APPENDIX F LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT TOOLS

APPENDIX F LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Management of livestock grazing has always been a fluid process that requires the flexibility to address resource issues/concerns as they occur, there is not a one size fits all solution as every situation has its own cause, effect, and remedy. Livestock management tools are administrative actions that grazing program managers can utilize to address resource issues resulting from permitted livestock, this list is not meant to be all encompassing and situations may arise that are not covered. Available management tools and anticipated effects to resources are discussed below. LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT TOOLS Management Tool Modify the terms and conditions of a permit Alternate Seasons of Use, includes grazing systems. When to Use Monitoring Indicates Need To Change To conform to current situations brought about by changes in law, regulation, executive order, development or revision of an allotment management plan, or other management needs. Adjust grazing to address conflicts with other resource uses. As appropriate, adjust the season of use for an allotment or areas within an allotment to reduce grazing impacts and improve attainment of Desired Resource Conditions. These actions include shortening the period of use to reduce or eliminate grazing impacts during periods where plants or other resources are most susceptible to damage, or avoid conflicts with other uses such as during periods of high recreation use. Assign periods of rest as warranted by monitoring. Expected Outcomes Cautions Authority Tailor grazing management to allotment specific resource concerns and/or changes in environmental law or Forest Plan. Utilize plants in different areas in different times of year providing for plant recovery and opportunity to complete growing cycle. The effect of such a change expected to be beneficial. Ability to tailor use to minimize grazing impacts or conflicts with critical resource needs of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species and other wildlife eliminates the resource conflict. Adapting the grazing season in response to seasonal variations in climate and productivity such as during periods of drought will reduce impacts to vegetation. Need to ensure that modifications are well thought out and implementable on the ground Possible conflicts with sage grouse, nesting birds, or rare plant species during early season use. Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors F-1

Managed Timing of Livestock Grazing (rest) Early (cool) Season Grazing Intensity of Grazing. (Short duration/high intensity or longer duration/light or moderate intensity) Assign periods of rest as warranted by monitoring and tailor use to allotment specific resource concerns. To lessen the effects of hot season grazing to riparian areas As needed to respond to monitoring and tailor use to allotment specific resource concerns Practice provides for initial growth and regrowth of plants at different times of year and defers grazing in pastures within the allotment. Improved distribution and use of uplands, less use on riparian areas Opportunity for plant regrowth providing forage for wildlife during late season Short duration can be used to address weed or cheatgrass spread. Light intensity has less impact on plants and riparian areas. Intensified management requires more work. Practice may result in some hot season use in alternate years. Monitor for early growing season overuse likely resulting in decreased re-growth opportunities. Possible conflicts with sage grouse, other ground nesting birds, or rare plant species Increased potential for compaction/displacement on moist soils Using short duration/high intensity requires management and monitoring to be successful. There are risks of affecting specific plant communities even in moderate to light grazing. Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors Creating Pastures within Allotment to Implement Different Grazing Systems As needed to respond to monitoring and tailor use to allotment specific resource concerns Allow additional flexibility to add deferment, rest or timing changes into an allotment grazing system. Utilize plants in different areas in different times of year providing for plant recovery and opportunity to complete cycle. The effect of such a change expected to be beneficial. Smaller pastures require more management. Costs are higher. Additional fences will require additional NEPA analysis to implement and there increased maintenance. FSM 2200 range management Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors Changing Animal Classes or Kind As needed to respond to monitoring and tailor use to allotment specific resource concerns As needed or in response to permittee request Tailor use to allotment specific resource concerns. Changing kind of livestock requires additional NEPA analysis and decision. Changing classes of animals may not be an option for some permittees based on current operating plans. Using or changing kind of livestock to sheep in areas with bighorn sheep not recommended due to likelihood of disease transmission. (Change in livestock kind will require additional NEPA evaluation.) Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors F-2

