United States Department of Agriculture
Antelope Grazing Allotments Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Fremont-Winema Silver Lake and Chemult November 2017 Service National Forest Ranger Districts
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (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) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Antelope Grazing Allotments Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Lake and Klamath Counties, Oregon
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Douglas C. McKay District Ranger, Paisley and Silver Lake Fremont-Winema National Forest 65600 Highway 31 Silver Lake, OR 97638
For Information Contact: Benjamin Goodin Interdisciplinary Team Leader (541) 947-6251 Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement documents the analysis for reissuing a grazing permit for the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, the Antelope Grazing Allotment, and a portion of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment on the Silver Lake and Chemult Ranger Districts of the Fremont–Winema National Forest. The project area encompasses approximately 169,599 acres of which 137,189 acres are on National Forest System lands and 32,410 acres are non-National Forest System lands. The purpose of the proposed action is to permit a maximum of 419 cow/calf pairs under a term grazing permit and 75 cow/calf pairs under a term private land grazing permit for a season of use (May 15–September 30) within the project area under an adaptive management strategy that meets or moves towards applicable Land and Resource Management Plan desired conditions and project-specific desired conditions. Comments received in response to the Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, including names and addresses of those who comment, are part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments were used to develop the alternative array presented in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. This Final Environmental Impact Statement will be accompanied by a Draft Record of Decision that will identify the alternative selected by the Forest Supervisor for the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project.
Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary
Executive Summary The Fremont-Winema National Forest proposes to reissue a grazing permit on the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, the Antelope Grazing Allotment, and a portion of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment for a maximum of 275 cow/calf pairs under a term grazing permit and 219 cow/calf pairs under a term private land grazing permits using an adaptive management strategy. The approximately 168,564-acre project area is located on the Silver Lake and Chemult Ranger Districts (RDs) approximately 8 miles northwest of Silver Lake, Oregon, and approximately 5 miles east of Chemult, Oregon, in Lake and Klamath counties. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives.
Background Permitted livestock grazing has occurred in the project area beginning with each Forest’s congressional designation (Fremont National Forest in 1908 and Winema National Forest in 1961). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and allotment management plans from 1975, 1985, and 1995 describe the same grazing strategy, season of use, and total numbers of cattle, with authorizations varying by permit and by Forest over the roughly 35 years of administration. Current permitted grazing within the allotments allows 419 cow/calf pairs per month for 4.5 months (May 15–September 30). Land exchanges within the last 20 years have affected the boundaries and acres of National Forest System land within the Antelope Grazing Allotment and the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment. Lands acquired through the Crown Pacific Land Exchange EIS (1998) have expanded the Antelope Grazing Allotment and the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment to include Cannon Well, Round Meadow, and Rock Springs, designated as Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Management Area 8C (moist and wet meadows), in which controlled grazing is permissible. This Final EIS includes the exchanged lands and evaluates any changes in the management of these allotments. The Antelope Grazing Allotments Project is needed because the Forest must comply with Section 504 of Public Law 104-19 (Rescission Act of 1995), which directs the Forest Service to complete NEPA analyses on all allotments where permitted grazing activity needs to be authorized. Additionally, the Forest needs to determine if livestock management practices are sufficient for achieving and maintaining compliance with current Forest Plan direction, applicable laws, and regulations. The purpose of the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project is to update allotment management plans to incorporate the best available science that applies to the landscape within these allotments; to refine allotment management strategies, systems, and boundaries to better distribute livestock and forage utilization across the allotments, consistent with Forest Plan standards; where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives, to meet congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands as identified in the Forest Plans; and to continue contributing to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.14).
Public Involvement Efforts The Forest Service engaged the public with a scoping letter in November of 2010 with the initial proposed action. Consideration of the 26 comments received led to modifying the proposed action, and the Forest Service decided to provide another scoping period because the project area had expanded. A second scoping letter, detailing the new, modified proposed action, was sent to interested and affected parties in September of 2011, and added to the Forest Web site. Twelve
i Summary Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
local landowners, environmental groups, and other interested parties responded to the modified proposed action. The final comment period began on December 21, 2013. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) identified six key groupings of significant issues from the comments received during both scoping efforts (November 2010, and September 2011). Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action: • Key Issue 1: Grazing in meadows/riparian areas • Key Issue 2: Grazing in Oregon spotted frog habitat • Key Issue 3: Grazing strategies • Key Issue 4: Utilization of available forage • Key Issue 5: Fencing strategies • Key Issue 6: Expansion of Allotment Boundaries These issues led the IDT to modify the proposed action (Alternative 3) and develop two additional action alternatives, Alternatives 4 and 5. The alternatives are briefly summarized below. The Draft EIS analyzed a total of 5 alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The issues and alternatives are described in greater detail in Chapter 2. The comment period for the Draft EIS began December 19, 2014 and ended on February 2, 2015. This Final EIS includes the same 5 alternatives as the Draft EIS.
Alternative 1 (No Grazing) This alternative would eliminate livestock grazing from 136,727 acres of National Forest System lands on the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment. Alternative 1 would not modify existing permitted grazing on any part of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment, nor would it provide management for grazing on private lands within the Antelope Allotments.
Alternative 2 (Current Management) Alternative 2 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under current management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for two herds at 419 cow/calf pairs per month, with permitted grazing from May 15 to September 30. Under Alternative 2, the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment would remain two separate administrative allotments and retain their existing boundaries.
Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Alternative 3 was developed by the IDT to provide grazing opportunities to meet multiple-use objectives while reducing impacts to important botanical and wildlife resources. Alternative 3 proposes to reissue a grazing permit on the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, the Antelope Grazing Allotment, and a portion of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment for a maximum of 275 cow/calf pairs under a term grazing permit and 219 cow/calf pairs under a term private land grazing permit using an adaptive management strategy.
ii Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary
The original proposed action was modified to develop Alternative 3 to address issues raised during public scoping as follows: • To better distribute cattle and utilization, the North Sheep Pasture would be added to the Antelope Grazing Allotment in a deferred-rotation with the Chemult Pasture. • The grazing system in the Chemult Pasture would be changed from a 3-month, season-long grazing system to a deferred-rotation system, made possible by allowing use of additional acreage in some of the existing fenced riparian areas and the North Sheep Pasture. • Private inholdings along the Jack Creek Unit would be brought under allotment management through a term private land permit, to facilitate coordinated management of Oregon spotted frog habitat across ownerships. • To graze under a 1-herd system while incorporating the 75 cow/calf pairs previously grazed on the private lands, a 2-year rotation schedule would be used within Jack Creek as part of the term private land grazing permit. • New exclosures (protection fences) would be constructed around selected sensitive springs and fens. • The Tobin Cabin Pasture would be modified to include the Rock Springs area, and grazing would be reduced from 3 months to 1 month. • For the inholding pastures of Antelope Flat 3 and 4, the season of use was extended to October 15, to facilitate movement of livestock off the allotments at the end of the grazing season.
Alternative 4 Alternative 4 was developed by the IDT to provide grazing opportunities to meet multiple-use objectives while addressing public concerns about the protection of important botanical and wildlife resources on the Chemult RD. Alternative 4 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for one herd at 419 cow/calf pairs per month, with grazing authorized from May 20 to July 30, without using the Chemult RD portion of the allotment using an adaptive management strategy. Alternative 4 addresses scoping issues and concerns as follows: • The Chemult portion of the allotments would be administratively closed to grazing to protect fen habitat (sensitive plant and animal habitat). • Grazing would not be expanded into the North Sheep Pasture. • Existing fence would be rebuilt or new fence would be constructed along active allotment boundaries. • New exclosures (protection fences) would be constructed around sensitive springs and fens on the Silver Lake side of the Antelope Grazing Allotment.
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 was developed by the IDT to provide grazing opportunities to meet multiple-use objectives while incorporating concepts that may result in better management of the allotment and of livestock needs. This alternative was developed to address issues and concerns raised during public comment periods that presented alternatives to the proposed action. Alternative 5 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for two herds at a total of 419 cow/calf pairs with a third
iii Summary Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
herd of 75 cow/calf pair per month under term private land grazing permit, with grazing authorized from May 15 to October 15 using an adaptive management strategy. The 75 cow/calf pairs incorporated under this alternative reflect the inclusion of grazing on Jack Creek. This alternative includes grazing in some fenced riparian areas; on the additional acreage identified from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment; and on the private land parcels along Jack Creek known as Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison under a term private land grazing permit. The 75 cow/calf pairs incorporated under this alternative reflect the inclusion of the numbers of cow/calf pairs being grazed on these private lands. Alternative 5 addresses issues and concerns as follows:
• To better distribute cattle and utilization, and provide flexibility in grazing strategies, the North Sheep Pasture would be added to the Antelope Grazing Allotment. • A 2-herd grazing system on the Chemult RD would be used with a deferred-rotation pattern involving the Chemult, Tobin Cabin, and North Sheep pastures. Tobin Cabin and North Sheep pastures would have a 1-year rest during the 3-year grazing cycle. • To graze under a 2-herd system while incorporating the 75 cow/calf pairs previously grazed on the private lands, a 2-year rotation schedule would be used within Jack Creek as part of the term private land grazing permit. • Private inholdings along Jack Creek would be brought under allotment management through a term private land grazing permit to facilitate coordinated management of Oregon spotted frog habitat across ownerships. • New exclosures (protection fences) would be constructed around selected sensitive springs and fens. • The Rock Springs area would not be included in the Tobin Cabin pasture. • For the holding pastures of Antelope Flat 3 and 4, the season of use would be extended to October 15 to facilitate movement of livestock off the allotments at the end of the grazing season.
Major Conclusions Major conclusions related to impacts from proposed activities include the following:
• Though the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) of 37 sensitive plant, 7 wildlife species, and 1 fish species, none are likely to cause a loss of viability for the populations, or for the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward the federal listing (MIIH). Monitoring and adaptive management would be used to maintain habitat for these species, as required in Alternatives 3 through 5. • The action alternatives would pose a low risk of invasive plant introduction and spread. • This project would not contribute to a negative trend in the threatened Oregon spotted frog’s viability on the Forest. • The estimated annual output would be the highest for Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 ($175,248, $150,808, and $178,555, respectively), and lowest for Alternatives 1 and 4 ($0.00, and $43,992, respectively). • Alternatives 1 and 4 are expected to result in a short-term improvement in plant species composition and forage production. Without some level of disturbance to maintain dynamic processes within these plant communities, individual plants would lose vigor and
iv Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary
establishment of new plants may be limited by low germination and survival rates of seedlings. • Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, plant communities would be expected to remain in a steady ecological state or show slow levels of improvement through the update of appropriate utilization levels based on current range conditions and resource objectives for Oregon spotted frog and fen communities. • Under all of the alternatives, water quality conditions within Jack Creek would be maintained or improved. • Under all alternatives, the cumulative amount of detrimentally disturbed soil from structural improvements and all other management facilities would remain well within both allowable Forest Plan limits for maintaining soil productivity within each of the allotment pastures. All proposed alternatives would continue to manage the forage vegetation and soil resource for long-term sustained productivity through attainment of upward or stable vegetation trends. • Motor vehicle traffic associated with any of the alternatives, combined with normal public use, is not expected to have long term effects on the transportation system. • None of the alternatives are expected to cause negative direct or indirect effects on cultural resources. • A project of this size would create such minimal contributions of greenhouse gases that its impact on global climate change would be infinitesimal.
Decision The Responsible Official for this project is the Silver Lake/Paisley District Ranger. Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action, alternatives, and environmental consequences to make the following decisions:
• Should livestock grazing be authorized on the identified allotments, and if so, what level of grazing and what grazing system(s) are appropriate? • Is the selected alternative consistent with the Fremont and Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (USDA Forest Service 1989, 1990), as amended?
Document Changes Several revisions were made between publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The changes include: - Incorporation of analysis for unauthorized use of the allotment in Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Revisions to sections 3.2 and 3.4 (Botanical resources and Wildlife) to reflect changes in the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, published in 2015 - Revisions to section 3.4 to reflect the revised Biological Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog - Revisions to chapter 3 to incorporate new monitoring data in effects analyses - Addition of the invertebrate section 3.3, as a response to the updated sensitive species list and species previously omitted from the EIS but present in specialist reports. - Minor changes to tables 2.1 – 2.4 for clarity and consistency. - Appendix D was changed to incorporate new monitoring strategy and include the adaptive management strategy in the monitoring plan.
v
Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Contents
Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... i Document Changes ...... v Table of Contents ...... vii List of Tables ...... xii List of Figures ...... xiii List of Acronyms ...... xv Chapter 1– Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Changes between Draft and Final Environmental Assessment ...... 1-1 1.1.2 Project Area ...... 1-1 1.1.3 Allotment History ...... 1-3 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-3 1.3 Proposed Action ...... 1-5 1.4 Decision Framework ...... 1-5 1.5 Public Involvement ...... 1-5 1.5.1 Other Agencies ...... 1-6 1.6 Tribal Consultation and Coordination...... 1-6 1.7 Issues ...... 1-6 1.7.1 Key Issue 1: Grazing in Meadows/Riparian Areas ...... 1-7 1.7.2 Key Issue 2: Grazing in Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat ...... 1-7 1.7.3 Key Issue 3: Grazing Strategies ...... 1-8 1.7.4 Key Issue 4: Utilization of Available Forage ...... 1-9 1.7.5 Key Issue 5: Fencing Strategies ...... 1-9 1.7.6 Key Issue 6: Expansion of Allotment Boundaries ...... 1-10 1.8 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy ...... 1-11 1.8.1 Forest Plan Direction ...... 1-11 1.8.2 Federal Land Policy Management Act ...... 1-11 1.8.3 Federal and State Permit Requirements ...... 1-12 1.8.4 Clean Water Act...... 1-12 1.8.5 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands ...... 1-12 1.8.6 Endangered Species Act ...... 1-12 1.8.7 Executive Order 13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 1-12 1.8.8 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land ...... 1-13 1.8.9 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 1-13 1.8.10 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice ...... 1-13 1.8.11 Designated Areas ...... 1-14 1.9 Document Organization ...... 1-14 Chapter 2– Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Alternative A—Construction of a Boundary Fence around Allotment ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Alternative B—Fencing Riparian Systems ...... 2-1 2.2.3 Alternative C—Removing Fences from Existing Fenced Meadows and Riparian Areas 2-2 2.2.4 Alternative D—Restoring and Protecting Allotment ...... 2-2 2.2.5 Alternative E—Implementation of an Intensive Rotational Grazing Strategy ... 2-3 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 2-4 2.3.1 Alternative 1—No Grazing ...... 2-4
vii Contents Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.3.1.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 2-4 2.3.1.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal ...... 2-4 2.3.1.3 Water Developments ...... 2-4 2.3.1.4 Transportation...... 2-4 2.3.2 Alternative 2—Current Management ...... 2-7 2.3.2.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 2-7 2.3.2.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal ...... 2-7 2.3.2.3 Water Developments ...... 2-8 2.3.2.4 Transportation...... 2-8 2.3.3 Alternative 3—Proposed Action ...... 2-12 2.3.3.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 2-12 2.3.3.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal ...... 2-13 2.3.3.3 Water Developments ...... 2-13 2.3.3.4 Transportation...... 2-13 2.3.4 Alternative 4 ...... 2-18 2.3.4.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 2-18 2.3.4.2 Fence Construction ...... 2-18 2.3.4.3 Water Developments ...... 2-19 2.3.4.4 Transportation...... 2-19 2.3.5 Alternative 5 ...... 2-23 2.3.5.1 Livestock Grazing ...... 2-23 2.3.5.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal ...... 2-24 2.3.5.3 Water Developments ...... 2-24 2.3.5.4 Transportation...... 2-24 2.3.6 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 2-29 2.3.6.1 Fence Construction, Reconstruction, and Removal ...... 2-29 2.3.6.2 Water Structures and Spring Protections ...... 2-29 2.3.6.3 Distribution Management ...... 2-29 2.3.6.4 Permitted Motorized Access ...... 2-29 2.3.7 Design Features ...... 2-29 2.3.7.1 Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 2-30 2.3.7.2 Design Features Specific to Alternative 1 ...... 2-33 2.3.7.3 Design Features Specific to Alternatives 3 and 5 ...... 2-33 2.3.8 Monitoring Elements ...... 2-34 2.3.8.1 Range and Soil Readiness ...... 2-35 2.3.8.2 Implementation Monitoring ...... 2-36 2.3.8.3 Effectiveness Monitoring ...... 2-37 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-37 Chapter 3– Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 3.1 Range and Nonforested Vegetation ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-1 3.1.1.1 National Forest System Rangelands ...... 3-1 3.1.1.2 Private Rangelands ...... 3-9 3.1.1.3 Plant Community Types ...... 3-9 3.1.1.4 Condition and Trend Ratings ...... 3-12 3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-13 3.1.2.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-13 3.1.2.2 Alternative 1 ...... 3-13 3.1.2.3 Alternative 2 ...... 3-14 3.1.2.4 Alternative 3 ...... 3-15 3.1.2.5 Alternative 4 ...... 3-15
viii Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Contents
3.1.2.6 Alternative 5 ...... 3-16 3.1.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-17 3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 and Alternative 4—Chemult Ranger District Portion ...... 3-17 3.1.3.2 Alternative 2 (Current Management), Alternative 3, Alternative 4 (Silver Lake Ranger District Portion), and Alternative 5—Active Grazing Management Alternatives 3- 18 3.2 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants ...... 3-21 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-21 3.2.1.1 Pastures ...... 3-21 3.2.1.2 Fen Habitats ...... 3-22 3.2.1.3 Sensitive Species ...... 3-26 3.2.1.4 Cultural Plants ...... 3-33 3.2.1.5 Invasive Plants ...... 3-34 3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-35 3.2.2.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-35 3.2.2.2 Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 3-36 3.2.3 Effects Determination Summary...... 3-66 3.2.3.1 Fen Habitats ...... 3-66 3.2.3.2 Sensitive Plants ...... 3-69 3.2.3.3 Cultural Plants ...... 3-73 3.2.3.4 Invasive Plants ...... 3-74 3.2.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-75 3.3 Invertebrates ...... 3-78 3.3.1 Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly ...... 3-78 3.3.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-78 3.3.1.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-79 3.3.2 Gray blue butterfly ...... 3-79 3.3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-79 3.3.2.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-80 3.3.3 Western bumblebee...... 3-80 3.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects: All alternatives ...... 3-81 3.3.3.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-81 3.3.4 Sensitive mollusks ...... 3-81 3.3.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-82 3.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-82 3.4 Wildlife ...... 3-83 3.4.1 Gray Wolf ...... 3-84 3.4.1.1 Direct & Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 ...... 3-86 3.4.1.2 Direct & Indirect Effects - Alternatives 2 - 5 ...... 3-86 3.4.1.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-86 3.4.2 Oregon Spotted Frog ...... 3-87 3.4.3 Oregon Spotted Frog Critical Habitat ...... 3-92 3.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-92 3.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-95 3.4.4 Pallid Bat ...... 3-97 3.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-97 3.4.4.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-98 3.4.5 Fringed Myotis ...... 3-99 3.4.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-99 3.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-100 3.4.6 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat ...... 3-100
ix Contents Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-101 3.4.6.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-101 3.4.7 Yellow Rail ...... 3-102 3.4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-103 3.4.7.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-104 3.4.8 Lewis’ Woodpecker ...... 3-104 3.4.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-105 3.4.8.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-105 3.4.9 White-headed Woodpecker ...... 3-106 3.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-107 3.4.9.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-107 3.4.10 Northern Leopard Frogs ...... 3-108 3.4.10.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-108 3.4.10.2 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-109 3.4.11 Management Indicator Species ...... 3-109 3.5 Socioeconomics ...... 3-110 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-110 3.5.2 Economic State ...... 3-110 3.5.2.1 Social Culture ...... 3-111 3.5.2.2 Indian Tribes ...... 3-112 3.5.2.3 Civil Rights Impact Analysis ...... 3-112 3.5.3 Economic Analysis Methodology ...... 3-113 3.5.3.1 Forest Service Economic Contribution Analysis ...... 3-113 3.5.3.2 Bureau of Land Management Economic Contribution Analysis ...... 3-113 3.5.3.3 Baseline Costs ...... 3-114 3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-114 3.5.4.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-115 3.5.4.2 Alternative 1 ...... 3-116 3.5.4.3 Alternative 2 ...... 3-117 3.5.4.4 Alternatives 3 and 5 ...... 3-119 3.5.4.5 Alternative 4 ...... 3-122 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-125 3.5.5.1 All Alternatives ...... 3-125 3.6 Hydrology ...... 3-127 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-127 3.6.1.1 Groundwater-dependent Ecosystems ...... 3-128 3.6.1.2 Streamflow ...... 3-132 3.6.1.3 Channel Morphology and Water Quality ...... 3-133 3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-133 3.6.2.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-134 3.6.2.2 General Potential Impacts of Grazing on Hydrologic Resources ...... 3-134 3.6.2.3 Alternative 1—No Grazing ...... 3-135 3.6.2.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action (Current Management) ...... 3-136 3.6.2.5 Alternative 3 ...... 3-138 3.6.2.6 Alternative 4 ...... 3-140 3.6.2.7 Alternative 5 ...... 3-141 3.6.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-142 3.6.3.1 Groundwater-dependent Ecosystems ...... 3-143 3.6.3.2 Streamflow ...... 3-143 3.6.3.3 Channel Morphology and Stream Water Quality ...... 3-144 3.7 Fisheries ...... 3-144
x Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Contents
3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-144 3.7.1.1 Jack Creek ...... 3-144 3.7.1.2 Miller Lake Lamprey ...... 3-149 3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-150 3.7.2.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-150 3.7.2.2 General Effects on Aquatic Systems from Livestock Grazing ...... 3-150 3.7.2.3 Alternative 1 ...... 3-152 3.7.2.4 Alternative 2 ...... 3-153 3.7.2.5 Alternative 3 ...... 3-153 3.7.2.6 Alternative 4 ...... 3-154 3.7.2.7 Alternative 5 ...... 3-154 3.7.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-155 3.7.3.1 Alternatives 1 and 4 ...... 3-156 3.7.3.2 Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 ...... 3-157 3.8 Soils ...... 3-158 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-158 3.8.1.1 West Pastures ...... 3-158 3.8.1.2 East Pastures ...... 3-163 3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-166 3.8.2.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-167 3.8.2.2 Alternative 1 ...... 3-168 3.8.2.3 Alternative 2 ...... 3-169 3.8.2.4 Alternative 3 ...... 3-171 3.8.2.5 Alternative 4 ...... 3-173 3.8.2.6 Alternative 5 ...... 3-174 3.8.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-178 3.8.3.1 All Alternatives ...... 3-179 3.9 Transportation and Access ...... 3-181 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-181 3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-181 3.9.2.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-182 3.9.2.2 Alternative 1 ...... 3-182 3.9.2.3 Alternatives 2–5...... 3-182 3.9.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-183 3.10 Cultural Resources ...... 3-184 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-184 3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-188 3.10.2.1 Measurement Indicators ...... 3-188 3.10.2.2 Potential Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-188 3.10.2.3 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives ...... 3-190 3.10.2.4 Alternative 1 ...... 3-190 3.10.2.5 Alternative 2 ...... 3-191 3.10.2.6 Alternative 3 ...... 3-191 3.10.2.7 Alternative 4 ...... 3-192 3.10.2.8 Alternative 5 ...... 3-192 3.10.3 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-193 3.11 Climate Change ...... 3-194 3.11.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-194 3.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3-195 3.11.2.1 General Discussions of Climate Change on Land Management ...... 3-195 Chapter 4– List of Preparers ...... 4-1
xi Contents Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
References ...... R-1
List of Tables Table 1-1. Antelope Allotments, total acres, acres of National Forest System land, and acres of non-National Forest System lands ...... 1-3 Table 1-2. Fremont National Forest and Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans management areas (MAs) that are included in the Antelope Grazing Allotments ...... 1-11 Table 2-1. Alternative 2 livestock grazing levels and seasons ...... 2-9 Table 2-2. Alternative 3 livestock grazing levels and seasons ...... 2-14 Table 2-3. Alternative 4 livestock grazing levels and seasons ...... 2-20 Table 2-4. Alternative 5 livestock grazing levels and seasons ...... 2-25 Table 2-5. Vegetative indicators of range readiness and range unreadiness ...... 2-36 Table 2-6. Comparison of actions by alternative ...... 2-38 Table 2-7. Comparison of key measurement indicator by alternative ...... 2-39 Table 2-8. Comparison of resource management indicators by alternative ...... 2-41 Table 3-1. Summary of forage condition and trend (C&T) ratings by year ...... 3-12 Table 3-2. Comparison of range measurement indicators by alternative ...... 3-13 Table 3-3. Sensitive botanical species with known or potential habitat in the project area and effects determinations by alternative ...... 3-27 Table 3-4. Location of sensitive botanical species documented within the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area ...... 3-30 Table 3-5. Comparison of botanical resources and invasive plant measurement indicators by alternative ...... 3-36 Table 3-6 Comparison of the Action Alternatives on acres of permitted grazing in fen habitat that is occupied or suitable for sensitive plants, mollusks, and insects...... 3-68 Table 3-7. Sensitive Invertebrate species with potential habitat in the project area ...... 3-78 Table 3-8. Threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and sensitive wildlife species considered ...... 3-83 Table 3-9. Oregon spotted frog habitat on Jack Creek...... 3-91 Table 3-10. Comparison of effects to Oregon spotted frog (OSF) by alternative using the measurement indicators...... 3-92 Table 3-11. Comparison of effects to yellow rail by alternative using the measurement indicators ...... 3-103 Table 3-12 Baseline costs used for infrastructure economic comparisons ...... 3-114 Table 3-13 Comparison of socioeconomic measurement indicators by alternative (Alt.) ...... 3-115 Table 3-14. Basins, subbasins, and subwatersheds in which the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area is located. HUCs are listed for each basin (6 digit), subbasin (8 digit), and subwatershed (12 digit)...... 3-127 Table 3-15. Degree of soil alteration at fens and springs within the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project area. Measurements were collected during assessment of vegetation, soil, and hydrologic conditions at over 60 fens, springs, and developed ponds during 2010 and 2011 by the project interdisciplinary team, following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009). The surveys at developed ponds were excluded from data analysis...... 3-129 Table 3-16. Assessment of hydrologic impacts to springs and fens within the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project area. Measurements were collected during assessment of vegetation, soil, and hydrology at over 60 locations during 2010 and 2011 by the project interdisciplinary team, following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009)...... 3-130
