on notice of how continued grazing in this and other allotments of the BRWRA may potentially significantly impact the Mexican gray wolf. Neither 50 C.F.R (k), 63 Fed. Reg. 1755, nor ESA 10(j) itself excuses your compliance with NEPA regarding the proven impacts of current livestock management to Mexican gray wolves. In fact, 50 C.F.R (k) and 63 Fed. Reg expressly reinforce the fact that the NEPA duty remains intact and unaffected by the "nonessential, experimental" designation of this population. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. We ask that the Forest Service now live up to that obligation by thoroughly discussing potential impacts to one or more Mexican gray wolves along with options for better management practices in the upcoming EA for the North Palomas Allotment. (Submission 7). North Palomas Allotment Page 94

95 Appendix Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Here, the CEQ requires the Forest Service to present the realistic environmental impacts of its proposed action on the North Palomas Allotment, as well as to present all reasonable alternatives to that action in comparative form. A proper alternatives analysis should "rigorously explore" and "objectively evaluate" these alternatives, which means it should "devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action -so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. The range of alternatives to be set forth in an EA is governed by the "rule of reason," and defined by the ''purpose and need" of the action itself. Certainly, the Forest Service need not consider an infinite range of alternatives -but it must seriously consider all reasonable and feasible alternatives for fulfilling the project purpose. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. Whether livestock grazing should be permitted on the North Palomas Allotment turns, in part, on the magnitude and proposed resolution of potential wolflivestock conflicts. As such, a "wolf alternative" falls well within the "rule of reason." Accordingly, environmental review of the proposed action cannot close until this integral alternative is developed and submitted for public comment. (Submission 7). Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. The EA or EIS for the North Palomas Allotment should include a thorough analysis of cumulative effects reflective of the "hard look" that NEPA requires. This means the analysis must disclose the potential for cumulative significant impacts on all values and resources on the allotments, such as wildlife, threatened and endangered species, water quality, vegetation, recreation, etc. Without a serious cumulative effects analysis, the Forest Service cannot be said to have taken a "hard look" at the potential effects of the reauthorization of one or more term livestock permits, when taken together with those of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions that affect the allotments. Such a failure would thwart the underlying purpose of NEP A, which is to "insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made. (Submission 7). North Palomas Allotment Page 95

96 Appendix Response: Thank you for your comment. Your opinion will be made available for review by the Decision Maker. My comments are limited by the inability to review the project file at this time It is inappropriate to reference the project record in the EA without giving the public access to this information during the comment time. Why is this policy in place? What do you have to hide? (Submission 6). Response: The documents in the project record during the Draft EA process are considered to be in the pre-decisional stage. The public can request this information through the FOIA process; however, it is at the discretion of the Forest Service to withhold documents until the project is completed. The Gila National Forest Plan goals and standards as presented in the EA (page 21-22) are not presently being met on the North Palomas allotment. Why does the GNP believe that proposed management changes in the EA bring the conditions on this allotment up to the goals and standards in the Forest Plan? (Submission 6). Response: Through an adaptive management strategy that includes monitoring vegetation condition, the Forest Service will improve flexibility to change livestock management to move resource conditions toward Gila National Forest Land and Resource Plan (FLRMP) standards and guidelines (EA pp ). The analysis (EA) incorporates by reference the Project Record which is not now available to the public at this time. There may be incomplete and unavailable information so how will the GNF make a decision without complete information? (Submission 6). Response: The EA sent to the public for review is considered a preliminary document to obtain public input while analysis documents are finalized (PR # 31). Comments from the public may reveal information not previously considered and can be analyzed in the final EA document. The EA considers only two alternatives, this approach eliminates other possible alternatives that could be considered to manage this allotment Why does GNF choose not to look at any other alternative that could address the purpose and need of this proposal and lead to better resource conditions? This appears to be against the law. (Submission 6). As per Forest Service Handbook , Chapter 90 Section 92.31, a minimum of two reasonable alternatives is required: the no action alternative and proposed action. The North Palomas Allotment Page 96

97 Appendix proposed action can be the only viable alternative if the Forest Service determines the proposed action can mitigate resource concerns to acceptable levels. In the EA for the North Palomas allotment, three alternatives were considered, No Action, Proposed Action and Current Management. The Current Management alternative was eliminated from further study (EA pp. 32). The incomplete economic analysis is limited by the lack of access to the project record that is referenced in the EA. I strongly encourage the GNF to include a clear and complete economic analysis that discloses all of the costs and benefits associated with this allotment for both the federal taxpayers and the permittees. (Submission 6). Response: An economic analysis in the EA is a summary (EA pp ) and complete analysis document will be available in the final project record (PR # 36). North Palomas Allotment Page 97

98 Appendix Figure 8 Map 1. North Palomas Allotment Map North Palomas Allotment Page 98

99 Appendix Figure 9. Map 2. North Palomas Allotment. Fences in blue are new enclosures to protect stream bottoms and riparian. Red dots indicated locations for proposed water developments. North Palomas Allotment Page 99