Herding (riding) Salting and Supplement Placement As needed to respond to monitoring and tailor use to allotment specific resource concerns As needed to respond to monitoring and tailor use to allotment specific resource concerns Improved distribution of livestock across the allotment resulting in even utilization of different plant communities Ensures livestock thoroughly moved out of pastures on time. Draw livestock away from water or riparian areas. Better livestock distribution within an allotment Increased expense and time on the part of the permittee Likely to see heavy livestock use in areas immediately adjacent to supplement. Creates concentrated use areas, which can affect resources in an area. Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors Chapter - zero code 2204.3 - Forest Supervisors Placement/Repair of Offstream Water Sources As needed, ensuring that action meets regional guidelines regarding water developments Improved distribution and use of uplands, less use on riparian areas There is added expense when repairing or moving troughs. New developments require State water right and additional NEPA to address site-specific environmental concerns. FSM 2200 range management Nonstructural Range Developments/Improvements Vegetation treatments (prescribed fire, brush control, seeding, etc.) designed and implemented to achieve management objectives and desired conditions as identified from monitoring. Site-specific changes in resource conditions to address identified need. Need to adjust livestock management in the short-term to protect treated area and investment. Chapter 2240 range improvements FSM 2200 Range Management Chapter 2240 Range Improvements Effects of Implementing Adaptive Management Strategies Vegetation Modification of Terms and Conditions of the. Term grazing permits may be modified at the request of the permit holder or the Agency. Permit modifications are administrative actions and do not require additional analysis unless they are inconsistent with existing environmental analyses and related decisions. Permit modifications may include the actions described below. Effects: This is an administrative action. The types of actions that may modify the grazing permit are described below. Modify the seasons of use, numbers, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit, because of resource condition, or permittee request. This typically is an administrative action. These changes may be implemented at the request of the permittee to adapt grazing to his/her ranch operation. Just as grazing management needs to be responsive to Forest resource condition, it also needs to be responsive to the needs of the livestock permittee relative to his/her ranch operation. For example, F-3

market economics may lead to short-term reductions in breeding cattle and consequently the need to reduce the number of animals grazed in a given year on the Forest rangelands. Before approval, proposed changes would be evaluated to ensure the fall within the scope of the current NEPA analysis. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. This change could result in decreased bare ground and an increase in species composition where it results in an overall decrease in grazing use on the allotments. These changes would keep the trend in upland and riparian vegetation static to upward and desired conditions would continue to be attained. Changes in the kind of livestock (i.e. changing an allotment from sheep to cattle), would trigger new environmental analysis. The change may be the result of monitoring or seasonal climatic fluctuations such as drought, which result in the need to adapt management to changing conditions using actions such as those, described below to achieve resource-desired conditions and or resolve conflicts in resource uses. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. This direct response to monitoring indicates a need to change this aspect of grazing management. Reducing amount of time grazed or reducing utilization levels would result in reducing the overall grazing impacts and improving attainment of desired conditions through grazing within the affected area of the allotment. Modify Season of Use. As appropriate, adjust the season of use for an allotment or areas within an allotment to reduce grazing impacts and improve attainment of Desired Resource Conditions. These actions include shortening the period of use to reduce or eliminate grazing impacts during periods where plants or other resources are most susceptible to damage, or avoid conflicts with other uses such as during periods of high recreation use. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. For example, changing the season of use to avoid grazing impacts or conflicts with critical resource needs of eliminates the resource conflict. Adapting the grazing season in response to seasonal variations in climate and productivity such as during periods of drought will reduce impacts to vegetation. Modify Stocking. As appropriate, adjust authorized or permitted livestock numbers during all or a portion of the grazing season to match grazing use to resource conditions and productivity. and site specific desired conditions. Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year). Rest the allotment or areas within the allotment for a specific period of years or on a periodic rotation where monitoring shows that trend towards achieving desired conditions are not stable, improving, or improving at an adequate rate. May also be implemented where fire, flood, etc; detrimentally impact resource conditions or where treatment activities require a period of rest to provide for recovery of the site. Where this occurs, specific recovery criteria for when grazing will be allowed should be specified. and site specific desired conditions. Closure of Areas. Close areas within allotments where monitoring shows that desired conditions cannot be met while sustaining grazing use. This may include alteration of allotment boundaries or identification of F-4