xii Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Contents
Table 3-17. Comparison of measurement indicators for hydrologic resources by alternative (Alt.) ...... 3-134 Table 3-18 INFISH riparian management objectives (RMOs) within Jack Creek ...... 3-147 Table 3-19 Comparison of the effects of the alternatives (Alts.) using measurement indicators for aquatic habitat ...... 3-150 Table 3-20 Terrestrial ecological (TE) units in the west side of the project area ...... 3-158 Table 3-21. Riparian areas of concern, Terrestrial Ecological (TE) Unit, and current conditions— west pastures ...... 3-162 Table 3-22. Soil and landtypes in the project area ...... 3-164 Table 3-23 Estimated extent of detrimental soil condition by activity measured in acres ...... 3-166 Table 3-24 Comparison of measurement indicators for soils by alternative...... 3-168 Table 3-25. Comparison of effects to transportation by alternative using the measurement indicators ...... 3-182 Table 3-26 Prehistoric site types within the Antelope project area (Tonsfeldt and Gray 2009) ..... 3- 186 Table 3-27 Historic site types within the Antelope project area (Tonsfeldt and Gray 2009) ... 3-186 Table 3-28 Comparison of cultural resource measurement indicators by alternative (Alt.) ..... 3-188 Table 3-29. Trends of annual precipitation and mean temperature for the project area ...... 3-194 Table 4-1. List of preparers and their contributions ...... 4-1 Table 4-2. Regional ERC reviewers ...... 4-2
List of Figures Figure 1-1. Project area location ...... 1-2 Figure 2-1. Alternative 1 boundary and pastures ...... 2-5 Figure 2-2. Alternative 1 proposed fence construction, maintenance, reconstruction, and removal ...... 2-6 Figure 2-3. Alternative 2 boundary and pastures ...... 2-10 Figure 2-4. Alternative 2 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal ...... 2-11 Figure 2-5. Alternative 3 boundary and pastures ...... 2-16 Figure 2-6. Alternative 3 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal ...... 2-17 Figure 2-7. Alternative 4 boundaries and pastures ...... 2-21 Figure 2-8. Alternative 4 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal ...... 2-22 Figure 2-9. Alternative 5 boundaries and pastures ...... 2-27 Figure 2-10. Alternative 5 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal ...... 2-28 Figure 3-1. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) location of the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area ...... 3-127
xiii
Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Contents
List of Acronyms AMP Allotment Management Plan AOI Annual Operating Instructions AUM Animal Unit Months BI Beneficial Impact BLM Bureau of Land Management C & T Condition and Trend CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CWA Clean Water Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CR Cultural Resources CRIA Civil Rights Impact Analysis CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen EIS Environmental Impact Statement EF/L Environmental Flows and Levels EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FA Functioning Appropriately FAR Functioning at Risk FEAST Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool FEIS Fire Effects Information System FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FSH Forest Service Handbook FTE Full-time Employee FUR Functioning at Unacceptable Risk GDE Ground-Water Dependent Ecosystem GIS Geographic Information System HI/LF High Intensity/Low Frequency
xv Contents Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
AMP Allotment Management Plan HM Head Months HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IDT Interdisciplinary Team IMPLAN® Impact Analysis for Planning INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LT Landtype MA Management Area MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat MIS Management Indicator Species ML Maintenance Level MOU Memorandum of Understanding MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NI No Impact NRHP National Register of Historic Places ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife OHV Off-highway vehicle OSF Oregon Spotted Frog OWSC Office of Washington State Climatologist RD Ranger District REA Range Environmental Assessment RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species RMO Riparian Management Objective
xvi Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Contents
AMP Allotment Management Plan ROW Right of Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions SP Spring Protection SRI Soil Resource Inventory TEPC Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate TEUI Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDI U.S. Department of Interior USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WCI Watershed Condition Indicators
xvii
Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1
Chapter 1–Purpose and Need for Action 1.1 Introduction The Silver Lake and Chemult Ranger Districts (RDs) of the Fremont-Winema National Forest (Forest) are proposing to reissue a grazing permit on the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, the Antelope Grazing Allotment, and a portion of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment. The Forest Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement (Final EIS) in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), and relevant federal and State laws and regulations. This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.
1.1.1 Changes between Draft and Final Environmental Assessment In response to comments received during the 45-day notice and comment period, which started on December 19, 2015, and ended on February 2, 2015, the following updates were made to the Final EIS: • Chapter 2: Clarification of alternatives • Chapter 3: Clarification regarding INFISH standards was added to section 3.3.1 • Appendix E, Response to Comments was added
1.1.2 Project Area The project area is located approximately 8 miles northwest of Silver Lake, Oregon, and approximately 5 miles east of Chemult, Oregon, in Lake and Klamath counties (Figure 1-1). The project area for this analysis is the combined acreage of the Antelope Grazing Allotment (Silver Lake RD), the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment (Chemult RD), and an unused portion of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment (Chemult RD), with additional acreage near Cannon Well and Round Meadow in the Chemult Pasture (Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment) and in the Rock Springs (Antelope Grazing Allotment) area of the Tobin Cabin Pasture. The project area encompasses approximately 168,564 acres of which 137,284 acres are on National Forest System [NFS] lands and 31,837 acres are non-NFS lands (Table 1-1). The Antelope Grazing Allotment is approximately 81,133 acres (53,093 acres NFS lands) and is currently divided into 3 main grazing pastures (North Willow, Halfway, and Tobin Cabin). Four smaller pastures within this allotment (Antelope Flat 1–4) are used seasonally for gathering or short-duration grazing or holding. The Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment is approximately 68,367 acres (64,949 acres NFS lands) and contains 1 pasture (Chemult Pasture). Approximately 19,064 acres (18,686 acres NFS lands) of the North Sheep Pasture within the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment are proposed to be added with this project (Figure 1-1). The allotments will be referred to throughout the rest of this document either individually by their allotment or pasture names or collectively as the Antelope Allotments.
1-1 Chapter 1 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 1-1. Project area location
1-2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1
Table 1-1. Antelope Allotments, total acres, acres of National Forest System land, and acres of non-National Forest System lands Allotment Allotment National Forest Non-National Forest Acres System Acres System Acres Antelope Grazing Allotment 80,576 52,535 28,041 Antelope Cattle and Horse 68,367 64,949 3,418 Allotment Jack Creek Sheep and Goat 19,064 18,686 378 Allotment Total Acres 168,564 137,284 31,837
1.1.3 Allotment History Livestock grazing has occurred in south central Oregon since the late 1800s, and the project area has been under permitted grazing by the Forest Service since each Forest’s congressional designation (Fremont NF in 1908 and Winema NF in 1961). The lands have been grazed primarily by cattle, but were also permitted for sheep prior to the 1950s. NEPA analysis and AMPs from 1975, 1985, and (most recently) 1995 describe the same grazing strategy, season of use, and total numbers of cattle, with authorizations varying by permit and by Forest over the roughly 35 years of administration. Current permitted grazing within the allotments allows 419 cow/calf pairs per month for 4.5 months (May 15–September 30). Land exchanges within the last 20 years have affected the boundaries and acres of NFS land within the Antelope Grazing Allotment and the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment. Lands acquired through the Crown Pacific Land Exchange EIS (1998) expanded the Antelope Grazing Allotment and the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment to include Cannon Well, Round Meadow, and Rock Springs, placing these areas within Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Management Area (MA) 8C (moist and wet meadows), which permits controlled grazing. This analysis includes those exchanged lands within the project boundary and evaluates any changes in the management of these allotments.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Action NFS lands provide an important source of forage for livestock during part of the year. The permittees have expressed a desire to continue grazing and have invested in base properties, livestock handling facilities, and range developments. The Forest must meet requirements for the completion of NEPA analysis and decisions as stipulated in Section 504 of the Rescission Act of 1995 (as amended). Specifically, Public Law 104-19, Section 504(a) states, “Establish and adhere to a schedule for the completion of NEPA, Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis and decisions on all allotments within the NFS unit for which NEPA is needed” (PL 104-19 section, General Provision 1995). The Antelope Grazing Allotments are on that schedule. The Forest Service must fulfill the following responsibilities: • Update AMPs to incorporate the best available science that applies to the landscape within these allotments. • Refine allotment management strategies, systems, and boundaries to better distribute livestock and forage utilization across the allotments, consistent with Forest Plan standards. • Where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives, meet congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands as identified in the Forest Plans.
1-3 Chapter 1 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Continue contributing to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.14). This analysis is being prepared to determine whether the Forest Service should reauthorize livestock grazing within the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area, and if so, what level of grazing should be reauthorized. Forage resources are renewable and sustainable through proper management of non-forested plant community types. Forage resources are renewable on an annual basis, so management must occur on an appropriate temporal scale to maintain and improve this resource. Forest Plans and best available science identify livestock grazing as a management tool to efficiently, effectively, and responsibly manage forage and non-forested plant communities on NFS lands. The analysis is needed to determine if livestock management practices are sufficient for achieving and maintaining compliance with current Forest Plan direction, applicable laws, and regulations. The Forest Plans recognize the continuing need for livestock forage production and has determined that the Antelope Allotments are suitable for domestic livestock grazing and capable of supporting grazing. Livestock management direction in the AMP needs to be evaluated (and if necessary, updated) to ensure consistency with current Forest Plan management direction and objectives. The purpose of this analysis is to aid in accomplishing the following Forest Plan goals and objectives: • Fremont Forest Plan Goals (USDA Forest Service 1989, pp. 49–50): ♦ To identify, design, and achieve a high level of multiple-use coordination in all resource management activities ♦ To maintain or improve vegetative condition of rangelands through the use of available silvicultural practices and livestock management while providing for other resource uses. ♦ To provide for increases in or maintain habitat quantity or quality of those species which 1) are officially listed as endangered or threatened at the state or federal level to insure population recovery and/or 2) are management indicator species • Fremont Forest Plan Objectives (USDA Forest Service 1989, p. 65): ♦ Livestock grazing will remain an important use on the Fremont National Forest. ♦ Animal Unit Months (AUMs) will remain close to existing levels proper livestock use of available forage will be emphasized ♦ Coordinated management of all resources will result in the achievement of the range objectives as well as the objectives of other resources to meet the projected outputs called for in this Forest Plan, many of the plans will require ♦ Through full implementation of the allotment plans and permittee commitment, the projected livestock numbers will be achieved, and other outputs, such as improved range conditions and enhancement of other resources, will be attained ♦ The final step in meeting the range objectives of this Plan will be accomplished by monitoring the range management program
1-4 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1
• Winema Forest Plan Goals (USDA Forest Service 1990, p. 4-12): ♦ Improve range condition by improving the administration of the livestock grazing program ♦ The demand for livestock grazing will be met only when it does not conflict with other uses • Winema Forest Plan Objectives (USDA Forest Service 1990, p 4-12): ♦ Manage the range vegetation resource to avoid conflicts with mule deer, to decrease erosion, and to enhance riparian areas. Improve range condition with special emphasis in riparian areas ♦ Revise, update, and implement all AMPs to meet Forest Plan objectives ♦ Range improvements will be installed to facilitate range resource management ♦ Develop and maintain a data base record system to facilitate analysis and reporting procedures
1.3 Proposed Action The proposed action is to permit a maximum of 275 cow/calf pairs under a term grazing permit and 219 cow/calf pairs under a term private land grazing permit for a season of use (May 15– September 30) within the approximately 168,564-acre project area, under an adaptive management strategy (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 2209.13, Chapter 90; 36 CFR 220) that meets or moves towards applicable Forest Plan desired conditions and project-specific desired conditions. Livestock grazing would continue to be permitted under management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. For additional details about the modified proposed action, see Chapter 2.
1.4 Decision Framework The Responsible Official for this project is the Silver Lake/Paisley District Ranger. Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action, other alternatives, and environmental consequences to make the following decisions: • Should livestock grazing be authorized on the identified allotments, and if so, what level of grazing and what grazing system(s) are appropriate? • Is the selected alternative consistent with the Fremont and Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (USDA Forest Service 1989, 1990), as amended?
1.5 Public Involvement Public comments were considered and incorporated into the development of this Final EIS. Public participation helps the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) identify concerns and key issues for developing a full range of alternatives to analyze the possible effects of proposed activities. This process also allows the Forest Service to disclose to the public the nature of the proposed actions and their potential consequences. The Forest Service can then incorporate public concerns into the design of the action or into the analysis. As part of the public involvement process, the agency mailed a scoping letter explaining the need for action, as well as the locations and types of proposed actions, to 100 interested and affected parties on November 1, 2010, and posted on the Forest Web site. Twenty-six comments were received from local landowners, government agencies, environmental groups, and other
1-5 Chapter 1 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
interested parties in response to the proposed action. Consideration of these comments led to modifying the proposed action, the Forest Service decided to provide another scoping period because the project area had expanded. A second scoping letter, detailing the new, modified proposed action, was sent to 108 interested and affected parties on September 26, 2011, and added to the Forest Web site. Twelve comments were received from local landowners, environmental groups, and other interested parties in response to the modified proposed action. The project has also been listed in the Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since May 2010. The final comment period began on December 21, 2013. The comment period for the Draft EIS began December 19, 2014. All comments were considered by the IDT and analyzed for main sources of conflict (i.e., key issues). Public comments regarding the proposed action were analyzed by the IDT and a representative of the Responsible Official. Comment analysis included reading and discussing the comments; preparing a comment tracking spreadsheet to highlight the various points of each letter; and determining how each comment would be addressed. Documentation of the comment analysis is located in the project record.
1.5.1 Other Agencies The scoping documentation was sent to local government agencies, including the Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as the neighboring Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offices. Responses were received from ODFW, USFWS, and the Seattle EPA office.
1.6 Tribal Consultation and Coordination As a U.S. government agency, the Forest Service has a legal responsibility to work with federally recognized tribes on a government-to-government basis to protect resources on which tribal treaty rights depend. By fulfilling all mandated responsibilities, Forest Service policies toward federally recognized tribes are intended to strengthen relationships and further tribal sovereignty. The Forest outlines its policies and responsibilities on tribal relations in a 1999 Memorandum of Agreement (as amended in 2005), that includes tribal consultation on proposed Forest projects. In furtherance of this relationship, a representative of the Responsible Official and the Tribal Government Relations and Partnership Coordinator consulted with representatives for the Klamath Tribes and will continue consultation to discuss the project proposals, discuss concerns, and encourage further input on the project. The project area is not within former reservation lands, but the lands encompassed still remain of interest to the Klamath Tribes. The Antelope Grazing Allotments Project has been reviewed at quarterly pre-SOPA meetings with the Natural Resources and Cultural and Heritage Resources departments of the Klamath Tribes since July 2010.
1.7 Issues Issues were developed and evaluated according to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15. Issues are statements of cause and effect, linking environmental effects to actions. Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action, providing opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to meet the Purpose and Need for the proposal while reducing adverse effects (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 12.4).
1-6 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1
Issues were identified from comments received through both scoping efforts (November 1– December 1, 2010, and September 26–October 10, 2011). The Forest Service separated the comments into 2 issue groups: significant issues and nonsignificant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as issues outside the scope of the proposed action; issues already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision; issues irrelevant to the decision to be made; or conjectural issues and issues not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations explain this distinction in Section 1501.7: “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).” A list of nonsignificant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as nonsignificant is located in the project record. The IDT categorized issues into 6 key groupings. Then, with guidance from the Responsible Official’s representative, the IDT modified the proposed action (Alternative 3) and created 2 additional action alternatives, Alternatives 4 and 5. Some issues raised did not require the creation of additional alternatives and were instead addressed through the 5 alternatives being analyzed in detail. Key issues are discussed in detail below (sections 1.7.1 through 1.7.6) and have been disclosed in the effects analysis in Chapter 3. Some of these issues have specific resource indicators to compare the alternatives.
1.7.1 Key Issue 1: Grazing in Meadows/Riparian Areas Commenters expressed concern that grazing in some of the currently fenced riparian areas on the Chemult RD would alter meadow conditions, impede recovery efforts, and conflict with protection of sensitive species habitat and groundwater-dependent ecosystem (GDE) habitat within these areas. Commenters were concerned that livestock grazing would exceed the natural grazing capacity (defined in public comments as “mainly from elk and very light in character” of riparian areas and meadows within the project area. Public comments expressed a need to consider alternative grazing strategies that exclude or decrease grazing within meadows and riparian areas. This issue partially drove the development of Alternative 4. Because approximately 90% of the forage available within the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment is within riparian areas, fencing out these areas would effectively remove the available forage from this portion of the allotments. Additionally, fencing of these riparian areas to exclude grazing would not be economical or practical (see discussion in “Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study). As such, Alternative 4 proposes to administratively close the Chemult RD portion of the allotments, eliminating permitted grazing within existing fenced riparian areas and other riparian areas on NFS lands on the Chemult RD. This issue is also addressed through analysis under Alternative 1. The following measurement indicators were developed by the IDT for comparing the effects of the alternatives: • Acres of riparian areas proposed for grazing that are currently fenced
1.7.2 Key Issue 2: Grazing in Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat Commenters expressed concern regarding grazing within occupied and potential habitat for Oregon spotted frog (OSF), a species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, commenters expressed concern that grazing inside the Jack Creek Unit would negatively impact OSF habitat and impede recovery of the OSF population within Jack Creek. Public comments indicate a need to identify grazing strategies that exclude or
1-7 Chapter 1 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
decrease grazing within OSF occupied and critical habitat, specifically, Jack Creek. This issue partially drove the development of Alternative 4, which proposes to administratively close the Chemult RD portion of the allotment, eliminating permitted grazing within occupied and/or critical habitat for Oregon spotted frogs on NFS lands on the Chemult RD. This issue is also addressed through analysis under Alternatives 1 and 2. However, when reviewing this issue, the IDT identified that removing permitted grazing from Oregon spotted frog habitat in Jack Creek would likely lead to fencing of private inholdings within this area. These private inholdings contain a majority of the existing occupied habitat within the perennial Jack Creek reach. After fencing these inholdings, the stockings, timings, and utilizations of these inholdings would be at the private landowners’ choosing. This potential conflict between public and private interests in land use indicates a need to identify grazing strategies that allow for the cooperative management of private lands within Oregon spotted frog habitat, specifically Jack Creek. This issue partially drove the development of Alternative 5, which proposes to permit grazing within the Oregon spotted frog habitat within Jack Creek under a term private land grazing permit to allow the Forest to manage grazing within critical habitat. This issue also partially drove development of Alternative 3. This alternative proposes to incorporate grazing on private lands within Jack Creek by designating a separate grazing unit within the Chemult Pasture instead of using a stand-alone pasture. The following measurement indicators were developed by the IDT to serve as a means for comparing the effects of the alternatives: • Acres of permitted grazing proposed within OSF habitat on NFS lands • Acres of permitted grazing proposed within OSF habitat on private lands • Acres of permitted grazing proposed inside Jack Creek riparian areas that are currently fenced • Acres of OSF habitat on private lands grazed under private landowner management
1.7.3 Key Issue 3: Grazing Strategies Commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed grazing strategies (e.g., AUMs, rotations, number of herds). Specifically, commenters expressed concern that the proposed grazing rotation would place undue hardship on the permittee in successfully managing the allotment and would reduce cow/herd health. Commenters also expressed concern that the proposed AUMs do not consider grazing available forage on the private lands on Jack Creek (Upper and Lower Jamison). This issue spurred the development of Alternative 5, which proposes grazing under a 2-herd system and incorporates the 75 cow/calf pairs previously grazed on the private lands within Jack Creek into permitted AUMs as a third herd of cattle. This issue also partially drove development of Alternative 3, which proposes to incorporate the 75 cow/calf pairs previously grazed on private lands within Jack Creek into permitted AUMs. The 75 cow/calf pairs incorporated under each of these alternatives reflect the inclusion grazing on these private lands. The following measurement indicators were developed by the IDT to serve as a means for comparing the effects of the alternatives: • Days of grazing proposed in a pasture grouping within the deferred rotation strategy • Total miles of herding (per cow or per herd) needed to implement grazing system • Acres of NFS lands on Jack Creek permitted for grazing • Acres of private lands on Jack Creek permitted for grazing
1-8 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1
• AUMs permitted within Jack Creek
1.7.4 Key Issue 4: Utilization of Available Forage Commenters expressed concern regarding utilization of available forage—overutilization, underutilization, and uneven distribution of utilization—that may be addressed by including acquired lands, fenced meadows, and adjacent unused grazing lands as part of the grazing strategy. Commenters expressed concern that including Rock Springs meadow as part of the Tobin Cabin Pasture would cause localized overutilization and potential impacts to riparian resources. This issue raised the need to identify measures to reduce potential impacts within Rock Springs meadow and partially drove the development of Alternative 4, which proposes to administratively close the Chemult RD portion of the allotment, thus eliminating permitted grazing within a portion of Rock Springs meadow. This issue is also addressed through the analysis of Alternative 1. However, including Rock Springs meadow with the Tobin Cabin Pasture was identified as part of the proposed action because of IDT concerns over the meadow’s 3-month-long use. Aligning the meadow with Tobin Cabin’s length of use and timing would shorten the length of time grazing was permitted to occur within the meadow and would move the timing of use to an earlier part of the growing season. Earlier grazing would allow the non-forested plant community more time for recovery and regrowth, which would benefit seed production and increase rootmass vigor. However, in response to these concerns and the concerns listed under Key Issue 5, the IDT developed Alternative 3, which modified the proposed fence location and acres to be grazed in combination with Tobin Cabin. Commenters also expressed concern that forage available for inclusion in the Antelope Grazing Allotments, including acquired lands, fenced meadows, and adjacent unused grazing lands, was not being considered, and could provide additional, capable lands to help reduce impacts to resources on the current allotments. Commenters indicated a need to identify additional available forage to allow for better distribution of utilization. This issue partially drove the development of Alternative 3, which proposes to permit cattle grazing within the North Sheep Pasture. Grazing within the North Sheep Pasture is also incorporated into Alternative 5. Additionally, concerns about overutilization are addressed in all action alternatives through the establishment of pasture-specific allowable utilizations and the implementation of project design criteria, including the establishment of a key monitoring area in Rock Springs meadow. The following measurement indicators were developed by the IDT to serve as a means for comparing the effects of the alternatives: • Acres permitted for grazing within Rock Springs as part of Tobin Cabin • Acres permitted for grazing within riparian areas that are currently fenced • Acres permitted for grazing within acquired land exchange lands • Acres permitted for grazing within the North Sheep Pasture
1.7.5 Key Issue 5: Fencing Strategies Commenters expressed concern regarding proposed fencing strategies, including fence construction and reconstruction and fences proposed for maintenance or removal. The following concerns were listed regarding fencing: • Fences around many of the meadows are not necessary or are larger than necessary to protect sensitive resources.
1-9 Chapter 1 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
• The relocation of the fence on the Chemult–Tobin Cabin pasture boundary would be an unnecessary cost and more expensive than reconstructing the existing fence line • The fence along the southern portion of the Chemult Pasture is in disrepair and would require reconstruction to adequately control cattle • Construction of the total number of miles proposed for fence construction would be infeasible • Alternative fencing strategies should be identified to reduce required maintenance needs and reduce fencing costs, while still allowing reasonable success of the grazing strategies proposed This issue partially drove the development of Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, which propose variations in fencing strategies based on what was deemed necessary to implement the alternatives’ associated grazing strategies. The following measurement indicators were developed by the IDT to serve as a means for comparing the effects of the alternatives: • Miles of proposed reconstructed fence • Miles of proposed fence construction • Miles of proposed fence removal
1.7.6 Key Issue 6: Expansion of Allotment Boundaries Commenters expressed concern regarding proposed expansion of the allotment boundaries, specifically at the location of Cannon Well and through the addition of the North Sheep Pasture. Commenters expressed concern that the expanded areas would increase the impacts on a greater overall portion of land that is not currently impacted by cattle. In response to this issue, alternatives were developed that did not expand these existing allotment boundaries. This issue partially drove the development of Alternative 4, which proposes to administratively close the Chemult RD portion of the allotment and does not propose to permit grazing on the North Sheep Pasture. This issue is also addressed through analysis of Alternatives 1 and 2. The following measurement indicators were developed by the IDT to serve as a means for comparing the effects of the alternatives: • Allotment acres within the Chemult RD portion of the allotment • Allotment acres on the North Sheep Pasture in the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment
1-10 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1
1.8 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy
1.8.1 Forest Plan Direction The development of this Final EIS is based on direction contained in the Fremont and Winema Forest Plans, NFMA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 219); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (43 USC 1752(d), as amended by 92 Stat. 1803 [1978]); and the NEPA and its regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508). This project implements (is tiered to) the Final EISs for the Winema Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) and the Fremont Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989). This Final EIS is tiered to these documents as permitted by NEPA (40 CFR 1502.20), and all documents are hereby incorporated by reference. Management direction for MAs in the project area, and for the Forest as a whole, follows guidelines provided in the respective Forest Plans. Broad-scale issues of management direction are outside the scope of this analysis and will not be addressed in this Final EIS. The project area includes 6 Fremont Forest Plan MAs and 4 Winema Forest Plan MAs (Table 1-2). Livestock grazing is allowed in all of these MAs at varying levels. Additional forest-wide standards and guidelines related to livestock grazing apply to this project. Compliance with these standards and guidelines is addressed in each resource specialist report. Table 1-2. Fremont National Forest and Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans management areas (MAs) that are included in the Antelope Grazing Allotments
MA Description Fremont National Forest Management Areas 1 Manage for mule deer forage and cover on winter range 3 Provide additional old growth for better habitat distribution and quality 5 Manage commercial timber production and domestic livestock forage 6A Provide high to moderately high visual quality 14 Manage old growth to maintain dependent species populations Manage water courses and riparian vegetation for improved water quality, fish habitat, 15 recreation opportunities, and riparian habitat for dependent species Winema National Forest Management Areas 3 Maintain and create visually appealing scenery 7 Provide, maintain, and enhance existing mature and old-growth communities Manage riparian area to protect soil, water, wetland, floodplain, wildlife, and fish resource 8 values associated with riparian vegetative communities and adjacent drier ecosystems
Produce a high level of growth and timber production with considerations for economic 12 efficiency and resource protection
1.8.2 Federal Land Policy Management Act This project complies with FLPMA, Section 402(G) because 2-year advance notice of term grazing permit cancellation would be given to the permittee for the Antelope Grazing Allotments, as required, if Alternative 1 (No Grazing Alternative) is selected by the Responsible Official.
1-11 Chapter 1 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
1.8.3 Federal and State Permit Requirements No State or federal permits (other than Forest Service permits) are required to implement the Proposed Action or any of the action alternatives. If the decision allows continued livestock grazing, the Forest Service would issue a 10-year term grazing permit for these allotments. The Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment are permitted under existing 10-year term grazing permits set to expire in 2014 and 2015, respectively. The grazing permit includes Terms and Conditions and Forest Plan standards and guidelines (36 CFR 222.3).
1.8.4 Clean Water Act The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources. The watershed condition indicators (WCIs) were evaluated for the hydrology and fisheries analysis, which can be used as surrogates for the chemical, physical, and biologic integrity of the waterbodies that could be impacted by implementing the Project. This analysis indicated that none of the action alternatives would result in measurable effects to the any of the WCIs evaluated, thus complying with the CWA. The hydrology and fisheries resources analysis indicated that water quality within Jack Creek would continue to meet State water quality standards for stream temperature under Alternative 1 (no grazing) and Alternatives 2–5 (action alternatives).
1.8.5 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands The project would comply with Executive Orders (EOs) 11988 and 11990 for floodplain management and protection of wetlands.
1.8.6 Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 35 §§1531 et seq. 1988) provides for the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animal species. The USFWS provides the Forest with a list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate (TEPC) species to consider in project planning. This list is generally updated as needed. The USFWS species list dated February 20, 2012, is the most recent list for TEPC species. All alternatives were assessed to determine their effects on threatened and endangered plant and animal species (sections 3.1 [Botanical Resources], 3.3 [Wildlife], and 3.6 [Fisheries]). Biological Evaluations consistent with the requirements of this act have been prepared. The Forest Service is in consultation with the USFWS for development of a Biological Assessment and expects a Biological Opinion on this action. Any decision prior to receipt of a Biological Opinion will not make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the Agency action and will not preclude the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent conservative measures that may be received. Section 7(d) of the ESA allows federal agencies to proceed with a decision once consultation has been initiated on an action, as long as there is no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that could preclude the ability to meet reasonable and prudent conservative measures.
1.8.7 Executive Order 13186 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) decreed that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. The original intent was to put an end to the commercial trade in birds and their feathers that had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird
1-12 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 species. On January 17, 2001, President William Clinton signed EO 13186, directing executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the MBTA (FR Vol. 66, No.11, January 17, 2001). The Forest Service and USFWS have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to promote the conservation of migratory birds as a direct response to EO 13186 (USDA Forest Service and USDI FWS 2008). One of the steps outlined for the Forest Service is applicable to this analysis: “Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.” The Forest Service additionally agreed, to the extent practicable, to evaluate and balance benefits against adverse effects, to pursue opportunities to restore or enhance migratory bird habitat, and to consider approaches for minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. This project complies with EO 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under the January 16, 2001, MOU between the Forest Service and USFWS designed to complement EO 13186. If new requirements or direction result from subsequent interagency memorandums of understanding pursuant to EO 13186, this project would be reevaluated to ensure that it is consistent.
1.8.8 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land No prime farmlands, rangelands, or forest lands are located on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 1989, 1990). Therefore, no effects to prime farmland, rangeland, or forest lands would occur with implementation of any alternative.
1.8.9 National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended through 2006, provides for the protection of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites (cultural resources) on federal lands that are determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Proposed Action was reviewed and determined to be a “No Adverse Effect” activity. Concurrence from the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be obtained before a decision on this project is made. The Cultural Resource Specialist Report is available in the project record.
1.8.10 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice In accordance with EO 12898, all action alternatives were assessed to determine whether they would have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority or low-income human populations. The Proposed Action and alternatives do not result in any identifiable effects or issues specific to any minority or low-income population or community. The Forest Service considered all public input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social/economic characteristics. The Proposed Action, which is to authorize continued livestock grazing, does not have a disproportionate effect on environmental risks to sheepherders. The profession of sheepherding has inherent risks; however, the Proposed Action does not alter those risks in any way. No significant adverse environmental or health effects on sheepherders have been identified that would appreciably change as a result of the Proposed Action. Evidence indicates that the grazing operations described in the Proposed Action do not pose a significant risk to human health. Exposures to other environmental hazards associated with the sheepherding profession in general (e.g., proximity to wildlife, exposure to natural environmental factors from working outdoors) are also not expected to change appreciably under the Proposed Action.
1-13 Chapter 1 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
1.8.11 Designated Areas The project does not occur within any Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended Wilderness, National Recreation Area, Research Natural Area, or Inventoried Roadless Area.
1.9 Document Organization This Final EIS incorporates by reference the project file (40 CFR 1502.21). Chapter 3 provides a summary of the resource specialists’ input in adequate detail to support the rationale for the decisions, and the appendices provide supporting documentation. The project file contains supplemental information and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this Final EIS. Incorporating this information implements the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations provisions that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4) and that environmental documents shall be “analytic rather than encyclopedic, and shall be kept concise and no longer than absolutely necessary (40 CFR 1502.2).” The objective is to furnish adequate site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The project file is located at the Fremont-Winema National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630, and on the Forest Service Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/fremont-winema/landmanagement/projects. This document consists of the following chapters: Chapter 1—Purpose and Need. This chapter describes the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action; decisions to be made; consistency with laws, regulations, and policy; public involvement; and identification of significant NEPA issues. Chapter 2—Alternatives. This chapter includes project design features and/or mitigation measures, description of alternatives considered in detail, alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study, and a comparative summary of the environmental consequences of each alternative analyzed in detail. Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter describes the existing resource conditions of the resources within the project area and the environmental impacts of the alternatives on these resources. Chapter 4—Consultation and Coordination. This chapter provides a list of primary preparers of this document and a list of agencies, organizations, and persons who were consulted. In addition to the chapters listed above, this document includes the following appendices: Appendix A—Maps Appendix B—Glossary Appendix C—Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Appendix D—Monitoring Plan and Adaptive Management Appendix E—Response to Comments
1-14 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Chapter 2–Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project. The chapter includes a description and map of each alternative considered and presents the alternatives in comparative form, which sharply defines the differences between each alternative and provides a clear basis for choice between the options by the Responsible Official and the public. The Forest developed 5 alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. All action alternatives have been designed to satisfy the need for action (see Chapter 1— Purpose and Need for Action), and each was designed to provide protection for sensitive resources and forage for cattle. Five other alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail. The 5 alternatives considered in detail and the 5 alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study provided a wide range of reasonable alternatives.
2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study The Forest Service considered a range of alternatives, but determined through further analysis and discussion that the following alternatives were not feasible, did not meet the need for action identified for the project, or were outside the scope of this project.
2.2.1 Alternative A—Construction of a Boundary Fence around Allotment The IDT considered this alternative in response to comments about the ineffectiveness of the current fences in preventing excess use of livestock outside the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment. Under this alternative, the entire perimeter of the Chemult RD portions of the allotments would be fenced. Approximately 25 miles of fencing would be constructed and approximately 17 miles would be reconstructed, of which approximately 10 miles would separate NFS and non-NFS system lands and would be the responsibility of the landowner. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because much of the perimeter is controlled by natural features and does not need fencing. Any additional fencing beyond that already identified in each alternative analyzed in detail would do little to control excess use by cattle and are better focused on the management of the whole allotment. Furthermore, the alternatives analyzed in detail contain up to 40 miles of fence construction or reconstruction located in areas deemed appropriate for controlling excess use, which would address the excess use concern raised by these comments. The miles identified for fencing in the alternatives analyzed in detail provide for protection of sensitive resources and effective allotment management. Any future need for fencing would be considered as part of the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) based on permit administration and compliance inspections for excess use and resource conditions.
2.2.2 Alternative B—Fencing Riparian Systems The IDT considered this alternative in response to comments that cattle grazing in riparian systems could damage sensitive plants, habitats, soils, and groundwater dependent ecosystems and could prevent recovery from past actions, specifically within the Chemult RD portion of the allotment. In this alternative, riparian systems throughout the allotment would be identified and fenced, therefore excluding grazing.
2-1 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
The IDT eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis for multiple reasons. Based on the riparian area locations, including the proximity and distance from access points, and the varying range in size of these riparian areas, fencing would require supplies and personnel not feasible to propose. In addition, an understanding of where sensitive riparian systems are located throughout the allotments was in conflict with statements received through public comments. Therefore, the IDT was not able to identify the intent of the use of “riparian” within the public comments. Furthermore, concerns regarding damage to riparian areas are addressed without the added cost and difficulty of fencing in the Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, which were analyzed in detail. Alternative 4 also closes the Chemult RD portion of the allotment from grazing activities, thereby eliminating all grazing within riparian systems within that portion of the allotment.
2.2.3 Alternative C—Removing Fences from Existing Fenced Meadows and Riparian Areas The IDT considered this alternative in response to concerns that exclusion of available forage within existing fenced meadows and riparian areas within the allotment increased pressure on available forage outside these fenced areas. This alternative would remove existing fences from around fenced meadows and riparian areas, allowing dispersed grazing to occur throughout the allotment during permitted periods. The IDT eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis because many of the fenced meadows contain sensitive resources and recovering soils and hydrologic areas that periodically or permanently need protection. Retaining the fences would allow resource managers to use grazing strategies, as proposed in the alternatives analyzed in detail, to determine when the potential utilization of fenced forage could concurrently protect sensitive and recovering resources. Removing the fences would continuously leave sensitive and recovering resources susceptible to negative impacts, which would not progress resources within the project area toward the desired future condition.
2.2.4 Alternative D—Restoring and Protecting Allotment The IDT considered this alternative in response to comments that resources within the allotment needed restoration and protection. This alternative would recover the Jack Creek Oregon spotted frog population, restore and protect fens and associated species, permanently exclude grazing within existing fenced meadows, restore Round Meadow, maintain existing allotment boundaries, and complete Oregon spotted frog restoration projects. The development of a full restoration alternative is outside the scope of this project because it does not respond to the purpose and need to determine whether the Forest Service should continue to authorize livestock grazing in the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area. Preliminary resource analysis did not indicate that these restoration actions are needed as mitigation for grazing to be reauthorized, though the protection of occupied Oregon spotted frog habitat during the restoration process has been recognized through a project design feature common to the alternatives analyzed in detail. The remaining actions proposed in this alternative (protection of sensitive fens and associated species, permanent exclusion of grazing from existing fenced meadows, Round Meadow restoration, and maintenance of existing allotment boundaries) were carried forward and considered by the IDT during preliminary analysis. The protection requested was similar (or the same) as requested and considered under Alternative B (Fencing Riparian Systems), and like Alternative B, fencing would be logistically and cost prohibitive, and excluding grazing within riparian areas would remove a dominant portion of the available forage from the allotment,
2-2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 negatively impacting the cost effectiveness of grazing operations on NFS lands, making this portion of the alternative infeasible. Furthermore, concerns addressed in this alternative were also addressed in the restoration and protection measures for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, which were analyzed in detail. Alternative 4 also closes the Chemult RD portion of the allotment from grazing activities, thereby eliminating all grazing within that portion of the allotment. With the development of Alternative 4, concerns raised here requesting the permanent exclusion of grazing from within existing fenced meadows and not expanding the allotment boundaries (specifically raised for the expansions at Cannon Well and the addition of the North Sheep Pasture) are also addressed. Because of the numerous exclosures and loss of available forage on NFS lands, a feasible grazing alternative on the Chemult pasture could not be developed, and Alternative 4 is considered responsive to these concerns. Therefore, because this alternative would be outside the scope of the project, and its various elements were either infeasible or alternatively addressed in the alternatives analyzed in detail, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.
2.2.5 Alternative E—Implementation of an Intensive Rotational Grazing Strategy The IDT considered this alternative in response to a request for using an intensive rotational grazing strategy within the project area. Intensive rotational grazing strategies involve moving large numbers of cattle through available forage, intensively grazing these areas for short periods of time, and not returning to the area for the remainder of the permitted grazing season. The IDT considered this intensive rotational grazing alternative but eliminated it from detailed analysis because available research does not indicate that intensive rotational grazing is an appropriate grazing strategy for the Antelope project area. Much research on intensive rotational grazing refers to the benefits of this system on cattle being managed for dairy production, where the livestock are located within close proximity to facilities and personnel. Within the project area, intensive grazing strategies relying on containment of livestock within certain pastures and movement into new pastures once the desired forage consumption has occurred would require additional fencing, riding, or labor that would be cost-prohibitive or difficult to manage in these more remote locations. Additionally, large numbers of cattle trailing through an area could easily disturb the pumice component of a large portion of the allotment soils, potentially decreasing cattle health and vigor and impacting the health of riders. Constantly moving cattle between forage locations could impact the ability of these cattle to acquire desired weights and conditions. Furthermore, grazing strategy changes based on resource condition monitoring could be addressed as part of the AOI. Ultimately, because of the composition of the soils and type of cattle production within the project area, the IDT determined this alternative was infeasible within the project area, and this alternative was dropped from further consideration.
2-3 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service analyzed 5 alternatives, including to the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public.
2.3.1 Alternative 1—No Grazing
2.3.1.1 Livestock Grazing Alternative 1 (No Grazing Alternative) would eliminate livestock grazing from 137,284 acres of NFS lands (Figure 2-1). Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing would be eliminated on the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, and livestock grazing permits would be cancelled (FSH 2209.13–92.31). In accordance with agency regulations (36 CFR 222.4), grazing would cease 2 years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would continue unchanged during this 2-year interval, and these allotments would not be available for permit reissuance for a minimum of 10 years. Alternative 1 would not modify existing permitted grazing on any part of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment, nor would it provide Forest Service management standards for grazing on private lands within the Antelope Allotments. Continuing or establishing grazing on all private lands within the Antelope Allotments, including Oregon spotted frog habitat, would be at stockings, rates, timings, and utilizations of the private landowners’ choosing. This alternative would eliminate all ground disturbance from the Antelope Grazing Allotment and the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment associated with allotment management activities, including fence maintenance and reconstruction, water hauling, salting, and permitted off-road motorized vehicle use. Maintenance of remaining allotment infrastructure on the allotments would no longer be the responsibility of the permittees. This maintenance would be minimal or nonexistent, and these infrastructures would deteriorate or collapse with time.
2.3.1.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal Alternative 1 would propose ground-disturbing activities through the removal of 10.6 miles of fencing within the Chemult Pasture, including around fenced riparian meadows and between pastures (Figure 2-2). The fences needed to manage adjacent allotments would remain. No new fence construction or reconstruction of the Tobin Cabin northern boundary would be proposed, but these activities could be considered and analyzed during range NEPA analysis of the adjacent McCarty Butte Allotment.
2.3.1.3 Water Developments Under Alternative 1, existing water developments would not be removed, and they would likely receive some maintenance because these developments would continue to provide water for area wildlife.
2.3.1.4 Transportation Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit administration and required allotment improvement maintenance, for the 2 years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would continue unchanged during this 2-year interval. Consistent with the Travel Management Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment administration by specific classes of vehicles for specific tasks during this time. No changes to the transportation system are being proposed under Alternative 1.
2-4 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Figure 2-1. Alternative 1 boundary and pastures
2-5 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2-2. Alternative 1 proposed fence construction, maintenance, reconstruction, and removal
2-6 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
2.3.2 Alternative 2—Current Management Alternative 2 was developed according to Grazing Permit Administration Handbook requirements (FSH 2209.13, 92.31) for an analysis of current grazing. The handbook defines current grazing as “actions being implemented, specifically, current management over the last 3– 5 years.” This alternative serves as a baseline for evaluating other action alternatives during the effects analysis.
2.3.2.1 Livestock Grazing Alternative 2 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under current management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 2 herds at 419 cow/calf pairs, with permitted grazing from May 15 to September 30 (Table 2.1). Under Alternative 2, the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment would remain 2 separate administrative allotments and retain their existing boundaries (Figure 2-3). The Antelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively moved to the Buck Creek Allotment during a 2010 permit modification but is being analyzed for grazing effects in this project because NEPA analysis was completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. Current permitted use for this pasture is for 200 cow/calf pairs from June 1 to June 30. Under Alternative 2, no grazing would be authorized within the existing fenced riparian areas in the Chemult Pasture known as Round Meadow, Jack Creek, Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider’s Camp, Cannon Well, Sproats Meadow, Johnson’s Meadow, and Wilshire Meadow. Grazing would also not be permitted on NFS lands within the fenced portion of Jack Creek’s perennial reach (Jack Creek Riparian Pasture). However, these locations would remain administratively within the allotment. Under Alternative 2, management of the private inholdings within Oregon spotted frog occupied and designated habitat at Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison would not be waived to the Forest under a term private land grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would be at stockings, rates, timings, and utilizations of the private landowners’ choosing. The Forest Service completed a survey of the unauthorized use occurring on the Antelope allotment from 2005 to 2015 (10 years). During the 10 year period, there was 7 occurrences of unauthorized use. 5 of these occurrences resulted in a letter of non-compliance or permit action. The other 2 resulted in non-formal warning letters. Of these 7 occurrences, 4 were a result of livestock grazing on the unauthorized portion of Jack Creek, either inside the frog fence or in the North Sheep area. This means 57% of all unauthorized use was the result of livestock on unauthorized portions of Jack Creek. The number of livestock involved in the unauthorized use varied between 4 cow/calf pairs to 20 cow/calf pairs. Effects from these small numbers were typically light (5-10% utilization). Actions associated with allotment management used to meet Forest Plan standards would continue; these actions include salting, riding, herding, fence maintenance, water hauling, stock pond maintenance, motorized use, and limited off-road use.