specific areas within an allotment where livestock grazing will not be allowed. Modify the AMP and term grazing permit to identify the change in the allotment boundary or the area closure. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Closing an area to domestic livestock in an area where conditions cannot sustain grazing use will allow the analysis area to stay in compliance with Forest Plan direction and site-specific desired conditions. Grazing Restrictions Modification of Indicators of Annual Grazing Use. Where indicators or threshold values set for indicators of annual grazing use are not sensitive to monitoring the achievement of desired conditions, the threshold values may be adjusted, additional indicators added, or replacement indicators selected to monitor annual grazing use. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Levels of acceptable use such as forage utilization are set in the Forest Plan, and in this Environmental Analysis are brought forward in the Allotment Management Plans. Where specific allowable use limits are set they may be modified, if needed, to be more restrictive without additional environmental analysis. For example, if monitoring of riparian vegetation conditions where the standard applied shows that the area is not meeting desired conditions, a utilization rate that would allow desired conditions to be met could by applied. Grazing Restrictions Modification of Management Practices. This includes a range of management and herding practices that vary according to conditions and use that are found on individual grazing allotments. and site specific desired conditions. Alteration of grazing routes. Alteration of designated trailing routes and route rotations to avoid resource damage, avoid use conflicts, reduce grazing pressure in specific areas, and improve distribution, access unused grazing areas, facilitate shipping, or facilitate rest or deferred rotation grazing. and site specific desired conditions. Adjust grazing to address conflicts with other resource uses. Modification of grazing use may be appropriate to prevent or manage conflicts with other uses such as dispersed recreation, coordinate with other management activities such as timber harvest and forest regeneration, or mitigate conflicts or impacts to other resources. and site specific desired conditions. Adjust grazing to provide for maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions and beneficial uses. and site specific desired conditions. Coordinate grazing with timber harvest and forest regeneration activities. F-5

and site specific desired conditions. Temporary Corrals. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. There are no temporary corrals proposed in this environmental analysis. If a location for temporary corrals was identified in the future, site-specific effects will be analyzed in associated environmental documents in accordance with NEPA at that time. Range Improvements Structural. Structural range improvements include construction of water developments, fences, corrals and other permanent livestock handling facilities, trails, bridges, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing environmental analyses. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Specific effects will be analyzed in associated environmental documents in accordance with NEPA. The most likely types of structural improvements that would be considered are water developments with protection fences around the spring source or a fence to control livestock movements. Additional water developments and fences may be developed to improve distribution of livestock, draw cattle away from riparian areas where adaptive monitoring indicates there is a need to reduce grazing impacts, protect springs and seeps from grazing impacts, etc. The effect of the development of these watering sources would be a reduction in grazing impacts and soil disturbance to riparian areas and improving riparian vegetation, streambank stability, the condition of seeps and springs, etc. Vegetative Treatments Nonstructural range improvements. Effects: Additional environmental analysis is required for vegetation activities such as prescribed fire, fuels reduction, aspen stand treatments, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. The exceptions to this are the noxious weed management activities, which are covered within NEPA analysis already completed for Noxious Weed Treatments. Weeds Modification of Terms and Conditions of the. Term grazing permits may be modified at the request of the permit holder or the Agency. Permit modifications are administrative actions and do not require additional analysis unless they are inconsistent with existing environmental analyses and related decisions. Permit modifications may include the actions described below. Effects: This is an administrative action. The types of actions that may modify the grazing permit are described below. Modify the seasons of use, numbers, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit, because of resource condition, or permittee request. This typically is an administrative action. These changes may be implemented at the request of the permittee to adapt grazing to his/her ranch operation. Just as grazing management needs to be responsive to Forest resource condition, it also needs to be responsive to the needs of the livestock permittee relative to his/her ranch operation. For example, market economics may lead to short-term reductions in breeding cattle and consequently the need to reduce the number of animals grazed in a given year on the Forest rangelands. Before approval, proposed changes would be evaluated to ensure the fall within the scope of the current NEPA analysis. F-6

Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. This change could result in decreased bare ground and an increase in species composition where it results in an overall decrease in grazing use on the allotments. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Changes in the kind of livestock (i.e. changing an allotment from sheep to cattle), would trigger new environmental analysis. The change may be the result of monitoring or seasonal climatic fluctuations such as drought, which result in the need to adapt management to changing conditions using actions such as those, described below to achieve resourcedesired conditions and or resolve conflicts in resource uses. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. This direct response to monitoring indicates a need to change this aspect of grazing management. Reducing amount of time grazed or reducing utilization levels would result in reducing the overall grazing impacts and improving attainment of desired conditions through grazing within the affected area of the allotment. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Modify Season of Use. As appropriate, adjust the season of use for an allotment or areas within an allotment to reduce grazing impacts and improve attainment of Desired Resource Conditions. These actions include shortening the period of use to reduce or eliminate grazing impacts during periods where plants or other resources are most susceptible to damage, or avoid conflicts with other uses such as during periods of high recreation use. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. For example, changing the season of use to avoid grazing impacts or conflicts with critical resource needs of eliminates the resource conflict. Adapting the grazing season in response to seasonal variations in climate and productivity such as during periods of drought will reduce impacts to vegetation. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Modify Stocking. As appropriate, adjust authorized or permitted livestock numbers during all or a portion of the grazing season to match grazing use to resource conditions and productivity. and site specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year). Rest the allotment or areas within the allotment for a specific period of years or on a periodic rotation where monitoring shows that trend towards achieving desired conditions are not stable, improving, or improving at an adequate rate. May also be implemented where fire, flood, etc; detrimentally impact resource conditions or where treatment activities require a period of rest to provide for recovery of the site. Where this occurs, specific recovery criteria for when grazing will be allowed should be specified. and site specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Closure of Areas. Close areas within allotments where monitoring shows that desired conditions cannot be met while sustaining grazing use. This may include alteration of allotment boundaries or identification of specific areas within an allotment where livestock grazing will not be allowed. Modify the AMP and term grazing permit to identify the change in the allotment boundary or the area closure. F-7

Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Closing an area to domestic livestock in an area where conditions cannot sustain grazing use will allow the analysis area to stay in compliance with Forest Plan direction and site-specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. With closure of an area, fewer eyes will be on the ground if an invasive species was to establish, it could be identified after the population can be controlled. Grazing Restrictions Modification of Indicators of Annual Grazing Use. Where indicators or threshold values set for indicators of annual grazing use are not sensitive to monitoring the achievement of desired conditions, the threshold values may be adjusted, additional indicators added, or replacement indicators selected to monitor annual grazing use. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Levels of acceptable use such as forage utilization are set in the Forest Plan and in this Environmental Analysis and are brought forward in the Allotment Management Plans. Where specific allowable use limits are set they may be modified, if needed, to be more restrictive without additional environmental analysis. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Grazing Restrictions Modification of Management Practices. This includes a range of management and herding practices that vary according to conditions and use that are found on individual grazing allotments. and site specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Alteration of grazing routes. Alteration of designated trailing routes and route rotations to avoid resource damage, avoid use conflicts, reduce grazing pressure in specific areas, and improve distribution, access unused grazing areas, facilitate shipping, or facilitate rest or deferred rotation grazing. and site specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Adjust grazing to address conflicts with other resource uses. Modification of grazing use may be appropriate to prevent or manage conflicts with other uses such as dispersed recreation, coordinate with other management activities such as timber harvest and forest regeneration, or mitigate conflicts or impacts to other resources. and site specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Adjust grazing to provide for maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions and beneficial uses. F-8

and site specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Coordinate grazing with timber harvest and forest regeneration activities. and site specific desired conditions. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. Temporary Corrals. Effects: There are no temporary corrals proposed in this environmental analysis. If a location for temporary corrals was identified in the future, site-specific effects will be analyzed in associated environmental documents in accordance with NEPA at that time. The site would need to be monitored closely in years after use to ensure that no invasive species establish themselves due to the increase in disturbance at the corrals. Range Improvements Structural. Structural range improvements include construction of water developments, fences, corrals and other permanent livestock handling facilities, trails, bridges, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing environmental analyses. Effects: Specific effects will be analyzed in associated environmental documents in accordance with NEPA. The most likely types of structural improvements that would be considered are water developments with protection fences around the spring source or a fence to control livestock movements. Additional water developments and fences may be developed to improve distribution of livestock, draw cattle away from riparian areas where adaptive monitoring indicates there is a need to reduce grazing impacts, protect springs and seeps from grazing impacts, etc. The effect of the development of these watering sources would be a reduction in grazing impacts and soil disturbance to riparian areas and improving riparian vegetation, streambank stability, the condition of seeps and springs, etc. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. The site where an increase in ground disturbance could occur would need to be monitored closely in years after use to ensure that no invasive species establish themselves due to the increase in disturbance at the corrals. If no additional ground disturbance is indentified, the level of monitoring could slightly decrease for invasive species. Vegetative Treatments Nonstructural range improvements. Effects: Additional environmental analysis is required for vegetation activities such as prescribed fire, fuels reduction, aspen stand treatments, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. The exceptions to this are the invasive weed management activities, which are covered within NEPA analysis already completed for Noxious Weed Treatments. These changes would limit niches (such as a small area that is in less than desired condition) that invasive weeds need to establish. The site where an increase in ground disturbance could occur would need to be monitored closely in years after use to ensure that no invasive species establish themselves due to the increase in disturbance at the corrals. If no additional ground disturbance is indentified, the level of monitoring could slightly decrease for invasive species. F-9