2.3.2.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal Existing allotment fences and resource protection fences in need of repair (17.3 miles) would be reconstructed without modifications to their current size or type. Approximately 1.1 miles of fence would be removed.
2-7 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.3.2.3 Water Developments Actions associated with water developments include improving/maintaining existing sources (e.g., cleaning and sealing with bentonite). Under this alternative, 11 watering ponds are proposed for reconstruction and 3 springs are proposed for reconstruction or improvement (Figure 2-4). Surveys of spring sources throughout the project area were conducted from 2009 to 2011. Necessary protection measures, such as fencing or caging of spring sources, were identified for each location.
2.3.2.4 Transportation Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit administration, required allotment maintenance, and construction and reconstruction of improvements. Consistent with the Travel Management Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment administration by specific classes of vehicles for specific tasks.
2-8 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Table 2-1. Alternative 2 livestock grazing levels and seasons Permitted Animal Unit Allowable Cattle Grazing Pasture Acresa Permit Type Months Utilization Grazing System (cow/calf Seasonb (AUM) % pairs) Buck Creek Allotment (previous Antelope Silver Lake) Antelope Flat 1c 558 Term 200 6/01-6/30 NTE 260 45–55 Early season Antelope Grazing Allotment Halfway 8,291 Term 189 5/15-6/14 NTE 255 45–55 Early season North Willow 4,831 Term 230 6/01-6/30 NTE 299 30–55 Early season Antelope Flat 2 403 Term Variable 5/15-9/30 NTE 73 45–55 Transition/holdingd Antelope Flat 2 403 Term Variable 9/15-9/30 NTE 87 45–55 Transition/holdingd Antelope Flat 3 and 4 860 Term Variable 5/15-9/30 NTE 150 45–55 Transition/holdingd Antelope Flat 3 and 4 860 Term Variable 9/15-9/30 NTE 87 45–55 Transition/holdingd Tobin Cabin 66,190 Term with on/off 189 6/15-7/30 NTE 665 40–50 Early season Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment Chemult 62,860 Term 315 7/1-9/30 NTE 1258 25–45 Season-long Chemult 3,119 Term & Private 104 7/1-9/30 NTE 415 25–45 Season-long Total 147,114 — 419 5/15-9/30 NTEf 3289e 25–55 — aAcres include National Forest System land and other ownerships within pasture boundaries bDates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for movement between pastures would vary within plus or minus two weeks annually based on forage conditions, weather variations, or resource conditions within the overall allotment and pastures. cAntelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively removed from the Antelope Allotment and added to Buck Creek Allotment in November 2010. This pasture is included in this analysis because NEPA analysis was already completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. This pasture will be included in future updates, analyses, and administration of the Buck Creek Allotment. dUse of Antelope 2–4 is as needed to facilitate pasture moves eDoes not include AUM from Antelope 1 Buck Creek Allotment fNTE means Not to Exceed.
2-9 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2-3. Alternative 2 boundary and pastures
2-10 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Figure 2-4. Alternative 2 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal
2-11 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.3.3 Alternative 3—Proposed Action Alternative 3 was developed by the IDT to provide grazing opportunities to meet multiple-use objectives while reducing the impacts to important botanical and wildlife resources. The original proposed action was modified to develop Alternative 3 to address issues raised during public scoping as follows: • To better distribute cattle and utilization, the North Sheep Pasture would be added to the Antelope Grazing Allotment in a deferred-rotation with the Chemult Pasture. • The grazing system in the Chemult Pasture would be changed from a 3-month, season-long grazing system to a deferred-rotation system, made possible by allowing use of additional acreage in some of the existing fenced riparian areas (Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider’s Camp, Cannon Well, and Round Meadow) and the North Sheep Pasture. The fenced riparian areas will need to meet the desired condition identified in the monitoring plan/adaptive management plan (See Appendix D). • The Antelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively moved to the Buck Creek Allotment during a 2010 permit modification but is being analyzed for grazing effects in this project because NEPA analysis was completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. Current permitted use for this pasture is for 200 cow/calf pairs from June 1 to June 30. • Private inholdings along the Jack Creek Unit would be brought under allotment management through a term private land grazing permit, to facilitate coordinated management of Oregon spotted frog habitat across ownerships • To graze under a 1-herd system while incorporating the 75 cow/calf pairs previously grazed on the private lands, a 2-year rotation schedule would be used within Jack Creek as part of the term private land grazing permit. • New exclosures (protection fences) would be constructed around selected sensitive springs and fens, like in Squirrel Camp, Round Meadow, Johnson, Wilshire, Sproats, Dry Meadow, Little Parker, Crooked Meadow, and Section 9 Spring. • The Tobin Cabin Pasture would be modified to include the Rock Springs area. • For the inholding pastures of Antelope Flat 3 and Antelope Flat 4, the season of use was extended to October 15, to facilitate movement of livestock off the allotments at the end of the grazing season.
2.3.3.1 Livestock Grazing Alternative 3 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 1 herd at a total of 494 cow/calf pairs, with permitted grazing from May 20 to October 15 ( and Table 2-2). Two different permits will be issued to authorize grazing, a term grazing permit and a private land grazing permit. A term grazing permit for 275 cow/calf pairs will be issued. Three separate private land permits will be issued for Stimson, Moffit and Jack Creek private lands for a total of 219 cow/calf pairs. This alternative includes grazing in some fenced riparian areas; on the additional acreage identified from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment; and on the private land parcels along Jack Creek known as Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison under a term private land permit (Figure 2-5). During the development of this alternative, the permittee agreed that their private lands within Oregon spotted frog occupied critical habitat within the Jack Creek Unit at Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison would be waived to the Forest under a term private land grazing permit. Grazing
2-12 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 on these private lands would be at stockings, rates, timings, and utilizations outlined above and would be consistent with management proposed for the Oregon spotted frog in the Jack Creek Site Management Plan (Gervais 2011). Grazing within Jack Creek would be variable during the lifetime of this analysis because ongoing Oregon spotted frog habitat restoration would be occurring and would influence the location, stocking rates, timing, and utilization of grazing each year (see “Wildlife” section, Chapter 3). In addition, annual monitoring as outlined in Appendix D may influence the locations, stockings, timings, and utilizations of grazing each year. While the 75 pairs permitted for grazing on the Jack Creek Unit would operate separately from the 2 herd grazing system, they would be under permit within the entire allotment boundary. Because of this, any suspended use of a portion or all of the Jack Creek Unit for Oregon spotted frog habitat restoration would redistribute those 75 pairs onto the greater Chemult Pasture, most likely within other fenced riparian areas away from Jack Creek.
Unauthorized use under this alternative should be reduced significantly because the Jack Creek area inside the frog fence and in North Sheep pasture will now be authorized for grazing. Based on analysis of unauthorized used, this will result in a 57% reduction in the amount of unauthorized use on the allotment. The remaining potential unauthorized use should be insignificant when handled through the permit administration process.
2.3.3.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal Grazing within the North Sheep Pasture would require constructing up to 15 miles of new boundary fence (Figure 2-6). Grazing in this pasture would not be authorized until the initial phase of construction of the new boundary fence has been completed. Until completion, grazing would occur on the Chemult RD portion of the allotment, consistent with timing (July 15 to September 30) and utilization allowances. Approximately 20.7 miles of fence would be reconstructed and 1.1 miles of fence would be removed under this alternative.
2.3.3.3 Water Developments Actions associated with water structures include improving/maintaining existing sources (e.g., cleaning and sealing with bentonite), installing spring protections (fences) and spring developments (fencing and off-site troughs), and designating trough placement locations for filling by water haul. Under this alternative, 14 watering ponds are proposed for reconstruction, 5 springs are proposed for reconstruction, and 4 new springs are proposed for development (Figure 2-6). Surveys of spring sources throughout the project area were conducted from 2009 to 2011. Necessary protection measures, such as fencing or caging of spring sources, were identified for each location.
2.3.3.4 Transportation Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit administration, required allotment maintenance, and construction and reconstruction of improvements. Consistent with the Travel Management Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment administration by specific classes of vehicles for specific tasks.
2-13 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-2. Alternative 3 livestock grazing levels and seasons Permitted Grazing Animal Unit Allowable Pasture Acresa Permit Type Cattle Grazing System Seasonb Months (AUM) Utilization (%) (cow/calf pairs) Buck Creek Allotment (previous Antelope Silver Lake) Antelope Flat 1c 558 Term 200 6/01-6/30 NTE 260 45–55 Early season Antelope Allotment (previous Antelope Silver Lake) Halfway 8,291 Term 189 5/20-6/19 NTE 254 45–55 Early season North Willow 4,831 Term 230 6/01-6/15 NTE 299 30–55 Early season Antelope Flat 2 403 Term Variable 5/20-9/30 NTE 160 45–55 Transition/holdingd Antelope Flat 3 and 4 860 Term Variable 9/15-10/15 NTE 237 45–55 Transition/holdingd Tobin Cabin 66,190 Term with on/off 230 6/16-7/15 NTE 299 40–50 Early season Tobin Cabin 66,190 Term with on/off 189 6/20-7/15 NTE 213 40–50 Early season Antelope Allotment (previous Antelope Chemult) Chemulte 62,862 Term 275g 7/15-9/30 NTE 931 25–45 Deferred rotation Chemulte 3,119 Term & Private 219g 7/15-9/30 NTE 575 25–45 Deferred rotation Jack Creekf 1,797 Term & Private NTE 75 7/15-9/30 NTE 101 35 Moderate intensity Dry Meadowf 18 Term Variable 7/15-9/30 NTE 7 35 Moderate intensity Squirrel Campf 32 Term Variable 7/15-9/30 NTE 9 35 Moderate intensity Rider’s Campf 72 Term Variable 7/15-9/30 NTE 25 35 Moderate intensity Cannon Wellf 44 Term Variable 7/15-9/30 NTE 38 35 Moderate intensity Round Meadowf 392 Term Variable 7/15-9/30 NTE 153 35–45 Moderate intensity Antelope Allotment (previous Jack Creek S&G) North Sheepe 19,064 Term 494 7/15-9/30 NTE 343 25–45 Deferred rotation Total 168,533 N/A 494 5/20-10/15 NTEi 3413h 25–55 N/A
2-14 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
aAcres include National Forest System lands and other ownerships within pasture boundaries bDates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for movement between pastures would vary within plus or minus two weeks annually based on forage conditions, weather variations, or resource conditions within the overall allotment and pastures. cAntelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively removed from the Antelope Allotment and added to Buck Creek Allotment in November 2010. This pasture is included in this analysis because NEPA analysis was already completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. This pasture will be included in future updates, analyses, and administration of the Buck Creek Allotment. dUse of Antelope 2–4 is as needed to facilitate pasture moves eThe Chemult and North Sheep Pastures would be managed together using a deferred rotation grazing system with alternating use fThese units are included in the Chemult Pasture under this alternative. Allocated cow/calf pairs for these units would be part of the total allocation for the Chemult Pasture, not an addition to the pasture’s allocation. The Jack Creek Unit is further divided into 4 pastures: Jack Creek 1, Jack Creek 2, Jack Creek 3, and Jack Creek 4. These pastures contain Oregon spotted frog habitat (see map 18). gIncludes 75 cow/calf pair proposed for rotation through the Jack Creek Unit hDoes not include AUM from Antelope 1 Buck Creek Allotment or previous excluded areas. iNTE means Not to Exceed.
2-15 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2-5. Alternative 3 boundary and pastures
2-16 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Figure 2-6. Alternative 3 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal
2-17 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.3.4 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 was developed by the IDT to provide grazing opportunities to meet multiple-use objectives while addressing public concerns about the protection of important botanical and wildlife resources on the Chemult RD. Alternative 4 addresses scoping issues and concerns as follows: • The Antelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively moved to the Buck Creek Allotment during a 2010 permit modification but is being analyzed for grazing effects in this project because NEPA analysis was completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. Current permitted use for this pasture is for 200 cow/calf pairs from June 1 to June 30. • The Chemult portion of the allotments would be administratively closed to grazing to protect fen habitat (sensitive plant and animal habitat). • Grazing would not be expanded into the North Sheep Pasture • Existing fence would be rebuilt or new fence would be constructed along active allotment boundaries. • New exclosures (protection fences) would be constructed around sensitive springs and fens on the Silver Lake RD Antelope Grazing Allotment, like Timber Well Corral and Section 9 spring.
2.3.4.1 Livestock Grazing Alternative 4 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 1 herd at 419 cow/calf pairs with permitted grazing from May 20 to July 30 (Table 2-3), without using the Chemult RD Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment and using an adaptive management strategy (Figure 2-7). Actions associated with allotment management used to meet Forest Plan standards would continue. These include fence maintenance and reconstruction, water hauling, salting, motorized use, and permitted off-road motorized vehicle use. Under Alternative 4, the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment would be administratively closed and would not be available for permit re-issuance for a minimum of 10 years. Ten years is the lifetime of a term grazing permit and the time frame during which measurable changes in resource conditions may occur if the conditions are being affected by livestock grazing. If the land is withdrawn from permitted grazing use, continued monitoring of key areas and utilization would not occur. No waiver of private lands or term private land permits would be issued, and grazing on private lands would be at stockings, rates, timings, and utilizations of the private landowners’ choosing. Unauthorized use under this alternative should be reduced significantly because livestock will not be authorized in the Chemult pasture. Any remaining potential unauthorized use should be insignificant when handled through the permit administration process.
2.3.4.2 Fence Construction As stated above, Alternative 4 proposes to reconstruct 8.8 miles of existing fence and construct 4.5 miles of new fence along active allotment boundaries and around sensitive springs and fens on the Silver Lake RD Antelope Grazing Allotment (Figure 2-8). Approximately 11.7 miles of fence would be removed.
2-18 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
2.3.4.3 Water Developments Actions associated with water structures include improving/maintaining existing sources (e.g., cleaning and sealing with bentonite), installing spring protections (fences) and spring developments (fencing and off-site troughs), and designating trough placement locations for filling by water haul. Under this alternative, 11 watering ponds are proposed for reconstruction, 2 springs are proposed for reconstruction, and 2 new springs are proposed for development (Figure 2-8).
2.3.4.4 Transportation Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit administration, required allotment maintenance, and construction and reconstruction of improvements. Consistent with the Travel Management Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment administration by specific classes of vehicles for specific tasks.
2-19 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-3. Alternative 4 livestock grazing levels and seasons Permitted Animal Unit Allowable Grazing Grazing Pasture Acresa Permit Type Cattle Months Utilization Seasonb System (cow/calf pairs) (AUM) (%) Buck Creek Allotment (previous Antelope Silver Lake) Antelope Flat 1c 558 Term 200 6/01-6/30 NTE 260 45–55 Early season Antelope Allotment (previous Antelope Silver Lake) Halfway 8,291 Term 189 5/20-6/19 NTE 254 45–55 Early season North Willow 4,831 Term 230 6/01-6/15 NTE 299 30–55 Early season Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 189 7/16-7/30 NTE 160 45–55 Early season Antelope Flat 3 and 4 860 Term 230 7/16-7/30 NTE 237 45–55 Early season Tobin Cabin 66,190 Term with on/off 230 6/16-7/15 NTE 299 40–50 Early season Tobin Cabin 66,190 Term with on/off 189 6/20-7/15 NTE 213 40–50 Early season Antelope Allotment (previous Antelope Chemult) Chemult Pasture 0 N/A 0 s N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 81,133 N/A 419 5/20-7/30 NTEe 1462d 30–55 N/A aAcres include National Forest System lands and other ownerships within pasture boundaries bDates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for movement between pastures would vary within plus or minus two weeks annually based on forage conditions, weather variations, or resource conditions within the overall allotment and pastures. cAntelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively removed from the Antelope Allotment and added to Buck Creek Allotment in November 2010. This pasture is included in this analysis because NEPA analysis was already completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. This pasture will be included in future updates, analyses, and administration of the Buck Creek Allotment. dDoes not include AUM from Antelope 1 Buck Creek Allotment eNTE means Not to Exceed.
2-20 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Figure 2-7. Alternative 4 boundaries and pastures
2-21 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2-8. Alternative 4 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal
2-22 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
2.3.5 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 was developed by the IDT to provide grazing opportunities to meet multiple-use objectives while incorporating concepts that may result in better management of the allotment and of livestock needs. This alternative was developed to address issues and concerns raised during public scoping that presented alternatives to the proposed action. Alternative 5 addresses scoping issues and concerns as follows: • To better distribute cattle and utilization, the North Sheep Pasture would be added to the Antelope Grazing Allotment. • A 2-herd grazing system on the Chemult RD would be used with a deferred-rotation pattern involving the Chemult, Tobin Cabin, and North Sheep pastures. North Sheep pastures would have a 1-year rest during the 3-year grazing cycle. • The Antelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively moved to the Buck Creek Allotment during a 2010 permit modification but is being analyzed for grazing effects in this project because NEPA analysis was completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. Current permitted use for this pasture is for 200 cow/calf pairs from June 1 to June 30. • To graze under a 2-herd system in the greater allotment through incorporating the 75 cow/calf pairs grazed on the private lands; a 2-year rotation schedule would be incorporated within Jack Creek as part of the term private land grazing permit (). • Private inholdings along Jack Creek would be brought under Forest Service allotment management standards through a term private land grazing permit to facilitate coordinated management of Oregon spotted frog habitat across ownerships. • New exclosures (protection fences) would be constructed around selected sensitive springs and fens, like in Squirrel Camp, Round Meadow, Johnson, Wilshire, Sproats, Dry Meadow, Little Parker, Crooked Meadow, and Section 9 Spring. • The Rock Springs area would not be included in the Tobin Cabin pasture. • For the holding pastures of Antelope Flat 3 and Antelope Flat 4, the season of use would be extended to October 15 to facilitate movement of livestock off the allotments at the end of the grazing season.
2.3.5.1 Livestock Grazing Alternative 5 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under management systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 2 herds at a total of 494 cow/calf pairs, with permitted grazing from May 15 to October 15 using an adaptive management strategy ( Table 2-4). This alternative includes grazing in some fenced riparian areas; on the additional acreage identified from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment; and on the private land parcels along Jack Creek known as Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison under a term private land grazing permit (Figure 2-9). The 75 cow/calf pairs incorporated under this alternative reflect the inclusion of the previously number of cow/calf pairs being grazed on these private lands. Under Alternative 5, management of the private inholdings within Oregon spotted frog occupied critical habitat at the Jack Creek Unit at Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison would be waived to the Forest under a term private land grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would occur at the numbers and seasons outlined above, for the durations indicated, and would be consistent with management proposed for the Oregon spotted frog in the Jack Creek Site Management Plan (Gervais 2011). Grazing within Jack Creek would be variable during the lifetime of this
2-23 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
analysis because ongoing Oregon spotted frog habitat restoration would be occurring and would influence the locations, stockings, timings, and utilizations of grazing each year (see “Wildlife” section, Chapter 3). In addition, annual monitoring as outlined in Appendix D may influence the locations, stockings, timings, and utilizations of grazing each year. While the 75 pairs permitted for grazing on the Jack Creek Unit would operate separately from the 2 herd grazing system, they would be under permit within the entire allotment boundary. Because of this, any suspended use of a portion or all of the Jack Creek Unit for Oregon spotted frog habitat restoration would redistribute those 75 pairs onto the greater Chemult Pasture, most likely within other fenced riparian areas away from Jack Creek. Unauthorized use under this alternative should be reduced significantly because the Jack Creek area inside the frog fence and in North Sheep pasture will now be authorized for grazing. Based on analysis of unauthorized used, this will result in a 57% reduction in the amount of unauthorized use on the allotment. The remaining potential unauthorized use should be insignificant when handled through the permit administration process. Grazing within the North Sheep Pasture would require the construction of up to 14 miles of new boundary fence. Grazing in this pasture would not be authorized until phase 1 construction of the new boundary fence has been completed. Until completion, grazing would occur on the Chemult RD portion of the allotment, consistent with timing and utilization allowances (3 months’ use for 25%–45% utilization).
2.3.5.2 Fence Construction, Maintenance, Reconstruction, and Removal This alternative would require constructing up to 20 miles of new boundary fence across the Antelope Allotments (Figure 2-10). This alternative also includes 20.7 miles of fence reconstruction and 1.1 miles of fence removal.
2.3.5.3 Water Developments Actions associated with water developments include improving/maintaining existing sources (e.g., cleaning and sealing with bentonite), installing spring developments (off-site troughs), and designating trough placement locations for filling by water haul. Under this alternative, 14 watering ponds are proposed for reconstruction, 5 springs are proposed for reconstruction, and 4 new springs are proposed for development (Figure 2-10). Surveys of spring sources throughout the project area were conducted from 2009 to 2011. Necessary protection measures, such as fencing or caging of spring sources, were identified for each location.
2.3.5.4 Transportation Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit administration, required allotment maintenance, and construction and reconstruction of improvements. Consistent with the Travel Management Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment administration by specific classes of vehicles for specific tasks.
2-24 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Table 2-4. Alternative 5 livestock grazing levels and seasons Permitted Cattle Grazing Animal Unit Allowable Pasture Acresa Permit Type Grazing System (cow/calf pairs) Seasonb Months (AUM) Utilization (%) Buck Creek Allotment (previous Antelope Silver Lake) Antelope Flat 1c 558 Term 200 6/01-6/30 NTE 260 45–55 Early season Antelope Allotment (previous Antelope Silver Lake) Halfway 8,291 Term 163 (Herd 1) 5/15-6/15 NTE 254 45–55 Early season North Willow 4,831 Term 256 (Herd 2) 6/01-6/30 NTE 333 30–55 Early season Antelope Flat 2 403 Term Variable 5/20-9/30 NTE 160 45–55 Transition/holdingd Antelope Flat 3 and 4 860 Term Variable 5/20-9/30 NTE 237 45–55 Transition/holdingd Tobin Cabin 66,190 Term with on/off 163 (Herd 1) 6/16-7/30 NTE 318 40–50 Early season Antelope Allotment (previous Antelope Chemult) Chemulte 62,862 Term 275 (Herd 1 & 2)g 7/01-9/30 NTE 931 25–45 Deferred rotation Chemulte 3,119 Term & Private 144 (Herd 1 & 2)g 7/01-9/30 NTE 575 25–45 Deferred rotation Jack Creekf 1,797 Term & Private 75 (Herd 2) 7/01-9/30 NTE 101 35 Moderate intensity Sproats Meadowf 14 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 2 35 Moderate intensity Johnson's Meadowf 12 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 2 35 Moderate intensity Wilshire Meadowf 6 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 2 35 Moderate intensity Dry Meadowf 18 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 7 35 Moderate intensity Squirrel Campf 32 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 9 35 Moderate intensity Rider’s Campf 72 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 25 35 Moderate intensity Cannon Wellf 44 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 38 35 Moderate intensity Round Meadowf 392 Term Variable 7/01-9/30 NTE 153 35–45 Moderate intensity Antelope Allotment (previous Jack Creek S&G) North Sheepe 19,064 Term 163 (Herd 1) 6/16 - 9/30 NTE 431 25–45 Deferred rotation Total 168,007 N/A 494 5/20 - 10/15 NTEi 3340h 25–55 N/A
2-25 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
aAcres include National Forest System lands and other ownerships within pasture boundaries. bDates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for movement between pastures would vary within plus or minus two weeks annually based on forage conditions, weather variations, or resource conditions within the overall allotment and pastures. cAntelope Flat 1 pasture was administratively removed from the Antelope Allotment and added to Buck Creek Allotment in November 2010. This pasture is included in this analysis because NEPA analysis was already completed for the Buck Creek Allotment in 2007. This pasture will be included in future updates, analyses, and administration of the Buck Creek Allotment. dUse of Antelope 2–4 is as needed to facilitate pasture moves. eThe Chemult and North Sheep Pastures would be managed together using a deferred rotation grazing system with alternating use (Table 2.3). fThese units are included in the Chemult Pasture under this alternative. Allocated cow/calf pairs for these units would be part of the total allocation for the Chemult Pasture, not an addition to the pasture’s allocation. The Jack Creek Unit is further divided into 4 pastures: Jack Creek 1, Jack Creek 2, Jack Creek 3, and Jack Creek 4. These pastures contain Oregon spotted frog habitat (see map 18). gHerd 2 includes 75 cow/calf pair proposed for rotation through the Jack Creek Unit (Table 2.8). hDoes not include AUM from Antelope 1 Buck Creek Allotment. iNTE means Not to Exceed.
2-26 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Figure 2-9. Alternative 5 boundaries and pastures
2-27 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2-10. Alternative 5 proposed fence and water development construction, maintenance, reconstruction, or removal
2-28 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
2.3.6 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives
2.3.6.1 Fence Construction, Reconstruction, and Removal Land management activities have affected the boundaries of the Antelope Allotments. Changes in timber stand structure and land ownership have made existing fences and natural barriers of dense timber and/or steep slopes ineffective in defining the allotment boundary. Varying amounts of fence construction, reconstruction, and removal are needed under each alternative to implement proposed pastures and grazing rotations (Table 2-6, Figure 2-2, Figure 2-4, Figure 2-6, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-10). Constructed and reconstructed fences would generally consist of 3-strand barbed wire and would require a minimum 4-foot right-of-way clearance on each side. Rights-of-way would be cleared of all forested and shrub vegetation that would impede access for continued maintenance. Removal of fences would include removing all wire and steel posts; all wood posts would be left in place.
2.3.6.2 Water Structures and Spring Protections Approximately 14 stock ponds and/or pit tanks on the allotments are currently identified for allotment management and permittee maintenance. Many of the ponds and pit tanks are seasonal and are generally dry by midsummer. The allotment contains 6 developed springs, a well at Halfway Lake that is not functional, and a well at Antelope Flat that provides water to troughs located in each of the Antelope Flat pastures. Many of these structures are in need of repair or reconstruction. Additional water infrastructure (troughs) exists on the allotments for livestock and wildlife management. Troughs were installed during resource protection projects over the last 20 years. These troughs are not considered allotment infrastructure, because their construction and maintenance requirements are not within range management program or permittee responsibilities. However, these water developments have been considered as available water sources for livestock and have been analyzed for conversion to range management infrastructure under Alternatives 3 and 5.
2.3.6.3 Distribution Management Salting, riding, herding, and water hauling would occur throughout each allotment to better distribute cattle across pastures and improve utilization and cattle distribution across the allotment. The intensities of these actions vary by alternative, but the goal under each alternative is the same: to implement effective distributions.
2.3.6.4 Permitted Motorized Access Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit administration, required allotment maintenance, and construction and reconstruction of improvements. Consistent with the Travel Management Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment administration by specific classes of vehicles for specific tasks. Limited off-road use would be authorized for required allotment maintenance by specific classes of vehicles for specific tasks.
2.3.7 Design Features Project design criteria are intended to enhance the effectiveness of management in site-specific locations, support the effectiveness of the actions proposed, or reduce or eliminate potentially adverse effects of proposed management activities. The following project design criteria would
2-29 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
be applied under each alternative, along with all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines for resource management, water quality management practices on NFS lands, and all other applicable laws, regulations, Forest Plan direction, and grazing permit clauses.
2.3.7.1 Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives
2.3.7.1.1 Spring Protection (SP) SP-1—Implement spring protection measures as described or through adaptive management practices. Spring protection measures have been identified for multiple resource protections. See Figure 2-2, Figure 2-4, Figure 2-6, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-10 and Appendix D for details on locations, monitoring, and implementation proposals.
2.3.7.1.2 Vegetation (VE) VE-1—Consult the Forest Botanist or District Botanist on the location of new improvements, such as fences and water developments.
2.3.7.1.3 Invasive Plants (IP) IP-1—Discuss weed prevention practices at permittee and cooperator meetings and at contractor pre-work sessions, where applicable. IP-2—Address prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment, and spread in the grazing AMP. IP-3—Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits and grazing AMPs, providing AOIs, and implementing adaptive management practices. Plan and implement practices in cooperation with the grazing permit holder. IP-4—Develop designated unloading areas for livestock being transported to the Forest from potentially infested areas. IP-5—Manage the timing, intensity, duration, and frequency of livestock activities to maintain the vigor of desirable plant species and retain live plant cover and litter. IP-6—Monitor livestock unloading areas and areas of concentrated livestock use for introduction of noxious weeds. IP-7—Provide permittees with a current list of invasive plants. A map showing known locations of invasive plant infestation within the allotment would be reviewed periodically. Permittees would be asked to report any discovery of new locations of invasive plants. IP-8—Clean all equipment used for off-road allotment management in a manner sufficient to prevent invasive plants from being carried onto the project area. This requirement does not apply to passenger vehicles or other equipment used exclusively on NFS roads. Cleaning of heavy off-road equipment would occur off NFS lands. Cleaning would be inspected and approved by the Forest Officer in charge of administering the project. IIP-9—Follow the Native Species Plan for the Fremont-Winema National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2002a) for restoration of any disturbed sites. Any seed used in restoration would be certified weed-free.
2-30 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
2.3.7.1.4 Wildlife (WI) WI-1—Apply the following timing restrictions to fence construction/reconstruction or spring development. Restrictions may be waived if surveys by a wildlife biologist indicate nesting is not occurring in that year. Geographic Information System (GIS) nest locations are listed in the project record or can also be found at the Chemult and Silver Lake Ranger District Offices. a) 0.25 miles of active goshawk nest sites from March 1 to August 31 b) 0.25 miles of active bald eagle or golden eagle nest sites from February 1 to August 31 (no known eagle nests currently exist within the project area) c) 0.25 miles of active raptor nest sites from February 1 to August 31 d) 0.25 miles of active pileated woodpecker nest sites from March 1 to July 31 e) 0.25 miles of active three-toed woodpecker nest sites from April 15 to July 15 f) 0.25 miles of active black-backed woodpecker nest sites from April 15 to July 15 g) 0.25 miles of active white-headed woodpecker nest sites from April 15 to July 15 h) 0.25 miles of active Lewis’s woodpecker nest sites from April 15 to July 15 WI-2—Adhere to seasonal restrictions for elk as depicted on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) within the project area. Waivers may be applied for as needed for allotment infrastructure improvements or maintenance; applications would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Applications for waivers would be submitted to the range permit administrator and reviewed with the Zone or Forest Wildlife Biologist prior to approval. WI-3—Consider wildlife-friendly designs, including escape routes from water tanks, for all water developments. WI-4—No motorized vehicle use is allowed within occupied Oregon spotted frog habitat (Appendix A, Map 18).
2.3.7.1.5 Range Management (RM) RM-1—Use would not begin earlier than 2 weeks before the permitted season or end more than 2 weeks after the permitted season. If utilization standards are reached prior to planned dates, or if resource conditions warrant, livestock removal shall be based on these standards rather than on the planned season-of-use date. RM-2—Adjust utilization standards to aid recovery and improve trend if key areas are determined to be in poor or very poor condition (unsatisfactory range condition). RM-3—Include source protection fencing, off-site trough locations, and a closed float system at new spring developments to maintain water at the source. RM-4—Implement all applicable Rangeland Management Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 2012b) throughout the project to enable the achievement of water quality standards including the following: a) Range-1: Rangeland Management Planning b) Range-2: Rangeland Permit Administration c) Range-3: Rangeland Improvements
2-31 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.3.7.1.6 Hydrology (HY) HY-1—Prohibit salting in aspen areas, in riparian areas, and near developed water sources (e.g., ponds and springs). Salt blocks would be placed at least 0.25 miles from these locations (Leonard et al. 1997) and preferably associated with water troughs. This tactic has demonstrated successful passive prevention of livestock from bedding in meadows. HY-2—Do not allow cattle into pastures until range readiness indicators are met (Appendix D). HY-3—Implement all applicable Grazing Management Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1995a; Figure 2-5), including the following, through the term grazing permit: i. GM-1: Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, and timing of grazing) that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or are likely to adversely affect inland native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices are not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objectives. ii. GM-3: Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect inland native fish.
2.3.7.1.7 Transportation and Access (TA) TA-1—Do not permit improvements to Maintenance Level 1 roads without permission from the District Ranger with concurrence from a Roads Program Manager and engineering direction. Permission and direction would be required for improvements such as brushing, road grading, removal of vegetation debris, or similar activity. When permit administration activities cannot be carried out without such improvements, the permittee shall contact the range management specialist with a written request describing the need. The range management specialist will then contact the area road manager so that the request can be reviewed. TA-2—Limit cattle hauling, water hauling, trough placement, and salt block placement to roads designated for motorized use as determined by the current Fremont-Winema National Forest Travel Management Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Maintenance Level 1 roads approved for permit administration activities will be listed in the AMP or in the AOI each season. TA-3—List roads with seasonal restrictions, as shown on the current MVUM, in the AOI. TA-4—Limit or restrict motorized use of NFS roads when the possibility of road impacts is imminent, as determined by the area road manager and RD personnel. TA-5—Limit cross-country travel of motorized vehicles within the Antelope Allotments to permit administration activities for maintenance and inspection of all structural range improvements and salt dispersal. Motorized cross-country herding will not be permitted. Cross-country travel must not cause resource impacts. Motorized vehicles would only leave system roads at approved locations either listed in the AOI or letter. TA-6—Prohibit improvements to uninventoried non-NFS roads or user-created routes. This prohibition applies to improvements such as brushing, road grading, removal of vegetation debris, or similar activity.
2.3.7.1.8 Cultural Resources (CR) CR-1—Conduct a cultural resource survey prior to any proposed reconstruction/construction of water development projects and ground-disturbing fence construction or removal activities. The survey must follow the process outlined in the most current programmatic agreement, or the
2-32 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
2004 Programmatic Agreement between the Pacific Northwest Forest Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Oregon SHPO Regarding Cultural Resource Management in the State of Oregon (2004 PA; Oregon SHPO 2004). CR-2—Avoid sites (historic properties) for proposed reconstruction/construction of water developments and ground-disturbing fence construction activities whenever possible, through project redesign, and proceed under the most current programmatic agreement, or the 2004 PA. CR-3—Proceed under the most current programmatic agreement, or Stipulation III B of the 2004 PA in cases where sites (historic properties) cannot be avoided through project redesign. CR-4—Reinforce the existing historic fence spring exclosure or construct a new spring exclosure at Site 83. CR-5—Monitor the sites where actual or potential grazing impacts were identified during the condition assessments that were conducted to analyze each alternative. Monitoring should be conducted every 3 years for a period of 10 years at each of the sites. CR-6—Implement treatment practices to reduce or eliminate impacts if grazing impacts such as trailing, rubbing, crushing, or trampling are noted during monitoring of the sites,. Treatments could involve the use of physical barriers, such as placing brush on-site or strategically dropping trees to force cattle to walk around and not through a site; or if a site is near a spring, exclosure could be expanded to include the site. If treatments are needed, consultation between the Archaeologist and Range Management Specialist would occur to determine the most appropriate mitigation to implement at each site. CR-7—Suspend project work in the event that new cultural materials are discovered during project activities and immediately contact the project Archaeologist to evaluate the site for eligibility. Proceed under the most current programmatic agreement or Stipulation III B 9 of the 2004 PA. CR-8—Extend the riparian exclosure fence to include Site 6 within the exclosure. CR-9—Extend the riparian exclosure fence to include Site 32 within the exclosure. CR-10—Include Site 52 within a riparian exclosure if the spring is developed.
2.3.7.2 Design Features Specific to Alternative 1
2.3.7.2.1 Invasive Plants (IP[1]) IP(1)-1—Clean all equipment used to remove fences and water developments in a manner sufficient to prevent noxious weeds from being carried onto the project area. Cleaning of heavy off-road equipment would occur off of NFS lands. Cleaning would be inspected and approved by the Forest Officer in charge of administering the project. IP(1)-2—Follow the Native Species Plan for the Fremont- Winema National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2002a) for the restoration of disturbed sites. Any seed used in restoration would be certified weed-free.
2.3.7.3 Design Features Specific to Alternatives 3 and 5
2.3.7.3.1 Wildlife (WI3,5) WI(3,5)-1—Install an off-channel water source within the Jack Creek 2 Pasture before grazing commences in the Jack Creek Unit
2-33 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
WI(3,5)-2—Ensure the utilization levels are 35% and bank alteration 20% within all areas identified as Oregon spotted frog habitat WI(3,5)-3—Grazing within the Jack Creek Unit would vary in years prior to completion of Oregon spotted frog restoration actions, and appropriate grazing levels would be identified each grazing season through preseason monitoring (Appendix D). WI(3,5)-4—Discourage late-season grazing in occupied Oregon spotted frog habitat to protect metamorphosing spotted frogs. WI(3,5)-5—Installation of fencing will remove cattle form 34 acres of OSF habitat. WI(3,5)-6—Open water habitat review by wildlife will occur annually. WI(3,5)-7—Implementation IDT field review will be conducted annually. WI(3,5)-8—Ensure private land improvements under private land permits are maintained annually.
2.3.7.3.2 Soils (SO[3,5]) SO(3,5)-1—Restrict use of the riparian unit in Rider’s Camp to only 1 of 3 years to ensure soil resources are meeting or moving toward meeting Forest Plan goals and objectives SO(3,5)-2—Monitor grazed fenced riparian areas within the Chemult Pasture for utilization and soil conditions during the first 2–3 years of implementation; thereafter, monitoring would be based on trend. Monitoring data would be used to adjust stocking levels or duration of grazing in units so that utilization standards are met and detrimental soils do not exceed 10%.
2.3.8 Monitoring Elements Monitoring would occur as part of implementing grazing in the Antelope Allotments and is summarized below. Further details about the monitoring plan appear in Appendix D. These standards and monitoring methods have proven to be effective on the Fremont-Winema National Forest and are supported by the Forest Plans, past monitoring, permit administration, and long-term monitoring data. Both NFMA [36 CFR 219.12 (k)] and NEPA [40 CFR 1505.2(c)] require that the application of Forest Plan standards be monitored. Implementation of the Forest Plan is monitored on a sample basis to ensure that activities reasonably conform to the management area direction by program area or resource concern. At a minimum, allotment monitoring within the project area would comply with Forest Plan guidance, and rangeland monitoring would be completed in key areas or identified critical areas of resource concern associated with livestock management. Key areas reflect overall compliance with current grazing management standards and guidelines in permit(s) and show both short- and long-term effects of current grazing management over the pasture or unit as a whole. Critical areas represent areas of special consideration for other resource objectives. Eleven historic end-of-season key areas have been identified in the Antelope Project area; however, only 7 of those are active monitoring locations, because fenced riparian areas exclude many key areas from current livestock use. Key areas that have been discontinued could be reactivated and new key areas or critical areas could be established depending on the alternative chosen.
2-34 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
2.3.8.1 Range and Soil Readiness
2.3.8.1.1 Range Readiness Range readiness determinations and appropriate forage utilizations have been established for each pasture to comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the type of forage and forage condition. The timings and numbers outlined in Table 2-5 reflect estimated appropriate use for grazing, where appropriate grazing levels, range readiness and forage utilization conditions would be met. These numbers are provided to help depict the grazing scenarios for each alternative; however, annual range readiness would determine on-dates for each pasture (+/–2 weeks from dates identified in Table 2-5), and forage utilizations would be the determining factor for the removal of cattle. A range is ready for grazing when soil has become firm after winter and early spring precipitation and when plants have reached the defined stage of growth at which grazing without permanent impacts may begin under a specific management plan. The date of range readiness is essential for the development of a range allotment plan. Representative areas of the primary range are selected for range readiness observations. Properly selected, a location can furnish data for several areas that are uniform in elevation, exposure, soils, vegetation, and climate. Range readiness criteria are established and observed for each particular location and management situation. Neither the soil condition nor the dates or growth stage of vegetation listed in Table 2-5 are absolutes; they are approximations used to help make the determination of range readiness. They are dependent on climatic factors that vary from year to year; therefore, actual range readiness dates will vary over time. Species listed in Table 2-5 are examples of what scientists look for when trying to determine range readiness at a particular site. The key species vary from site to site, and species other than those listed below may be used to make range readiness determinations.
2.3.8.1.2 Soil Readiness Grazing during range unreadiness or before soil readiness can impact soils. Soil is especially vulnerable early in the season when soil moisture levels are high. Soils should be firm before permitted grazing begins. Grazing when soils are too wet causes some or all of the following: • Excessive compaction resulting in a hardpan surface impervious to moisture (especially true for fine textured soils) • Broken sod on mountain meadows or bluegrass bottoms • Physical impacts to roots of perennial forage plants, especially on bunchgrass ranges • Seedling impacts (seedlings pulled out of the ground) • Seedling loss (seedlings killed by trampling) Soils should be fairly dry and firm to avoid problems caused by grazing. Wet meadows, unless lightly stocked, should be dry enough that grazing stock leave sod unbroken and cover intact. Both soil and forage indicators must be considered in determining range readiness. Wet and loose soils that are vulnerable to excessive compaction or impacts from trampling indicate that soils are not ready for range.
2-35 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.3.8.1.3 Vegetative Readiness Perennial grasses store energy in the roots and crown. In the spring, energy is drawn from the reserve for new stem and leaf growth. Green leaves manufacture food for plant growth and seed production; food from the leaves also replenishes energy in the roots to restart the cycle. Plants are most severely impacted when grazing occurs during the period of spring top growth when root reserves are being rapidly depleted; if grazing continues, no regrowth is possible. The detrimental effect is less if grazing starts after flowering, and even less detrimental effect occurs when grazing starts after seed ripe. Stages of plant development for specific plants determine when grazing should begin on season- long allotments (Table 2-5). Plant development also indicates when livestock grazing should begin or cease in a rest or deferred-rotation grazing system. Under a system of management that provides for discontinuous use, optimum early-season vegetation readiness may not be as important, because the plants are provided a period of recovery.
Table 2-5. Vegetative indicators of range readiness and range unreadiness Plant Range Readiness Approximate Date of Range Unreadiness Indicator Range Readiness Indicator Indicator Grasses Cusick’s bluegrass Leaves 4 inches tall May 21–28 Leaves <4 inches tall Idaho fescue Leaves 3 inches tall May 21–28 Leaves <3 inches tall Western wheatgrass Leaves 6 inches tall May 21–28 Leaves <6 inches tall Grasslike Carex simulata Leaves 4 inches tall — — Carex nebrascensis Leaves 4 inches tall — — Carex athrostachya Leaves 4 inches tall — — Forbs Shooting star — — Peak flowering Spring beauty — — Peak flowering Scabland delphinium — — Peak flowering Lomatium spp. — — Peak flowering
2.3.8.2 Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring would be accomplished at minimum intervals as identified in the Monitoring Plan. Monitoring results may trigger adaptive management actions (see design features and Appendix D). Use standards are implemented to ensure that vegetative conditions are either improving or maintained in a satisfactory condition. These standards are designed to indicate forage use by livestock. However, the appropriate utilization levels for a specific vegetative community or grazing strategy may vary. The appropriate prescriptions for specific areas would be outlined through the term grazing permit and AMPs issued by the Responsible Official. Vegetative communities or areas found to be meeting desired condition or with a static or upward trend may have prescribed standards that are different from those assigned to vegetative communities or areas that are not meeting desired conditions. The prescribed utilization may vary at the discretion of the authorizing officer.
2-36 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Forest Plan direction allocates forage resources on an allotment to meet the basic plant and soil needs as the first priority (See Appendix D). Forage production above that needed for basic resource needs may be allocated to permitted livestock. The use standard for grasses and forbs is measured by percent weight of forage remaining or stubble height, while the woody species use standard is measured by counting the amount of current leaders that have been clipped. These use standards are maximum levels of use, regardless of which animal species uses the forage or browse. The standard reached first would be the most restrictive, and livestock would be removed prior to that standard being exceeded. If the permitted use standards do not maintain satisfactory conditions, a more restrictive standard could be prescribed as part of the adaptive management process.
2.3.8.3 Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is monitoring that verifies that management direction is meeting or moving toward desired condition. Effectiveness monitoring is accomplished using multiple different types of monitoring depending on the habitat (i.e. upland or riparian) Trend in upland/meadow vegetation condition is monitored at established benchmark areas as funding permits. Generally, Paced Transect or other approved protocols would be followed to assess transect data. These data provide information on the trend in both cover and species composition. The data allows for tracking the trend in forage condition and soil stability, and other information can be extrapolated, including calls on seral status and similarity to potential natural community. Riparian condition is monitored at designated monitoring areas (DMA) or key areas as funding permits. Generally, Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) or other approved protocols would be followed to assess data. These data provides information on all attributes of desired conditions. Findings of downward trend related to cattle grazing may result in implementation of adaptive management consistent with the analysis (See Appendix D).
2.4 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 2-6, Table 2-7, and Table 2-8 is focused on effects that can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively between alternatives.