Water Adaptive management practices are considered part of the Proposed Action; the effects to riparian resources and water quality of implementing those strategies are described below. Modify the seasons of use, stocking rate, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit, because of resource condition, or permittee request. Effects: The effect of a decrease in numbers or stocking rate would be beneficial to watershed conditions where it resulted in an increase in riparian or upland vegetation and consequently less surface erosion. The change may be the result of monitoring or seasonal climatic fluctuations such as drought, which result in the need to adapt management to changing conditions using actions such as those, described below to achieve resource-desired conditions and or resolve conflicts in resource uses. Modifying the season of use within an allotment to reduce grazing impacts and improve attainment of Desired Resource Conditions is anticipated to be beneficial. These actions include shortening the period of use to reduce or eliminate grazing impacts during periods where plants or other resources are most susceptible to damage or avoiding conflicts with other uses such as during periods of high recreation use. Examples include; 1) changing the season of use to avoid grazing when high mountain meadows are wet early in the season and 2) adapting the grazing season in response to seasonal variations in climate and productivity, such as during periods of drought to reduce impacts to vegetation. Modify numbers or stocking rates of permitted livestock numbers during all or a portion of the grazing season to match grazing use to resource conditions and productivity is anticipated to be beneficial. For example, matching grazing use to actual resource conditions and productivity allows grazing use to stay in compliance with Forest Plan direction. For example, if upland or riparian stubble heights are being achieved early in the season, numbers could be reduced to prolong the available forage. Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year). Rest the allotment or areas within the allotment for a specific period of years or on a periodic rotation where monitoring shows that trend towards achieving desired conditions are not stable, improving, or improving at an adequate rate. May also be implemented where fire, landslides, flood, etc; detrimentally impact resource conditions or where treatment activities require a period of rest to provide for recovery of the site. Seasonal rotation and periodic rest will tend to maximize infiltration rates and decrease sediment production from uplands through production of increased biomass. This will reduce effects on riparian vegetation, channel morphology, water column, and stream banks. (Johnson 1992). Effects: The effect of resting the allotment is anticipated to be beneficial. Closure of Areas within allotments where monitoring shows that desired conditions cannot be met while sustaining grazing use. This may include alteration of allotment boundaries or identification of specific areas within an allotment where livestock grazing will not be allowed. Closure can also be a small area with the closure being implemented with herding, fencing, or other measures. The AMP and term grazing permit would identify the change in the allotment boundary or the area closure. Riparian exclosures can be used to manage grazing to for maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions and beneficial uses. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Resting and exclosure of specific riparian areas across the forest has achieved measureable improvement to channel geometry and riparian vegetation. F-10

Grazing Restrictions Modification of Indicators of Annual Grazing Use. Where indicators or threshold values set for indicators of annual grazing use are not sensitive to monitoring the achievement of desired conditions, the threshold values may be adjusted, relocated, additional indicators added, or replacement indicators selected to monitor annual grazing use. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Where specific allowable use limits are set in the Forest Plan, they may be modified, if needed, to be more restrictive without additional environmental analysis. For example, if monitoring of riparian vegetation conditions where a 6-inch stubble height use limit is applied shows that woody vegetation is not increasing as desired, a utilization limit on woody vegetation that would allow for woody species regeneration at the site could by applied (University of Idaho 2004). Grazing Restrictions Modification of Management Practices. This includes a range of management and other practices that vary according to conditions and use that are found on individual grazing allotments. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. For example, limiting the amount of time cattle are allowed in a specific area reduces the impacts to riparian and upland vegetation and watershed conditions. Alteration of designated trailing routes and route rotations to avoid resource damage, avoid use conflicts, reduce grazing pressure in specific areas, and improve distribution, access unused grazing areas, facilitate shipping, or facilitate rest or deferred rotation grazing. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. For example, trailing routes could be modified to avoid areas burned in fire. Similar modifications to trailing routes would be implemented until conditions within the burned areas recover sufficiently to allow grazing use. Range Improvements Structural. Structural range improvements include construction of drift or boundary fences, cattle guards, water developments, corrals and other permanent livestock handling facilities, trails, bridges, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing environmental analyses. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Specific effects will be analyzed in associated environmental documents in accordance with NEPA. The most likely types of structural improvements that would be considered are water developments with protection fences around the spring source. Additional water developments may be developed to improve distribution of livestock, draw cattle away from riparian areas where adaptive monitoring indicates there is a need to reduce grazing impacts, protect springs and seeps from grazing impacts, etc. The effect of the development of these watering sources would be a reduction in grazing impacts and soil disturbance to riparian areas and improving riparian vegetation, streambank stability, the condition of seeps and springs, etc. Vegetative/Soil/Channel Treatments Nonstructural range improvements such as seeding and soil productivity improvements, i.e., biosol. Watershed Restoration projects can include revegetation, recontouring, and armoring of stream channels and the protection of the stream from further grazing to promote recovery. Currently, there are no plans to seed or complete soil productivity improvements. Site-specific NEPA would be completed were this to be an adaptive management strategy in the future. F-11