2-37 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-6. Comparison of actions by alternative Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Acres in alternative 0 147,114 168,533 81,133 168,565 boundary
Total allotments 0 2 1 1 1
Total large 0 4 6 3 6 pastures Maximum annual unit months 0 3289 3413 1462 3340 (AUMs) permitted Maximum cow/calf 0 419 494 419 494 pairs permitted
Number of herds 0 2 1 1 2
May 15– May 20– May 20–July May 15– Permitted season None September 30 October 15 30 October 15
Permitted duration 0 months 4.5 months 5 months 2.5 months 5 months
Miles of fence 0 0 20 4.5 20 construction Miles of fence 0 17.3 20.7 8.8 20.7 reconstruction Miles of fence 10.6 1.1 1.4 11.7 1.1 removal Ponds proposed for 0 11 14 11 14 reconstruction Springs proposed for reconstruction 0 3 5 2 5 or improvement Springs proposed 0 0 4 2 4 for development
2-38 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Table 2-7. Comparison of key measurement indicator by alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Key Issue 1—Grazing in Meadows/Riparian Areas Acres of currently fenced riparian areas 0 0 2,873 0 2,910 proposed for grazing Key Issue 2—Grazing in Oregon Spotted Frog (OSF) Habitat Acres of OSF habitat permitted for grazing 27 27 525 27 525 Acres of OSF Critical Habitat habitat permitted for grazing 27 27 404 27 404
Key Issue 3—Grazing Strategies Days of grazing proposed within the 0 0 60/15 0 90/45 deferred rotation strategy Total miles of herding per cow/per herd 0 50 40 20 20/38 needed to implement grazing system Acres of National Forest System land 0 47 228 0 228 on Jack Creek permitted for grazing Acres of private lands on Jack Creek 0 0 212 0 212 permitted for grazing Animal unit months (AUMs) permitted 0 0 101 0 356 within Jack Creek
2-39 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Key Issue 4—Utilization of Available Forage Acres permitted for grazing within Rock 0 0 70 0 0 Springs as part of Tobin Cabin Acres permitted for grazing within 0 0 1,963 0 1,995 currently fenced riparian areas Acres permitted for grazing within 0 3,060 3,750 0 3,750 acquired land exchange lands Acres permitted for grazing within the 0 0 19,064 0 19,064 North Sheep Pasture Key Issue 5—Fencing Strategy
Miles of proposed fence construction 0.0 3.63 20.0 4.5 20.0
Miles of proposed fence reconstruction 0.0 17.3 20.7 8.8 20.7
Miles of proposed fence removal 10.6 1.1 1.4 11.7 1.1
Key Issue 6—Expansion of Allotment Boundaries Allotment acres within the Chemult Ranger District portion of the allotment 0 0 19,885 0 19,885 in addition to the existing Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment boundary
2-40 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Table 2-8. Comparison of resource management indicators by alternative Management Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a Alternative 5 Botanical Acres of fen habitat subject to grazing 0 372 555 6 568 Number of sites with sensitive fen plant speciesb subject to 0 62 67 1 71 grazing Acres of occupied sensitive fen plant speciesb habitat 0 25.1 29.5 0.1 30.7 subject to grazing Number of sites of small capsule dung moss subject to 0 20 19 0 19 grazing Acres of small capsule dung moss occupied habitat 0 4.3 4.3 0 4.3 subject to grazing Grazing intensityc within Chemult Pasture outside fenced Not grazed High Medium- Not grazed Medium- riparian areas (key pasture with sensitive plant species) high, variable high, variable Grazing intensityc within Chemult Pasture inside fenced Not grazed Not grazed Medium Not grazed Medium riparian areas (key pasture with sensitive plant species) Grazing intensityc within North Sheep Pasture (key Not grazed Not grazed Medium Not grazed Medium, pasture with sensitive plant species) variable Grazing intensityc within Antelope Flat 1 Pasture (key Not grazed High Medium Medium Medium pasture with sensitive plant species) Grazing intensityc within Halfway Pasture (key pasture with Not grazed Medium Medium Medium Medium sensitive plant species)
2-41 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Management Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a Alternative 5 Wildlife—Oregon Spotted Frog (OSF) Acres of OSF habitat permitted for grazing 27 27 525 27 525
Acres of OSF Critical Habitat habitat permitted for grazing 27 27 404 27 404
Wildlife—Yellow Rail Acres of potential habitat permitted for grazing 0 0 185 0 185 Socioeconomics Full-time employees required to administer, monitor, and 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 conduct key area evaluations Cost of fence construction, reconstruction, and removal to $5,279 $9,249 $32,448 $14,528 $24,121 Forest $0 $174,046 $399,501 $133,607 $405,360 Cost of fence construction, reconstruction, and removal to Permittee
2-42 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Management Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a Alternative 5 Cost of fence construction, Year 1–2 $5,279 $8,699 $31,938 $11,528 $23,571 reconstruction, and removal by year to Forest Year 3–4 $0 $550 $550 $3,000 $550 Year 5–6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of fence construction, Year 1–2 $0 $131,246 $222,160 $26,839 $222,160 reconstruction, and removal Year 3–4 $0 $42,800 $134,541 $76,947 $134,408 by year to Permittee Year 5–6 $0 $0 $42,800 $29,821 $48,792 Days of grazing proposed in a pasture grouping within the 0 0 60/15 0 90/45 deferred rotation strategy Total miles of herding per cow/per herd needed to 0 50 40 20 20/38 implement grazing system* Duration (months) of cattle on NFS lands 0 4.5 5 2.5 5 Estimated average annual Employment 0 2.24 1.93 0.56 2.29 values from head months Labor income $0 $28,957 $24,919 $7,269 $29,504 (Forest Service method) Output $0 $175,248 $150,808 $43,992 $178,555 Estimated average annual Employment 0 9.09 7.82 2.28 9.27 values from AUMs (Bureau of Labor income $0 $118,438 $101,913 $29,738 $120,793 Land Management method) Output $0 $580,434 $499,447 $145,740 $591,977 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Removal of foragee Heavy—extreme Moderate Light– Heavy–extreme Light– (private)/incidental moderate (private)/incidental moderate (NFS) (NFS Chemult)/moderate (NFS Silver Lake) Pasture configuration ~5 (private) 8 (NFS) 15 (NFS) 7 (NFS) 20 (NFS and 3 (privateg) ~5 (private) ~5 (private) private) Plant communityf upward stable/ stable/ stable/upward stable/ upward upward upward Land available for grazingh N/A = + – ++
2-43 Chapter 2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Management Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a Alternative 5 Hydrologic Resources Acres of riparian area subject to grazing (e.g., wetlands, fens, springs, seeps, meadows, ground-water dependent 0 3,276 4,643 1,362 4,656 ecosystems [GDEs])
Number of currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas 0 0 9 0 13 subject to grazing Miles of perennial stream grazed under NFS management 0 1 7 0 7 Miles of perennial stream grazed under private 3 3 0 3 0 Aquatic Habitat (Fisheries) Miles of fish habitat under permitted grazing 0 1 6 0 6 3 3 0 3 0 Miles of fish habitat grazed under private management
Days permitted grazing would occur in riparian areas 0 90 75 0 105 adjacent to fish habitat Days grazing would occur in riparian areas adjacent to fish unknown unknown 0 unknown 0 habitat under private management Soils S: 0 S: 1,369 S: 1,362 S: 1,362 S: 1,362 Riparian acres open to grazingi,j C: 0 C: 1,907 C: 2,314 C: 0 C: 2,328 NS: 0 NS: 0 NS: 967 NS: 0 NS: 967 S: 0 – S: 80 = S: 80 = S: 80 = S: 0 – Riparian acres grazed—areas of concernk C: 0 – C: 290 = C: 290 = C: 0 – C: 370 +
S:– S: = S: + S: + S: – Changes in soil surface features (riparian areas) C:– C: = C: – C:– C: variable NS:– NS: = NS: + NS: = NS: +
2-44 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2
Management Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a Alternative 5 Transportation Miles of Maintenance Level 1 roads 343 341 425 165 425 Miles of Maintenance Level 2 roads 443 438 492 237 492 Miles of Maintenance Level 3 roads 29 29 40 24 40 Total National Forest System road miles 815 808 957 426 957 Cultural Resources Duration (grazing season) No grazing early and early and early early and late * late late Intensity (acres per cow/calf pair) 0 352 343 195 343 aAll fen habitat in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be excluded in 5–6 years, after fencing is completed. bExcludes small capsule dung moss, which benefits from grazing and is considered separately. cComparative ranking within each pasture by alternative, based on proportion of AUMs to acres grazed; grazing duration; and/or percent utilization allowed. Rankings are not comparable across pastures. dAll fen and sensitive terrestrial mollusk habitat in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be excluded in 5–6 years once fencing is complete eBased on stocking, rate, intensity, timing, and frequency fIncludes species composition and production of forage gPrivate lands not under permit with Forest hLand available for grazing will decrease (–), remain the same (=), or increase (+) iDoes not include riparian acres grazed on private lands. Silver Lake (S) acres are approximate j + Indicators would increase above current levels under implementation of alternative; – Indicators would decrease from current levels under implementation of alternative; = Indicators would be maintained at current levels under implementation of alternative kS = Silver Lake (eastside); C: = Chemult Pasture (westside); NS = North Sheep Pasture
2-45
Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Range and Nonforested Vegetation
3.1.1 Affected Environment The area currently known as the Antelope Allotments was first grazed in the 1870s with livestock belonging to Oregon homesteading families. Thousands of cattle, sheep, and horses are known to have used the project area during this early period. In 1930 the Antelope and Tobin Cabin allotments were established on the Fremont National Forest. The current multiple-allotment configuration, using the “spring” allotment on the Silver Lake RD and the “summer” allotment on the Chemult RD, began prior to 1945. In 1961 the Winema National Forest was created, and the “summer” allotment was placed under Chemult RD administration. In 1969 the Tobin Cabin and Antelope Flat allotments were added to the Antelope Allotment as pastures. In 2002 the Fremont and Winema National Forests were combined into a single administrative unit. However, the “spring” and “summer” allotments remained as separate grazing administrative units managed by the Silver Lake and Chemult RDs. Vegetation found on the allotments can be generally characterized as forested uplands, sagebrush flats, dry meadows, and riparian areas associated with drainages or springs. Range vegetation assessments were first conducted on the allotments in 1955 with a number of permanent vegetation transects established across different forage vegetation types. These transects were reread in 1969, 1980, 2008, and 2010. An AMP was developed through a Coordinated Resource Management Planning effort in 1985. This AMP has been implemented since its inception and was updated with a new AMP developed for the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment (Chemult Pasture) in 1995. The 1995 AMP continued the season-long grazing, with no change in the number of livestock or the season of use. An appendix to the 1985 Range Environmental Assessment (REA) (Swanson 1984) included a table that displayed stocking history from 1930 through 1981, including estimated annual permitted numbers, season of use, and animal units. Sheep grazed under permit on the Tobin Cabin portion of the allotment until 1969 at numbers ranging from 500 to 860 ewe/lamb pairs from June 15/July 1 to September 30. Cattle have grazed under permit on the North Willow, Halfway, Antelope Flat, and Chemult pastures since 1908. Stocking records indicate some combined livestock-class grazing (cow/calf and ewe/lamb) on these pastures in the 1930s and early 1940s, but since 1945, the class of livestock on these pastures has been cow/calf pairs only.
3.1.1.1 National Forest System Rangelands
3.1.1.1.1 Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment The Antelope Allotments, as currently configured, have eight pastures across the Silver Lake and Chemult Ranger Districts of the Fremont-Winema NFs. The Antelope Allotments are permitted for a combined maximum of 3,289 animal unit months (AUMs) from May 15 through September 30, while the northeast portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment is currently in non-use. Cattle will typically enter the Antelope Allotment (SL) in May from private lands or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Allotments to the east and move westward into the Chemult Pasture as the range becomes ready for livestock grazing.
3-1 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
North Willow Pasture
North Willow Pasture is a 4,831 acre management unit located in the northeast corner of the allotment. North Willow is bordered by FS McCarty Butte, South Wastina Pasture to the north, JWTR LLC to the west, BLM to the south and FS/BLM/Ward Lake Allotment/North Stratton Pasture to the east. There are no private lands inventoried in this pasture. Historically the pasture has been used in May/June and serves as an entry pasture to the allotment. The adjacent BLM managed Ward Lake Allotment permits grazing to the Antelope Allotment permittee for the months of March/April.
Past management plans describe rest rotation used in conjunction with Halfway Pasture. Early season (mid-May –June) has been the grazing strategy since 2000 with the consolidation of grazing permits. The North Willow Pasture receives the first herd of approximately 230 cow/calf pairs on or around May 15 as range forage becomes ready for grazing and remains in this pasture until forage utilization is met or water availability is limited, usually around June 30.
There are approximately 13 miles of allotment and pasture boundary fences and three springs in North Willow Pasture. Ross Spring was developed in 1938 and is currently not functioning. North Willow Spring was developed in 1979 and is currently not functioning. Baskin Spring was developed after 1985 and is currently not functioning.
There were eight stock ponds inventoried in North Willow Pasture by Swanson in 1984. Line Pond (SE of the NW of Section 30, T27S R13E) is high priority for cleanout. Oat Pond (NW of SE, T27S R13E) provides perennial water for the north portion of this pasture (it was ½ full in Oct. 2010). Most of the remaining ponds in this pasture occur along FR 2780.
Halfway Pasture
Halfway Pasture is an 8,491 acre unit in the southeast corner of the Antelope Allotment. All acres except 160 acres are NFS lands. North Willow Pasture is to the northeast with the BLM Ward Lake Pasture to the east. Tobin Cabin Pasture and Antelope Flat Pastures #1 and #4 are to the west of Halfway.
Past management plans describe rest rotation used in conjunction with North Willow Pasture. Historically the pasture has been used in May/June and serves as an entry pasture to the allotment. The adjacent BLM managed Ward Lake Allotment permits grazing to the Antelope Allotment permittee for the months of March/April.
Early season (mid-May –June) has been the grazing strategy since 2000 with the consolidation of the grazing permits. Herd 2, consisting of approximately 189 cow/calf pairs, enters the Forest in the Halfway Pasture on or around June 1 and remains until range forage utilization is met or June 30, although movement generally occurs approximately fifteen days after entry into this pasture. Early season use is necessary for these high desert areas as water holes and springs may become inadequate to support livestock by early July.
3-2 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
There are no developed springs in Halfway Pasture. At one time there was a well and pipeline/trough development at Halfway Lake. The ground water feeding this well dropped below the bottom of the well so the source is lost. There are 2 small dugout ponds adjacent to the lakebed but these only catch and hold water on years of significant runoff.
There were 12 stock ponds inventoried by Swanson in the 1984 REA. Corner Pond (SE of NW, Section 1, T28S R13E) A borrow pit/stock pond called Junction Pond, located just north of the junction of the Bear Flat Highway and FR 2780, Cinder Pond (SW of SW, Section 13, T27S R13E) and Post Pond (SE of Section 35, T27S R13E) have been identified as high priority for livestock water opportunities. There are also several locations identified for permanent water haul locations that are high priority livestock water opportunities in this pasture.
Antelope Flat Pastures There are 4 pastures in the Antelope Flat Pasture complex. This flat was a historic, season long holding field that was subject to unauthorized use and drift from surrounding allotments. The flat was fenced in 1943 to curtail some of the unauthorized use and to bring management to the area. The interior fences were constructed in 1959.
Cattle are moved through the Antelope Flat Pastures for short durations and for varying lengths of time as necessary for transition between larger pastures and holding during fall gather. Herd 2 (189 pairs) spends three to four days in the southwest pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #2) and is then taken to the Tobin Cabin pasture in mid-June in most years and no later than July 5. Additionally, the southwest pasture on Antelope Flat is used for another three to four days in early July to rest and hold Herd 1 (approximately 230 pairs) during their move from North Willow pasture to Chemult pasture.
The northeast pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #3) is sometimes used by approximately 40 pairs as utilization is reached in the Tobin Cabin pasture in August to September. It is also used in conjunction with a private inholding and the northwest pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #4) as holding pastures during fall gather from the Chemult Pasture which starts around September 15. Once enough livestock are placed in this pasture to constitute a load, the animals are trucked off Forest to the home ranch. This gathering and trucking occurs until all of this permittee’s livestock are removed from the Forest.
The southeast pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #1) is permitted to a different permittee than the rest of the allotment. With the waiver of a Term Grazing Permit from the Pitcher Ranch to Tom O’Leary Ranch, this pasture is incorporated into the Buck Creek Allotment for management purposes. This pasture is permitted for 200 pairs from June 1 thru June 30. Additional livestock may trail through this pasture on their way to other Antelope Flat Pastures because of dangers associated with trailing livestock down the highway; however, utilization of forage by these trailing livestock should be minimal.
3-3 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Tobin Cabin Pasture The Tobin Cabin Pasture is located west of Halfway Pasture and east of the Chemult Ranger District boundary and consists of both NFS lands (38,362 acres) and private lands (27,828 acres) under Term with On/Off provisions for a total of 66,190 acres in this pasture. The majority of private acres were owned and managed by Weyerhaeuser (WEYCO). WEYCO sold these lands in 1998 and they are currently owned and managed by JWTR LLC, a Klamath Falls, OR, timber holding corporation.
Tobin Cabin Allotment was formed with the establishment of the Fremont NF and managed primarily as a sheep allotment until 1969 when the class of livestock was converted to cattle. Records prior to 1930 are not available but notes indicate the allotment was used intermittently by both sheep and cattle. From 1930 until 1969 permitted and authorized sheep numbers varied from 700 to 2000 for a grazing season from July 1 to September 30. Sheep were permitted under G5/Term Private Land Grazing Permits, with WEYCO leasing the grazing to permittees. The first Term permits were issued in 1969 for 225 AUMs on NFS lands and 300 AUMs permitted on the private lands.
In 1979 a Production/Utilization study was conducted in Tobin Cabin with the objective of verifying proper stocking capacity. The study was conducted in 1979 with some observations in 1981. The study concluded the capacity of this pasture was 1,350 AUMs (550 AUMs on NFS lands, 800 AUMs on private lands). The study continued in 1982 with some focused observations on management objectives for the WEYCO lands. With the addition of new ponds, the study concluded the capacity was 700-800 AUMs. The study noted that as stands developed and forage grasses were shaded out, the capacity would decline. WEYCO reduced the allowable stocking level over the years to the current 560 AUMs. Currently the grazing permits authorize 105 AUMs under Term Grazing Permit and 560 AUMs under Term Private Land Grazing Permit.
Herd 2 (189 pairs) is taken to the Tobin Cabin pasture in mid-June in most years and no later than July 5. A portion of Herd 2, approximately 149 of 189 pairs, is then placed in the Chemult Pasture around August 1 or as forage utilization is met in the Tobin Cabin Pasture. The 40 “extra” pairs are either left in the Tobin Cabin Pasture until September 15 or when utilization is met then they are moved to private land or one of the three permitted Antelope Flat Pastures.
There are over 20 miles of fence on the boundary of this pasture and an additional 20 miles of unfenced natural boundaries. Currently inventoried is 10 miles of division fence between Tobin Cabin Pasture and Chemult Pasture in nonfunctional condition. There is another 10 miles of allotment boundary fence between the Jack Creek S&G Allotment and Tobin Cabin Pasture. This fence was constructed by WEYCO in the 1970’s when WEYCO created a private pasture on Jack Creek Ridge and is in an unknown condition.
There are 3 developed springs in Tobin Cabin. Mud Springs has a spring box, pipeline and trough system inside a small livestock holding trap. The source protection fence is in poor condition. Bull Jack Spring has a protection fence that is still functional but the pipeline and trough were abandoned when a pond was dug just downstream of the spring. Tobin Spring is fenced and a pipeline feeds a trough below the spring. This development is in good condition.
3-4 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
There are several undeveloped springs in this pasture as identified through an inventory of springs conducted during the 2010 season. Those identified as important for consideration in future livestock allotment and pasture management are: Corral Springs, an unnamed spring in the drainage south of Timber Well, Section 9 Spring and Tinhead Spring in the northeast corner of the pasture.
There are 26 stock ponds inventoried in this pasture. Most hold water seasonally and are dry before the end of the grazing season. Those identified as high priority for future livestock management objectives include: Lake Pond (SW of NW of Sec 27, T28SR11E), Coyote Pond (SW of NE of Sec 10, T28SR11E), and Wallows Pond in Bear Draw (SE of NW of Sec. 32, T27S R11E).
There are two small trick tank/guzzler structures located in this pasture (#1 is at T27S R11E, Sec29, NWSE, #2 is at T27S R11E, Sec17, SWNE). These consist of small collection pads, about 50 feet by 100 feet, constructed with sheet roofing material, draining into 500 gallon storage tanks that feed troughs. These structures are nonfunctional and no longer necessary for livestock management in this pasture.
Chemult Range District
Chemult Pasture
Grazed as the ‘upper forest’ since the Antelope Allotments were established, the 66,118 acre Chemult Pasture provides mid-late summer foraging opportunities for the allotment. The Chemult Pasture consists of both NFS lands and private lands under Term Private Land Grazing Permit and 379 pairs graze until approximately September 15 when the permittee begins to gather livestock and place them in the northern pastures of Antelope Flat. Gathering continues until all livestock are located and removed from NFS lands. Any livestock remaining on either of the Antelope Allotments after October 10 are considered to be excess use based on Rangeland Management Handbook definition and are billed for based on these guidelines.
The Chemult pasture is the primary forage base for the allotment offering the greatest capacity and best quality feed. Starting in the mid-2000s extensive fenced riparian areas were constructed to exclude grazing from one large meadow and several smaller ones. This reduction in available forage base continued in 2008 with the exclusion of cattle in the Jack Creek meadows. The Jack Creek Meadow Fenced Riparian Area was considered in the authorized use resulting in a permit modification to the herd size from 419 pairs to 379 pairs however there have been no modifications in numbers or seasons for the other fenced riparian areas. There are several other large meadows within the Chemult Pasture that are privately owned, most of which are considered in overall grazing capacity through a Term Private Land Grazing Permit.
The following range improvement structures are assigned to the grazing permit for maintenance and with the exception of condition assessments these are accurately recorded in the I-Web (INFRA) database;
3-5 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Antelope/ Jack Creek boundary fence west of Tea Table Mountain is 2.2 miles of three strand barbed wire fence, constructed prior to 1960 and is in critical condition. The Antelope/ Jack Creek boundary fence west of the Jamison Ranch is 2.7 miles of three strand barbed wire fence, constructed prior to 1980 and is in critical condition. The Antelope/ Jack Creek boundary fence east of Tea Table Mountain is 3.0 miles of three strand barbed wire fence, constructed prior to 1960 and is in critical condition. The Chemult/Jack Creek riparian division fence is 3.12 miles of three strand barbed wire fence, constructed in 2008 and is in satisfactory condition.
The following wildlife and watershed structures are assigned to the Chemult Ranger District for maintenance and with the exception of condition assessments these are accurately recorded in the I- Web (INFRA) database;
The Dry Meadow fenced riparian area is 1.13 miles of four strand barbed wire, with approximately 300 feet of buck and pole. T-posts are 18-22 feet apart with single 4 inch wood posts every 50-60 feet. Constructed in 2005, this fence was not constructed to FS standards for “H” bracing fences which may limit the lifespan of the fence. The brace posts are too small (4 inch) and the cross members of the line braces are less than 6 feet. Construction standards call for a minimum of 8 feet (ideally 10 feet) for cross braces. There are at least 3 places where wire tie-off to the braces is poor or substandard. This fence was constructed using two by fours for stays between t-posts. Stays of this size are heavy and put additional weight on the fence, possibly limiting the life of the fence. The buck and pole section, across the meadow at the north end, was constructed using lodgepole pine cut locally. The material used to construct this section of fence is adequate from a construction standard perspective but will require considerable maintenance if damaged by falling trees. Current condition of the improvement as a whole cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.
The Dry Meadow spring, pipeline, and trough is approximately 300 feet of buried pipe from a vintage (1950’s era) spring box to a 10’ Powder River trough. The pipeline may be compressed or bent and flows seem restricted, especially in below average water years. There is a pumper chance at Dry Meadow that is currently unavailable to livestock due to the installation of the fenced riparian area.
The Sproats Meadow Spring fenced riparian area is approximately 0.84 miles of three strand barbed wire fence constructed in 1994 or 1995 and rebuilt to extend the fence north in 2005. The fence construction standard is the same as other non-range fences of this era, and current condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.
Sproats Meadow spring, pipeline, and trough is approximately 300 feet of buried pipe from a new spring box to a Powder River trough outside the fenced riparian area.
Johnson Meadow Spring fenced riparian area is approximately 0.58 miles of three strand barbed wire let-down fence with approximately 500 feet of buck and pole fence on the east side and was constructed in 2005. Spot checks of line braces found small (4 inch) posts and cross braces less than 6 feet in length. The buck and pole section, along the meadow at the east side, was constructed using lodgepole pine cut locally. The material used to construct this section of fence is adequate from a construction standard perspective but will require
3-6 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
considerable maintenance if damaged by falling trees. The fence construction standard is the same as other fences of this era and current condition cannot be assessed on the improvement as a whole due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications throughout.
The Johnson Meadow spring, pipeline and trough is approximately 50 feet of over-the- ground pipeline from a vintage spring box to a Powder River trough. The system is solar powered and pumps water uphill slightly as opposed to gravity fed downhill. The system was installed with Resource Advisory Committee funds and the current condition is good.
The Riders/Cow Camp fenced riparian area is approximately 1.39 miles of three strand barbed wire fence constructed in 1995. The fence was not constructed to FS standard for corner and line braces and failure of these structures is considered eminent. The fence construction standard is the same as other fences of this era and current condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.
The Squirrel Camp fenced riparian area is approximately 1.24 miles of three strand let-down fence constructed in 2005 and this fence was not constructed to FS standards for line and corner braces. The let-down components are not standard but function. The fence dead ends and ties off into timber slash windrowed in the uplands at the northeast corner and at the southwest corner. The fence construction standard is the same as other non-range fences of this era and current condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.
The Squirrel Camp spring, pipeline and trough system is approximately 300 feet of buried pipeline from a vintage spring box to a Powder River trough. The system was installed in 2005 and pipeline may be compromised due to kinks or bends as flow is restricted. Further assessment is necessary to determine the condition of this structure and whether heavy maintenance or reconstruction is necessary to resolve functionality issues.
The Wilshire Meadow Spring fenced riparian area is 0.36 miles of three strand barbed wire fence with approximately 130 feet of log-worm fence on the south side. The fence was constructed in 2005 and was not constructed to standard for line and corner braces. The log- worm section was constructed with locally harvested lodgepole pine and seems solid.
Wilshire Meadow Spring is approximately 500 feet of buried pipeline from a vintage spring box to a Powder River trough and is considered in good condition.
Round Meadow fenced riparian area is 3.5 miles of 3 strand barbed wire let-down fence constructed in 2005. The fence was not constructed to FS standard for line and corner braces. The let-down components are not to standard, but function. The fence construction standard is the same as other non-range fences of this era and current condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.
Cannon Well fenced riparian area is 1.75 miles of 3 strand barbed wire fence constructed in 2007. The fence was not constructed to FS standard for line and corner braces. The fence construction standard is the same as other non-range fences of this era and current condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.
3-7 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
There are approximately 27 stock ponds or developed water sources inventoried on the Chemult Pasture. Most are dugout ponds, created to water livestock or for pumper chances and firefighting. There may be ponds that are not in the inventory, particularly ponds that were attained by the FS through land exchanges. Maintenance of ponds is a condition in the Term Grazing Permit Part 3 but current implementation instructions need to be developed. The ponds were not surveyed for other resources when they were created so some inventory may be needed before pond maintenance can occur.
3.1.1.1.2 Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment
The Jack Creek S&G allotment consists of approximately 135,700 acres. Historic livestock use is primarily sheep grazing except for a few years of cattle utilization in the mid-1970s. Allotment inspection reports from the early 1960s mention cattle drift from the Antelope Allotments onto Davis Flat and Little Round Meadow. Sheep numbers have varied from over 5000 ran in the 1930s thru 1940s, to around 1400 in the 1950s thru 1960s, and 1000-2000 in present times.
For this analysis only the area considered for possible conversion to part of the Antelope Allotments are analyzed. This area is north of the 83 Road and east of Jackie’s Thicket. The area has not been authorized for livestock use since around 2003 as the current permittee has reduced his band and after repeated partial non-use his permit was modified from 2000 ewe/lambs to 1100 ewe/lambs from June 1 thru September 30. Currently sheep use the southern portion of the allotment south of the 83 road with most of the current use occurring south of the Silver Lake Highway.
The portion being analyzed for use by cattle is primarily the Jack Creek corridor where the majority of the meadows are located. Primary forage areas are available in Bull Frog, O’Connor, Davis Flat and Cabin Springs meadows with several small meadow complexes to the east and west. A majority of the O’Connor Meadow is privately owned and is fenced out of the allotment. Jack Creek flows intermittently through this portion of the allotment and is often dry early in the season with water left in small pools and pot holes late into the season. The potential livestock capacity from this acreage is estimated to be approximately 619 AUMs; however the actual capacity will be determined and adjusted through monitoring of utilization levels and other resource objectives if appropriate.
The following structural improvements exist on the portion of the Jack Creek Allotment being considered and analyzed in this document. Maintenance responsibilities may change as appropriate.
There are no interior fences in the portion of the Jack Creek Allotment being considered and only one half acre fenced riparian area on North O’Connor Meadow.
Cabin Spring is developed including a spring box and a 2000 gallon redwood tank placed in the meadow. This was installed in 1962 and is still functioning. Although the location in the meadow is not in line with current management practices, moving this trough or preventing livestock use may not be practical due to other resource considerations.
Dempsey Spring has a small reservoir that was originally built in 1963 and is not functional.
Huckleberry Spring has a small reservoir that was originally built in 1963 and is not functional.
3-8 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Yellow Jacket Spring consists of a culvert headbox that fills a small 100 gallon steel trough in a small meadow. The system is currently functional but may be inadequate to meet future livestock management objectives considered later in this document.
Little Round Meadow pond is a manmade stock pond in the meadow that is functioning.
Cleary Spring is a spring fed stock pond in the meadow built in 1963 that is functioning.
Bartley Headquarters Pond is a stock pond in the meadow built in 1963 that is functioning.
Lily Camp is a reservoir in Jack Creek that is accessible to water tenders and livestock.
3.1.1.2 Private Rangelands
There are numerous private parcels that exist within the Chemult Pasture portion of the project area. These parcels have multiple owners and multiple uses, including but not limited to livestock grazing. Some of these private parcels are administered for livestock grazing through Term Private Land Grazing Permits or On/Off provisions by the FS. For the purpose of informing later discussions in alternatives below, we are including information about some of the private parcels here, but not all private lands.
Jamison private lands consist of several meadows along Jack Creek within the Chemult Pasture that are not under FS grazing permit. These two parcels are 196 acres total and provide feed for 75 pairs of cattle for three to three and half months. These numbers are not included in current permitted numbers.
The Jack Creek fenced riparian area is divided into private and NFS lands; NFS lands have been rested since 2008 with the exception of a small portion (less than 40 acres) of NFS land at the southern end of Jamison Ranch private lands. Livestock exclusion has been attempted through the use of temporary electric fence, but has seen limited success. Administrative process through the Rangeland Management Handbook has been used to address any noncompliance with current resource protection objectives or current legal rulings.
3.1.1.3 Plant Community Types
Methods for describing, characterizing and mapping vegetation community types differ across the project area due to the extent of the analysis crossing District and Forest level administrative boundaries and private lands. For this reason, non-forested vegetation will be described by district. Total acreages of described vegetation may not match total project area acreage due to some private land acreages’ exclusion from plant community type surveys and use of more accurate mapping techniques to acquire project area acreage. Due to the differences in vegetation mapping techniques, a map was not developed to show management areas or vegetation community mapping for this report, however GIS layers were used to calculate the acreages discussed throughout.
3.1.1.3.1 Silver Lake Ranger District
3-9 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
The 1984 REA describes plant associations existing on the Silver Lake portion of the Antelope Allotments and provides a summary of acreage of each plant community type. This plant association mapping completed by J.Swanson in 1982 remains accurate while the Fremont Ecoclass GIS layer has validation issues associated with meadows not being classified by soil or vegetation types. Consequently, the range acre summary forms from the 1984 REA were used to describe current plant associations for the Silver Lake portion of the project area.
North Willow pasture is characterized primarily by low sage/Idaho fescue flats (1,582 acres) scattered between ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/Idaho fescue timber stands (3,197 acres). Intermingled in these timbered stands are several Cusick’s bluegrass dry meadows (81 acres) and mountain mahogany dominated ecotones.
The vegetation inventoried in the Halfway Pasture is dominated by ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/fescue plant associations (6,576 acres) with low sage flats and mountain mahogany types intermingled (1,637 acres). Western juniper is common on dry forest sites and has invaded onto big sagebrush and low sagebrush types, but current acreage of invaded shrubland is unknown. There are 39 acres inventoried as Cusick’s bluegrass dry meadow type, primarily represented by the Halfway Lake (dry) area.
The Tobin Cabin pasture is characterized by forested vegetation types that represent both primary and transitory forage for livestock and wildlife. These forested types include ponderosa pine/shrub/grass types, lodgepole pine, and mixed conifer/shrub/grass types. Shrub species such as antelope bitterbrush and manzanita dominate the understory of drier forested types while blueberry, huckleberry and bearberry are common as understory in wetter lodgepole pine types. Forage species common in the forest understory include western needlegrass, Idaho fescue and upland sedge species in drier forest types and riparian sedge, tufted hairgrass and Kentucky bluegrass communities in wetter lodgepole communities.
Meadows make up approximately 427 acres within the Tobin Cabin Pasture and these are generally characterized by Cusick’s bluegrass communities in drier meadows and tufted hairgrass, riparian sedges and Kentucky bluegrass in wetter meadow types. The 1984 REA also characterizes 16,530 acres within Tobin Cabin Pasture as non-range acres due to dense forested canopy cover. Generally forested types are considered marginal or non-range acres if canopy closure exceeds 40 to 50% unless there is sufficient soil moisture to support forage species that are shade tolerant.
Poor forage production and extensive sagebrush in the Antelope Flat pastures led to a plowing and reseeding program in 1944 with revegetation work continuing in 1947, 1948 and 1953. Various sagebrush conversion projects were implemented using herbicides and fire along with revegetation seeding with introduced wheatgrasses, shrubs and forbs. These projects had limited success and sagebrush reoccupied the treatments. Crested wheatgrass is still a major component in Antelope Flat #2 and #3.
3.1.1.3.2 Chemult Ranger District Since 1962 several protocols have been established and used to describe the vegetation community types present on the Winema National Forest. Among these are: 1962 long term range vegetation assessments, 1982 Plant Associations of the Central Oregon Pumice Zone (Volland), and 2000s Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit (TEU) Inventory (GTR W0-68 2005).
3-10 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Each of these protocols built on previous information and it has been determined that the TEU information is most relevant to the current vegetation conditions for the Chemult Ranger District portion of the project area (Chemult Pasture and portion of Jack Creek S&G including private lands).
TEU inventories are an attempt to characterize, map and interpret distinct combinations of landform, soil, potential natural vegetation, near surface geology/hydrology and climate. Ecological Types are the taxonomic units of this inventory and represent categories of land with a distinct combination of landscape elements, differing from other types in the kind and amount of vegetation it can produce and in its ability to respond to management actions and natural disturbances. The landscape elements include climate, landform, lithology, near surface hydrology and soil.
The TEU inventory describes 23 distinct ecological types representing eleven plant community types within the Chemult RD portion of the project area. The majority of these plant communities is dominated by forested species and represents most of the acreage in this portion of the project area. Table 2 displays the TEU Inventory map units, plant community types and acres occupied by each within the Chemult pasture and portion of the Jack Creek S&G Allotment being considered in this analysis.
Approximately 26,907 acres within the Chemult RD portion of the project area are dominated by lodgepole pine plant communities representing both upland and riparian soil types. Those lodgepole pine communities with upland soils (TEUs 1003 & 1004) represent 96% of the total lodgepole pine dominated acreage. These communities are characterized by antelope bitterbrush, western needlegrass and mixed upland grasses as the major understory forage species. The remaining 4% of the lodgepole pine plant communities are present within riparian soil types (TEUs 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2016, & 2017) and are characterized by rose spirea, widefruit sedge, bog blueberry and/or kinnikinnick as understory species.
In addition, approximately 37,937 acres within the Chemult RD portion of the project area (26,461- Chemult; 11,476- North Sheep) are dominated by ponderosa pine plant communities completely within upland soil types (TEUs 1016, 1053 & 1026 (½ the acreage)). These plant communities are characterized by understories of antelope bitterbrush, snowbrush ceanothus, and/or western needlegrass.
The remaining forested plant community types represented within the Chemult RD portion of the project area are dominated by white fir and all exist on upland soil types (TEUs 1013, 1018, 1023, 1026 (½ the acreage) & 1031). White fir communities cover approximately 18,473 acres (17,882- Chemult; 591- North Sheep) and support snowbrush ceanothus, greenleaf manzanita and giant chinquapin as understory species. None of these plants are considered forage species for livestock.
The remaining plant communities represented within the project area exist on riparian soil types and are considered non-forested communities. This includes approximately 20 acres of big sagebrush with bunchgrasses in the Chemult Pasture (TEU 2019) that is considered primary range for livestock. There are approximately 3,777 acres (3,002- Chemult; 775- North Sheep) of moist meadow types (TEU 2000 & 2004) within the Chemult RD portion of the project area which also fall within lands considered primary range for livestock. These moist meadows areas are primarily tufted hairgrass or Cusick’s bluegrass dominated meadows with components of sedges, rushes and other meadow species. There are also approximately 134 acres (TEU 2008) that represent a willow wetland dominated plant community.
3-11 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.1.4 Condition and Trend Ratings The Winema Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Range (9-1) state that “the forage and browse resource shall be managed to at least satisfactory range condition” (USDA Forest Service 1990, p. 4-62). Satisfactory range condition is defined as follows: “[O]n suitable range, forage condition is at least fair, with stable trend, and allotment is not classified PC (basic resource damage) or PD (other resource damage)” (USDA Forest Service 1990, Glossary, p. 39). The Fremont Forest Plan uses the same standards and guidelines and definitions (USDA Forest Service 1989, p. 75). For this analysis on the Chemult and Silver Lake RDs, 20 condition and trend and paced transects were read and reread to determine forage condition and to determine trend. An additional 3 transects were established on the north end of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment. Overall, the forage conditions for the Antelope Allotments are in satisfactory condition for livestock grazing (Table 3-1). The meadow sites that are rated in poor condition are expected to improve with adjustments to the grazing system, such as shortening the duration of grazing and deferring season of use or reducing allowable utilization levels.
Table 3-1. Summary of forage condition and trend (C&T) ratings by year Pasture (site) 1963 1967 1980 1993 2008 2010 2011 North Willow (C&T7) n/a n/a Poor (40) n/a n/a Fair (62) n/a North Willow (P1) n/a n/a Poor (33) n/a n/a Fair (55) n/a North Willow (C&T4) Poor (26) n/a Very Poor (21) n/a n/a Poor (25) n/a Halfway (C2) n/a n/a Good (78) n/a n/a Good (85) n/a Halfway (P2) n/a n/a Fair (63) n/a n/a Good (89) n/a Tobin Cabin (C3) Poor (47) n/a Poor (47) n/a n/a Fair (55) n/a Antelope Flat 2 (P5) n/a n/a Fair (61)a n/a n/a Fair (58) n/a Chemult (T1) n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair (60) n/a n/a Chemult (T4) n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair (59) n/a n/a Chemult (T7) n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair (58) n/a n/a Chemult (S10) n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair (50) n/a n/a Chemult (S8) n/a n/a n/a Poor (25) Poor (27) n/a n/a Chemult (C&T13) Fair (54)b Fair (49) n/a Fair (52) Fair(64) n/a n/a Chemult n/a n/a n/a Poor (27) Poor (49) n/a n/a (C&T20/S7) Chemult n/a n/a n/a Fair (51) Fair (57) n/a n/a (C&T24/S2) Chemult (S4) n/a n/a n/a Fair (61) Good (75) n/a n/a Chemult (S5) n/a n/a n/a Poor (45) Fair (67) n/a n/a North Sheep (Bull n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Poor (26) Frog) North Sheep n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Good (79) (O’Connor) North Sheep (Davis n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Fair (60) Flat) aData collected in 1981 bData collected in 1962
3-12 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects This section discloses effects of no livestock grazing or some level of livestock grazing on nonforested vegetation communities, both upland and riparian. Effects are analyzed by comparing how well each of the alternatives meets the plant physiological needs deemed essential for the desired conditions in the Forest Plans. Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity.
3.1.2.1 Measurement Indicators The possible effects of the proposed alternatives on range and nonforested vegetation resources are compared by using measurement indicators, which are presented in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Comparison of range measurement indicators by alternative Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Removal of Heavy–extreme forage based (private)/ on: stocking Heavy–extreme Light– incidental (NFS Light– rate, (private)/incidental Moderate moderate Chemult)/ moderate intensity, (NFS) timing, moderate (NFS frequency Silver Lake) 20 8 permitted 15 permitted 7 permitted permitted pastures; 3 ~5 private land pastures pastures; pastures Pasture private land pastures not (both private ~5 private land (both configuration riparian under permit land and term pastures not under private land pastures not permits) permit and term under permit permits) Acres of land available for grazinga -- = + – ++ aLand available for grazing will decrease (–), remain the same (=), or increase (+)
3.1.2.2 Alternative 1 Under this alternative, no term grazing permits would be issued and only incidental grazing would be expected through crossing permits. Cancellation of term permits must follow direction in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2231.62d, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, Chapter 10 Section 16.24, and Part 2 item1b of the term permit. The direct effect of this alternative would be a marked decrease in the disturbance to non-forested plant communities.
This would be expected to result in a short term improvement in species composition and forage production followed by a long term decline in forage condition rating, species composition, diversity and resilience of plant communities, both riparian and upland. Without some level of disturbance to maintain dynamic processes within these plant communities, individual plants would lose vigor and establishment of new plants would be limited by low germination and survival rates of seedlings. These decreased germination rates would be caused by the low incidence of seed finding a viable niche (location where seed-soil interaction is possible) in which to establish. With the build-up of fuels and reduced resiliency of these plant communities, other
3-13 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
disturbances such as fire could create unintended and major impacts to non-forested plant communities.
Additionally lands outside the allotment but under control of the permittee may be indirectly affected by the exclusion of grazing on NFS lands. The effects to these lands outside the project area are unknown. Private lands within the project area may experience higher levels of grazing due to the cancellation of permits that designate appropriate levels of grazing through Term Private Land Grazing Permits. Alternative 1 is not consistent with the purpose and needs identified for this project. Specifically, this alternative does not support:
. Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, meet Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands as identified in the Forest Plans (as addressed in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest Service Manual 2202.1). . Continue contributing to the economic and social-well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.14).
Indirect effects under this alternative include the loss of both professional rangeland management and permittee awareness of on-the-ground conditions within the project area. With decreased emphasis for management of the area, trespass and other unauthorized uses could go unnoticed. This alternative would decrease the number of pastures (5 private pastures under landowner control) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result in a concentration of grazing effects to small areas. Grazing will likely continue on private lands (approximately 245 cow/calf pairs) within the project area and would likely experience higher levels of livestock grazing than current levels, possibly heavy to extreme livestock use. Crossing permits for the purpose of trailing cattle to private in-holdings may be necessary thus increasing the potential for trespass cattle.
Structural range improvements would fall into disrepair until their removal and removal may not be allowed due to the historic and cultural nature of these uses or if structures provide additional water availability to wildlife. The responsibility of preventing livestock from entering NFS lands not permitted for livestock grazing is the sole responsibility of the livestock owner or adjacent landowner (FSM 2230.6). Placing or allowing unauthorized livestock to enter NFS lands is prohibited and subject to fines, 36 CFR 261.7(a).
3.1.2.3 Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2, the current grazing system of early season, continuous rotation and season long grazing would continue. Cattle numbers and rotations through the various pastures would remain the same. The majority of the rangeland plant community types are at mid- to late-ecological stage. These riparian or meadow sites will continue to advance along their respective successional pathways however, Alternatives 2 will most likely result in a slower rate of improvement than Alternative 1 or 4 and similar rates of improvement to Alternative 3 and 5.
Under this alternative, and through proper levels of administration, plant communities would be expected to remain in a steady ecological state (forage rating condition) or show slow levels of improvement through the update of appropriate utilization levels based on current range conditions. Fenced riparian areas and the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment would continue to
3-14 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 see no authorization of livestock grazing and may see some declines in condition over time due to a lack of disturbance in these plant communities.
Alternative 2 would maintain the current number of pastures (8 permitted; 3 private pastures not under permit) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result in the same distribution of grazing effects across the landscape to be expected. Grazing will continue on private lands within the project area and would likely experience levels of use similar to current levels (moderate).
3.1.2.4 Alternative 3 This alternative would permit grazing in the Dry Meadow unit, Squirrel Camp unit, Rider’s Camp unit and Cannon Well unit, add the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment to allow for some deferment in use on the west side, as well as result in additional private lands being placed into a Term Private Lands Grazing Permit. These areas would be grazed in addition to the current pastures being used. The fenced riparian areas (units) currently rate in fair or good forage condition and satisfactory range condition which is expected to be maintained under all alternatives. Current implementation monitoring indicates that utilization standards can be met under current management and would be expected to be met under all alternatives. Effectiveness monitoring indicates that trends can improve or be maintained.
Under this alternative, and through proper levels of administration, plant communities would be expected to remain in a steady ecological state (forage rating condition) or show slow levels of improvement through the update of appropriate utilization levels based on current range conditions. Some fenced riparian areas and the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment would be authorized for grazing and would also be expected to see steady ecological states or slow levels of improvement based on appropriate levels of disturbance resulting in a potential increase in plant community composition, diversity and resilience. Fens would not be expected to decline in condition due to livestock generally avoiding areas of highly saturated soil and mitigation measures being identified to minimize potential impacts.
Alternative 3 would increase the number of pastures (15; both NFS and private lands) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result in a dilution of grazing effects across the landscape and an increase of flexibility in grazing management options on an annual basis. Grazing will continue on private lands within the project area and would likely experience levels of use similar to current levels (moderate) however some new private lands would fall under FS administration through a Term Private Land Grazing Permit. This would further increase the flexibility of grazing options (and options for deferment of use or rest) on an annual basis.
3.1.2.5 Alternative 4 Under this alternative, no term grazing permits would be issued for the Chemult RD portion of the project area and only incidental grazing would be expected through crossing permits here. Cancellation of term permits must follow direction in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2231.62d, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, Chapter 10 Section 16.24, and Part 2 item1b of the term permit. Grazing would continue to be permitted at current levels on the Silver Lake RD portion of the project area. The direct effect of this alternative would be a marked decrease in the disturbance to non-forest plant communities on the Chemult RD portion of the project area.
3-15 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
This would be expected to result in a short term improvement in species composition and forage production followed by a long term decline in forage condition rating, species composition, diversity and resilience of plant communities, both riparian and upland. Without some level of disturbance to maintain dynamic processes within these plant communities, individual plants would lose vigor and establishment of new plants would be limited by low germination and survival rates of seedlings. These decreased germination rates would be caused by the low incidence of seed finding a viable niche (location where seed-soil interaction is possible) in which to establish. With the build-up of fuels and reduced resiliency of these plant communities, other disturbances such as fire could create unintended and major impacts to non-forested plant communities on the Chemult RD portion of the project area.