Effects: The effect of such treatments is anticipated to be beneficial. These actions may be used on areas of soil loss to move isolated areas of impact from a maintaining trend into an improving trend. Stream channel restoration may be used in areas of channel damage to restore the stream geomorphology and riparian vegetation and move the site from a degrading or maintaining trend toward an improving trend. Streambank or shoreline protection can be used to protect areas needed for livestock watering to avoid detrimental effects. Rock or gravel can be used to support livestock use or logs can be placed to deter livestock. Armoring or rocking a watering site or crossing site can reduce loss of stream banks, especially where banks are fine-grained and vulnerable to erosion. Placement of large woody debris can deter cattle from overused areas. Soil Effects of Implementing Adaptive Management Strategies The effects to soils of implementing those strategies are described below. Modify the seasons of use, stocking rate, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit; Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year): Closure of Areas Effects of all of the above: The effect of a decrease in overall use would be beneficial to areas already identified as having a loss of topsoil, loss of effective ground cover, soil compaction, active erosion, or loss of soil organic matter. The improvement would occur due to in an increase in riparian or upland vegetation, a reduction in ground disturbance, and consequently less surface erosion and compaction. Changing from cows with calves to non-lactating cows can result in utilization of riparian areas being reduced (Mosley 1997). The change may be the result of monitoring or seasonal climatic fluctuations such as drought, which result in the need to adapt management to changing conditions using actions such as those, described below to achieve resource-desired conditions and or resolve conflicts in resource uses. Modifying the season of use within an allotment to reduce grazing impacts and improve attainment of Desired Resource Conditions is anticipated to be beneficial. Reducing or eliminating grazing impacts during periods where pastures are wet early in the season can greatly reduce potential for compaction. Resting and exclosure of specific areas across the forest has achieved measureable improvement to soil erosion and areas of bare ground. Grazing Restrictions Modification of Indicators of Annual Grazing Use. Where indicators or threshold values set for indicators of annual grazing use are not sensitive to monitoring the achievement of desired conditions, the threshold values may be adjusted, relocated, additional indicators added, or replacement indicators selected to monitor annual grazing use. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Where specific allowable use limits are set in the Forest Plan, they may be modified, if needed, to be more restrictive without additional environmental analysis.. For example if the stubble height limit is applied but still does not achieve the effective ground cover percentage, then the stubble height standard may be increased in those areas. Or, if monitoring of riparian vegetation conditions where a 6 inch stubble height use limit is applied shows that woody vegetation is not increasing as desired, a utilization limit on woody vegetation that would allow for woody species regeneration at the site could by applied. Grazing Restrictions Modification of Management Practices. This includes a range of management and other practices that vary according to conditions and use that are found on individual grazing allotments. F-12

Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. For example, limiting the amount of time cattle are allowed in a specific area reduces the impacts to riparian and upland vegetation and watershed conditions. Alteration of designated trailing routes and route rotations to avoid resource damage, avoid use conflicts, reduce grazing pressure in specific areas, and improve distribution, access unused grazing areas, facilitate shipping, or facilitate rest or deferred rotation grazing. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. For example, trailing routes could be modified to avoid areas burned in fire. Similar modifications to trailing routes would be implemented until conditions within the burned areas recover sufficiently to allow grazing use. Range Improvements Structural. Structural range improvements include construction of drift or boundary fences, cattle guards, water developments, corrals and other permanent livestock handling facilities, trails, bridges, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing environmental analyses. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Specific effects will be analyzed in associated environmental documents in accordance with NEPA. The most likely types of structural improvements that would be considered are water developments with protection fences around the spring source. Additional water developments may be developed to improve distribution of livestock, draw cattle away from riparian areas where adaptive monitoring indicates there is a need to reduce grazing impacts, protect springs and seeps from grazing impacts, etc. The effect of the development of these watering sources would be a reduction in grazing impacts and soil disturbance to riparian areas and improving riparian vegetation, streambank stability, the condition of seeps and springs, etc. Vegetative/Soil/Channel Treatments Nonstructural range improvements such as seeding and soil productivity improvements. Watershed Restoration projects can include revegetation, recontouring, and armoring of stream channels and the protection of the stream from further grazing to promote recovery. Effects: The effect of such treatments is anticipated to be beneficial. These actions may be used on areas of soil loss to move isolated areas of impact from a maintaining trend into an improving trend. Stream channel restoration may be used in areas of channel damage to restore the stream geomorphology and riparian vegetation and move the site from a degrading or maintaining trend toward an improving trend. Fisheries Effects of Implementing Adaptive Management Strategies In the Fall Creek/Whitebird and Meadows Valley allotment EA, adaptive management practices are considered part of the Proposed Action. No specific monitoring of fish habitat indicators has been proposed, but changes initiated with adaptive management are likely to affect fish habitat over time, primarily through improvements in riparian as discussed under Water Quality, some of which are not reiterated here. The potential adaptive management effects to riparian and aquatic resource components of fish habitat are summarized below. Modify the seasons of use, stocking rate, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit, because of resource condition, or permittee request. F-13

Effect: In general, reductions in either stocking level or length grazing period would benefit riparian and aquatic conditions over the long term, but may not be readily measured. The fisheries literature abounds with evidence that livestock grazing has been responsible for degrading salmonid habitat in the western North America. Such degradation has often been difficult to detect because of the dynamics of aquatic systems and the gradual accumulation of small, incremental changes that have even resulted in some degraded habitats being regarded as natural (Platts 1991); identification of recovery is likely to be equally gradual. The changes likely to be observed in the long term include (but not limited to): reduced width-depth ratio, decreased fine sediments, improved bank stability, and possibly temperature if grazing has reduced effective shade. Changing the permitted livestock class could also result in improved fish habitat conditions in the long term, because not all classes of livestock affect riparian and aquatic conditions equally. In general, grazing by sheep, historically, has been less detrimental to fish habitat than grazing by cattle. Of the grazing strategies evaluated by Platts (1991), sheep strategies typically rated higher than cattle strategies. This is largely a result of the fact that sheep grazing is done with effective control over animal distributions preventing them from lingering in any given area for an excessive amount of time. Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year). Rest the allotment or areas within the allotment for a specific period of years or on a periodic rotation where monitoring shows that trend towards achieving desired conditions are not stable, improving, or improving at an adequate rate. May also be implemented where fire, landslides, flood, etc. detrimentally affect resource conditions or where treatment activities require a period of rest to provide for recovery of the site. Effects: Potential effects to salmonid habitat would be beneficial in the long term, but probably not immediately noticeable. Platts (1991) evaluated several grazing strategies and determined that strategies involving resting pastures rated the best for protecting riparian conditions and salmonid habitat. Closure of Areas within allotments where monitoring shows that desired conditions cannot be met while sustaining grazing use. This may include alteration of allotment boundaries or identification of specific areas within an allotment where livestock grazing will not be allowed. Closure can also be a small area with the closure being implemented with herding, fencing, or other measures. The AMP and term grazing permit would identify the change in the allotment boundary or the area closure. Riparian exclosures can be used to manage grazing to for maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions and beneficial uses. Effects: This would have effects similar to full closures or rest but in a more limited area. In addition, the use of riparian pastures has been proposed as a beneficial technique for limiting riparian damage if done properly (Platts and Nelson 1985a), though the author does not know of any instances where the strategy has been applied properly with the intent of keeping cattle away from riparian areas during the summer dry season (Platts and nelson 1985b). Range Improvements Structural. Structural range improvements include construction of drift or boundary fences, cattle guards, water developments, corrals and other permanent livestock handling facilities, trails, bridges, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing environmental analyses. F-14

Effects: Fencing has been shown to promote recovery of riparian resources, and often quickly, but fish habitat improvements occur more slowly (Platts 1991). However, the best cattle strategies identified by Platts (1991) involved some sort of fencing to improve control over animal distribution. Wildlife Effects of Implementing Adaptive Management Strategies In the Fall Creek/Whitebird and Meadows Valley allotment EA, adaptive management practices are considered part of the Proposed Action. No specific monitoring of fish habitat indicators has been proposed, but changes initiated with adaptive management are likely to affect fish habitat over time, primarily through improvements in riparian as discussed under Water Quality, some of which are not reiterated here. The potential adaptive management effects to riparian and aquatic resource components of fish habitat are summarized below. Modify the seasons of use, stocking rate, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit, because of resource condition, or permittee request. Effects: In general, reductions in either stocking level or length grazing period would benefit riparian and aquatic conditions over the long term, but may not be readily measured. The fisheries literature abounds with evidence that livestock grazing has been responsible for degrading salmonid habitat in the western North America, and such degradation has often been difficult to detect because of the dynamics of aquatic systems and the gradual accumulation of small, incremental changes that have even resulted in some degraded habitats being regarded as natural (Platts 1991); identification of recovery is likely to be equally gradual. The changes likely to be observed in the long term include (but not limited to): reduced width-depth ratio, decreased fine sediments, improved bank stability, and possibly temperature if grazing has reduced effective shade. Changing the permitted livestock class could also result in improved fish habitat conditions in the long term, because not all classes of livestock affect riparian and aquatic conditions equally. In general, grazing by sheep, historically, has been less detrimental to fish habitat than grazing by cattle. Of the grazing strategies evaluated by Platts (1991), sheep strategies typically rated higher than cattle strategies. This is largely a result of the fact that sheep grazing is done with effective control over animal distributions preventing them from lingering in any given area for an excessive amount of time. Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year). Rest the allotment or areas within the allotment for a specific period of years or on a periodic rotation where monitoring shows that trend towards achieving desired conditions are not stable, improving, or improving at an adequate rate. May also be implemented where fire, landslides, flood, etc. detrimentally affect resource conditions or where treatment activities require a period of rest to provide for recovery of the site. Effects: Potential effects to salmonid habitat would be beneficial in the long term, but probably not immediately noticeable. Platts (1991) evaluated several grazing strategies and determined that strategies involving resting pastures rated the best for protecting riparian conditions and salmonid habitat. Closure of Areas within allotments where monitoring shows that desired conditions cannot be met while sustaining grazing use. This may include alteration of allotment boundaries or identification of specific areas within an allotment where livestock grazing will not be allowed. Closure can also be a small area with the closure being implemented with herding, fencing, or other measures. The AMP and term grazing permit would identify F-15

the change in the allotment boundary or the area closure. Riparian exclosures can be used to manage grazing to for maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions and beneficial uses. Effects: This would have effects similar to full closures or rest but in a more limited area. In addition, the use of riparian pastures has been proposed as a beneficial technique for limiting riparian damage if done properly (Platts and Nelson 1985a), though the author does not know of any instances where the strategy has been applied properly with the intent of keeping cattle away from riparian areas during the summer dry season (Platts and nelson 1985b). Range Improvements Structural. Structural range improvements include construction of drift or boundary fences, cattle guards, water developments, corrals and other permanent livestock handling facilities, trails, bridges, etc. These actions may be proposed as adaptive management actions. Additional analysis will be required for these activities unless they are currently covered under existing environmental analyses. Effects: Fencing has been shown to promote recovery of riparian resources, and often quickly, but fish habitat improvements occur more slowly (Platts 1991). However, the best cattle strategies identified by Platts (1991) involved some sort of fencing to improve control over animal distribution. Recreation Effects of Implementing Adaptive Management Strategies Modify the seasons of use, numbers, kind, and class of livestock allowed or the allotment to be used under the permit, because of resource condition, or permittee request. Effects: If seasons of use were modified, and cattle were allowed onto the allotments earlier in the spring when wet conditions tend to prevail, the trails could encounter more trail damage because of the wet spring-like conditions. Lakeshores could also receive more damage in the wet spring months due to cattle stomping on the banks. In the fall months, effects could be between hunters and livestock interactions. If seasons of use were shortened, this would likely benefit recreational users because there would be less overlap where cattle and recreational users would be using the same lakeshore areas and trails. Effects could be beneficial to recreation if grazing were scheduled so that a high recreation use area would not have cattle present over the high recreational use weekends. Rest (i.e. closure to grazing for a full year). Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. Recreational users would benefit from not having to share the recreational use areas such as trails, meadows and lakeshore areas with livestock during rest time periods. Closure of Areas. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. If popular recreational use areas, such as trails, lakeshores and meadows were closed to grazing, recreational conflicts would be minimized to non-existent. Alteration of grazing routes. Effects: The effect of such a change is anticipated to be beneficial. If popular recreational use areas, such as trails, lakeshores and meadows were closed to grazing, recreational conflicts would be minimized to non-existent. F-16