Under this alternative, and through proper levels of administration, plant communities would be expected to remain in a steady ecological state (forage rating condition) or show slow levels of improvement through the update of appropriate utilization levels based on current range conditions on the Silver Lake RD portion of the project area.
Alternative 4 would decrease the current number of pastures (7 permitted; 5 private pastures not under permit) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result in a concentration of grazing effects across the landscape to be generally expected. Proper use will still be enforced on NFS lands. Additionally lands outside the allotment but under control of the permittee may be indirectly affected by the exclusion of grazing on NFS lands. The effects to these lands outside the project area are unknown. Private lands within the project area may experience higher levels of grazing due to the cancellation of permits that designate appropriate levels of grazing through Term Private Land Grazing Permits. Alternative 4 is not consistent with the purpose and needs identified for this project. Specifically, this alternative does not support:
. Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, meet Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands as identified in the Forest Plans (as addressed in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest Service Manual 2202.1).
3.1.2.6 Alternative 5 This alternative would permit grazing in the Dry Meadow unit, Squirrel Camp unit, Rider’s Camp unit and Cannon Well unit, Sproats Meadow unit, Johnson Meadow unit and Wilshire Meadow, add the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep allotment to allow for some deferment in use on the west side, as well as result in additional private lands being placed into a Term Private Lands Grazing Permit. These areas would be grazed in addition to the current pastures being used. The fenced riparian areas (units) currently rate in fair or good forage condition and satisfactory range condition which is expected to be maintained under all alternatives. Current implementation monitoring indicates that utilization standards can be met under current management and would be expected to be met under all alternatives. Effectiveness monitoring indicates that trends can improve or be maintained.
Under this alternative, and through proper levels of administration, plant communities would be expected to remain in a steady ecological state (forage rating condition) or show slow levels of improvement through the update of appropriate utilization levels based on current range conditions. All fenced riparian areas and the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment would be authorized for grazing and would also be expected to see steady ecological states or slow levels of
3-16 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 improvement based on appropriate levels of disturbance resulting in a potential increase in plant community composition, diversity and resilience. Fens would be expected to sustain current condition, livestock generally avoiding areas of highly saturated soil and mitigation measures being identified to minimize potential impacts.
Alternative 5 would maximize the number of pastures (20; both NFS and private lands) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result in the greatest dilution of grazing effects across the landscape and the greatest flexibility in grazing management options on an annual basis. Grazing will continue on private lands within the project area and would likely experience levels of use lower than current levels (light to moderate) and some new private lands would fall under FS administration through a Term Private Land Grazing Permit. This would further increase the flexibility of grazing options (and options for deferment of use or rest) on an annual basis.
All standards and guidelines from the Forest Plans would continue to be enforced under any alternative as would the terms and conditions of the Term Grazing Permits and Term Private Land Grazing Permits. The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for range management determine the allowable use levels based on current forage rating condition of the key areas (Fremont Forest Plan pg. 75-76, Winema Forest Plan pg. 4-62 & 4-63) and appropriate utilization levels are outlined in the alternative descriptions section above. Of the four sites that currently have poor forage condition ratings (unsatisfactory), three may show improvement of forage condition rating as Forest Plan utilization standards are adjusted to reflect the current forage rating conditions. The poor condition site in the Jack Creek S &G Allotment may continue under nonuse and the potential for change (positive or negative) in condition is unknown if the area were grazed (Alternatives 3 & 5).
3.1.3 Cumulative Effects Activities on all lands over the course of the reasonably foreseeable future (30 years) within these sub-watersheds have been considered for their cumulative impacts on livestock management and non-forested vegetation. Activities included in consideration of cumulative effects are listed in Appendix E of the EA, and include other on-going and future known forested vegetation management activities, fuels reduction efforts, and authorized land uses. Past actions are considered included by use of the existing condition as a proxy for the effects past actions have had on the forested vegetation resource.
Cumulative effects are those that result from the impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within or adjacent to the analysis area. Cumulative effects determined in this report have duration of about 10 years. This is the amount of time expected for any detectable or measurable changes in non-forested vegetation due to project activities.
3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 and Alternative 4—Chemult Ranger District Portion There are expected to be no cumulative effects on the livestock grazing program or non-forested vegetation when combined with the effects of Alternatives 1 or 4 (Chemult RD portion) as grazing would not be occurring.
3-17 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.1.3.2 Alternative 2 (Current Management), Alternative 3, Alternative 4 (Silver Lake Ranger District Portion), and Alternative 5—Active Grazing Management Alternatives
Activities on all lands over the course of the reasonably foreseeable future (30 years) within these sub-watersheds have been considered for their cumulative impacts on livestock management and non-forested vegetation. Activities included in consideration of cumulative effects are listed in Appendix E of this EA, and include other on-going and future known forested vegetation management activities, fuels reduction efforts, and authorized land uses. Past actions are considered included by use of the existing condition as a proxy for the effects past actions have had on the forested vegetation resource.
Cumulative effects are those that result from the impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within or adjacent to the analysis area. Cumulative effects determined in this report have duration of about 10 years. This is the amount of time expected for any changes in non-forested vegetation due to project activities to be detected and measured.
There is expected to be no cumulative effects to the livestock grazing program or non-forested vegetation on other allotments considered as part of the cumulative effects analysis area. McCarty Butte, Bear Flat, and Buck Creek allotments will continue to by managed through current Range Management Handbook and Forest Plans directions, current NEPA decisions, and current Permits, Allotment Management Plans, and Annual Operating Instructions.
Cumulative effects from past, present, or foreseeable future projects associated with development of additional or reconstruction of existing livestock water improvements would have a beneficial effect to the livestock grazing program and non-forested vegetation within the cumulative effects area. These potential benefits are 1) improvements in livestock distribution and 2) consequential reductions in duration, frequency and intensity of grazing in some areas.
There are expected to be beneficial cumulative effects to livestock grazing and non-forested vegetation through the Invasive Plant Treatments on the Fremont- Winema National Forest project. These include improvements to forage and non-forested vegetation communities through the treatment and/or removal of non-native invasive plant species.
Allowing conifers to continue encroaching into historic meadow sites could eventually lead to loss of native plant species, productive soil characteristics, and ground cover, as the ecological threshold approaches woodland phase (Laycock 1991). On-going and future timber management, fuels reduction, and meadow restoration activities would reduce forested canopy closure and woody shrub cover where occurring. Acres from surrounding NFS land management activities with these objectives would contribute improvements in available forage as well as livestock distribution. The cumulative effects area of consideration is within the bounds or surrounded by several on-going or future NFS timber and fuels management proposals. Additional time spent on placement and distribution of livestock by permittees or their agents may be necessary to minimize immediate utilization of forage in newly burned areas as cattle are attracted to burned areas (Vermeire et al. 2004). Beneficial effects would be expected within three to five years following fuel treatment, as early and mid seral plants establish on burned sites (Wrobleski and Kauffman 2003). This increase in potential forage base may improve livestock distribution across the landscape and pull grazing to areas that were previously considered marginal or transitory range.
3-18 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Benefits of burning to herbaceous vegetation are improved vigor and seed viability of perennial bunchgrasses (Dyer 2002). The management proposals within the project area would contribute improvements in forage conditions that would not be able to be obtained if not implemented. As such, there are beneficial cumulative effects to livestock management and non-forested vegetation anticipated when considered with other NFS land timber and fuels management activities.
In addition, there are private timber lands within the project area that while Term Private Land Grazing Permits exist, grazing and non-forested plant community health are not the primary management objectives. Grazing management and forage conditions in these areas would not be expected to change when considered with the incremental changes provided to these resources on lands with other ownerships. Because the timeline for timber management (pre-commercial or commercial thinning) is unknown, the assumption is made that current forested community conditions will progress into the foreseeable future. Forage conditions would likely continue to decline as the areas remain untouched by fire and canopy closures progress. Use of these areas by livestock is already low as existing conditions have declined to a point where herbaceous non- forested vegetation grows in a level of abundance that no longer allows the majority of these sites to be considered a primary foraging area. As conditions are currently limiting forage growth and livestock use, the incremental changes to forage provided from outside these areas would be beneficial. These unmanaged landscapes could affect non-forested plant community extent and function. Recovery rates for degraded areas could decrease or become static. With continued conifer encroachment actual condition may trend downward as non-forested species are replaced by upland and forested species. Once non-forested vegetation is reduced and no longer functioning as a non- forested community type, should large scale wildfire occur in and around the project area, non- forested plant community recovery would be slow and may require some input (seeding) to establish. An event such as this may negatively impact the livestock management in the area as forage base is reduced or eliminated for prolonged periods of time.
Private lands not owned by timber companies within the analysis area represent a number of current uses, including grazing and no management. Within the foreseeable future, livestock use would vary based on the alternatives presented in this analysis and are described in the indirect effects section. Those private lands not considered for Term Private Lands Grazing Permits in this analysis would not be expected to change primary use. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected to livestock management or non-forested vegetation when considering these private lands (O’Connor Meadow, Sellers Marsh, Parker Meadow, Cannon Well, and Pumice Flat).
Travel Management effectively decreased the motorized road accesses available to the public. However, permitted motorized use for grazing allotments is described in the permit/ annual operating instructions and generally allows for administrative use of closed roads for allotment management purposes, as well as limited off-road use. Because of the permit specifications, despite the decrease in open roads within the allotments, no effects to permitted grazing are anticipated.
Other uses of public lands such as dispersed recreation, developed recreation, motorized vehicle recreation, firewood collection, cone collection, mushroom collection, or the special use permit for the Tree of Life Christian Wilderness Experience may have cumulative effects to livestock grazing and short or long term cumulative effects to non-forested vegetation through varying levels of ground disturbance. For instance, repeated use of the same area for dispersed camping can alter the soil and vegetation and have prolonged effects to forage rating conditions and plant community ecological status and potential. Should this occur on the landscape, appropriate utilization level for livestock may be reduced even if livestock were not the cause of the downward trend. These
3-19 Range and Nonforested Vegetation Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement potential effects would not be expected to cause a shift in suitability of livestock grazing in these areas since grazing was not the cause of the disturbance or trend.
All other management actions identified in Appendix E of this EA are expected to have no cumulative effects or possible beneficial effects to the livestock management program or non- forested vegetation communities discussed in this document.
Overall, cumulative effects would be anticipated to livestock management and non-forested vegetation resulting from the incremental effects of proposed actions combined with other land management and uses as described above. There would be no cumulative effects to the permitted grazing program as a result of on-going or reasonably foreseeable future land management. Any unforeseen effects to permit administration which come as a result of the proposed action may be mitigated without further NEPA analysis using legal framework for Range Permit Administration.
3-20 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.2 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants This discussion includes an analysis of botanicals, fens, cultural plants, non-native invasive plants, and upland and riparian forage. The botanical analysis evaluates 13 sensitive species within the project area (no federally listed endangered or threatened botanical species or habitat exist within the project area). The cultural plants analysis evaluates 52 plant species, as selected in consultation with the Culture and Heritage Department of the Klamath Tribes.
3.2.1 Affected Environment The Antelope Grazing Allotments project area contains a variety of upland and riparian habitats for plants. Existing conditions on NFS lands are described below by pasture, species, and habitat. In general, from west (Chemult Pasture) to east (Halfway and North Willow pastures) across the project area, the depth of the Mount Mazama pumice/ash layer, the amount of precipitation, and the amount of riparian habitat decrease.
3.2.1.1 Pastures
3.2.1.1.1 Chemult Pasture
The large majority of the Chemult Pasture consists of forested uplands that have limited forage for livestock. Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine) forests dominate the flats and basins, with a varying density understory of Purshia tridentata (bitterbrush) and Achnatherum occidentale (western needlegrass). These habitats have excessively drained deep pumice soils and cold air drainage. They provide little understory growth and low plant species diversity. The shrubs and forbs that do occur are often small in stature and sparse compared to other areas of the Fremont- Winema. Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) forests with bitterbrush and needlegrass are found on the lower slopes. These habitats also contain excessively drained pumice soils, but are slightly warmer than the flats. They tend to have more species present, including additional shrub and herbaceous species, but they are still depauperate compared to ponderosa pine forests with residual soils. Past logging has converted some of the ponderosa pine forest to seral lodgepole stands. White fir (Abies concolor) Mixed Conifer forest occurs on the upper slopes and tops of buttes and ridges. Similar to the other forest types in the project area, these stands have reduced species diversity compared to mixed conifer elsewhere on the Fremont-Winema.
The Chemult Pasture also contains approximately 2,364 acres of riparian habitats on NFS land associated with surface flow, seasonal flooding or ponding, and/or shallow groundwater. These habitats include moist to wet meadows, willow wetlands, fens, and lodgepole wetlands in various seral stages. Riparian areas contain a high and disproportionate level of plant species diversity compared to uplands in the Chemult Pasture, and also have much greater forage productivity for livestock. Of particular botanical importance are the wetlands given TEUI Map Unit 2006. The 2006 wetland type includes fen habitats, characterized by groundwater discharge and development of peat soils. These habitats are discussed in more detail below.
3.2.1.1.2 North Sheep Pasture The North Sheep Pasture has habitats similar to the Chemult Pasture, but contains less riparian habitat (967 acres) and fewer fens (five known)
3-21 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.2.1.1.3 Tobin Cabin Pasture NFS lands in the Tobin Cabin Pasture are also dominated by low diversity upland forest, similar to the Chemult Pasture. Lodgepole pine/bitterbrush/western needlegrass forest occurs over the majority of the pasture on the flats. Smaller amounts of ponderosa pine forest are located on the lower slopes. White fir mixed conifer habitat occurs along the eastern edge of the pasture, from Bald Butte at the north to Timothy Butte at the south.
The Tobin Cabin Pasture has less perennial water and fewer riparian areas than the Chemult Pasture. Approximately 1,370 acres of riparian habitats associated with intermittent surface flow, seasonal flooding or ponding, and springs are mapped in the Forest Ecoclass layer. These habitats include dry to moist meadows and forested lodgepole pine/Vaccinium spp. (blueberry) communities. Similar to the Chemult Pasture, riparian areas contain higher plant species diversity than the uplands, and also have much greater forage productivity for livestock. Fen habitats appear to be limited to a small fen at the Section 9 Spring.
3.2.1.1.4 Halfway and North Willow Pastures These two pastures on the eastern edge of the project area are a mix of ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis ) forest with Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) woodlands, scablands, big sagebrush shrublands, and dry to moist meadows. All of these vegetation types provide forage for livestock. Riparian areas are associated with three perennial springs, intermittent drainages, and areas that pond in the spring. Halfway Lake is a small seasonal lake. Devil’s Ball Diamond is a shallow seasonally ponded area.
3.2.1.1.5 Antelope Flat Pastures 1–4 Antelope Pastures 1-4 are small holding pastures on the southeast edge of the project area. Antelope Pasture 1 was transferred to the adjacent Buck Creek Allotment but is included in the current analysis. Antelope Pastures 1, 2, and 4 overlap an area referenced as “Antelope Flat” and consist entirely of sagebrush flats with a seasonal high water table and intermittent drainages. Antelope 3 overlaps Antelope Flat along its western edge, but also includes ponderosa pine and western juniper habitat.
3.2.1.2 Fen Habitats Fens are groundwater influenced/supported peatlands with high water tables. Consistently high water tables create anaerobic conditions that slow decomposition, leading to the development of peat, which is primarily comprised of accumulated plant litter in light to moderate stages of decomposition. Mosses, as well as deep rooted grasses and sedges are the main types of plants contributing to the accumulation of peat.
Peat accumulates very slowly. Peat accretion rates estimated for Johnson, Wilshire, and Dry fens varied from 0.04-0.24 mm/year, lower than the rates found in other studies. Graham et al. (2005) compiled estimates of peat accretion from different peatlands across the U.S., and found a range of 0.9-4.3 mm/year, with a mean of 2.1 mm/year. Similar fens in the Deschutes Basin 50 km north of the project area also had higher accretion rates (mean=1.7 mm/year; range=0.2-3.8 mm/year) (Aldous and Josephson in prep). Although it is not clear what limits peat accretion in the Chemult fens, soil disturbance from grazing may be a factor (Aldous and Gurrieri, 2012). Removal of plant cover and heavy trampling can expose underlying peat to oxidation and decomposition, potentially resulting in a loss of peat deposits.
3-22 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
The Chemult Pasture of the project area appears to contain the highest concentration of fen habitats on the Fremont-Winema NF, as well as Forest Service Region 6 (Dewey 2015). Fens may be found in other TEUI map units in the project area where groundwater discharge and anaerobic conditions are sufficient to form peat soils, but these “fen inclusions” tend to be smaller and have less species diversity than fens in TEUI Map Unit 2006. Fen habitats are the most abundant in the Chemult Pasture (approximately 457 acres of TEUI Map Unit 2006 and 410 acres of identified fens on NFS lands), but also continue south of the Chemult Pasture into the North Sheep Pasture (approximately 160 acres of TEUI Map Unit 2006 and 145 acres of identified fens on NFS lands). These habitats tend to be complexes of open fens, springs, seeps, and shrubby or forested meadows, sometimes with perennial surface flow. Fens are uncommon on the east side of the project area, but a single fen is known from the Section 9 Spring in the Tobin Cabin Pasture (6 acres). Fens within the project area tend to be in better condition and support more unique species assemblages than fens in other portions of the forest. Many fens on the east side of the forest contain an abundance of non-native plants and experience excessive levels of trampling disturbance.
All of the fens in the project area are similar in terms of the dominant species present. These include graminoids, such as Eleocharis quinquefolia, Carex angustata, Carex simulata, Carex aquatilis, Juncus balticus, and Juncus nevadensis; shrubs such as Betula nana, Vaccinium uliginosum, and Salix species; and bryophytes such as Aulacomnium palustre, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Drepanocladus species, Meesia triquetra, Philonotus fontana, Sphagnum species, and Tomentypnum nitens. Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) identified 17 fen indicator species, based on their work at Johnson, Wilshire, and Dry fens. The majority of indicator plants were found in plots where the water table did not fall below 20 cm during the year. Lodgepole pine grows scattered on hummocks in the fens and frequently encroaches around the margins. Cutting and hand piling of encroaching trees has been conducted at many of the fens in the project area during 2008-2013 and may continue periodically.
Although surveys throughout the Forest are not complete, sensitive plants associated with fen habitats are disproportionately found in the Chemult Pasture, compared to other areas of the Forest. This is a result of both the large number of fens present and the relative quality of the habitat. Fens also provide potential habitat for two species of sensitive insects and three sensitive mollusks, although other types of riparian systems also provide habitat for these species.
Natural disturbances in the project area fens include fire, windthrow, and grazing/trampling by native ungulates such as elk and deer. Elk sign was observed in almost every fen visited in 2010 and 2011. Occasional bare areas are created by elk wallowing, but trampling by elk is typically less intensive than by cattle, with elk hoof prints shallower and less concentrated, and trails more dispersed. Elk were identified as the primary user or disturbance agent in several fens excluded from livestock access by fence enclosures, but these sites exhibited the lowest levels of soil disturbance (Washington 2017).
Other natural disturbances can include successive years of drought or abnormally high spring runoff. Windthrow along the fen edges can be locally important, supplying woody debris and creating microtopography. The fire regime in adjacent lodge pole pine stands is described by Hadley (2008) as moderate to high severity (stand replacing) fires with a mean fire return interval of 60 to 100+ years. Fens are likely to burn less frequently and less completely than the surrounding forest stands due to their perennially wet conditions. Bare areas apparently caused by water flow and pooling occur in most fens, but bare ground or peat rarely exceeds more than a few percent of the ground surface (Sikes et al., 2013, Weixelman and Cooper, 2009). Natural
3-23 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement bare peat patterns can be difficult to distinguish from livestock trampling that occurred in the previous year, as even deep postholes created by heavy trampling can expand back to ground level during saturated or flooded conditions over the winter and spring (Washington 2017).
Fens are often characterized by the pH and cation concentration of the groundwater. At sites where the water chemistry has been sampled, the Chemult Pasture fens appear to be “medium rich” with pH around 6.5 (Aldous, 2011a). The term rich does not apply to nutrient content, and a distinctive feature of fens is low availability of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (Bedford and Godwin, 2003). Aldous (2011b) sampled N and P in groundwater at two fens inside exclosures in the project area and compared the results with samples from the fen at Sycan Marsh, which lies about 35 miles to the southeast and has not been grazed for approximately 20 years. Concentrations of total N were an order of magnitude higher at Johnson exclosure than at Wilshire exclosure and Sycan Marsh. Total P was an order of magnitude higher at Johnson and Wilshire exclosures compared to Sycan Marsh. Aldous (2011b) stated that “higher N in the groundwater at Johnson fen, and higher P in the groundwater at Johnson and Wilshire fens potentially indicate nutrient loading issues derived from cattle excrement. Additionally, grazing in the surrounding uplands is another source of nutrient concentrations that may be transported to the fens. However, this interpretation was questioned by Cummings (personal communication, 2011), who stated that the N levels did not appear to be out of line and that P is likely being leached from glass of the pumice soils.
Existing studies indicate water extraction for livestock is not causing drying of fen habitats in the project area. A study conducted at Johnson, Dry, and Wilshire Fens concluded that pumping water out of the fens to livestock troughs at a rate of 0.7 gpm (gallons per minute) or less did not result in lowering the groundwater table (Gurrieri et al., 2011). 0.7 gpm is approximately 3 times the average pumping rate used at those locations under current grazing management. Many of the fens in the project area are larger and wetter than the study sites. Furthermore, design criteria of water developments include installing float valves on the water tanks so that they are filling only when needed. When the tanks are full or not needed, no water is diverted from the spring or fen source.
In 2010 and 2011, the relative condition of fen habitats in the project area were rated as Good, Fair, or Poor based on the presence of native peat forming species and ocular estimates of soil disturbance along permanent transects (bare soil, soil hummock, and postholing). The condition ratings were based on Cooper et al. (2005) and Weixelman and Cooper (2009), who studied the effects of grazing on the carbon budget of peat soils. Cooper et al. (2005) found cattle grazing that caused 20% or more of the soil surface to be bare of vegetation resulted in oxidation of peat and a negative carbon budget, while less intense grazing was similar in effect to no grazing on peat carbon budgets. However, undisturbed or properly functioning fens typically exhibit less than 10% bare ground or peat (Sikes et al., 2013, Weixelman and Cooper, 2009).
Fen habitat value was rated as High, Medium, or Low based on size, wetness, and rare species occurrences. Forty-six locations were visited (Table A-3, Figure A-1); this included all TEUI 2006 polygons, except those less than 5 acres and/or those that appeared to have dense forested cover. Sites where sensitive species had been located during bryophyte/sedge surveys, existing fenced riparian areas, and some of the known fen inclusions in other TEUI map units were also evaluated. Forty-one of the visited sites were found to contain fen habitat, five did not.
All of the fens evaluated appeared to have at least 75% cover by native peat forming species (see Appendix B of Weixelman and Cooper, 2009) and minimal occurrences of invasive non-native species. Species composition, therefore, did not affect the condition rating. Soil disturbance
3-24 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 estimates ranged from less than 10%, to 20% or greater in some areas. The heaviest livestock use and trampling was often observed around the margins of the fens rather than out in the middle of large wet areas. This is likely influenced by livestock avoiding flooded or saturated conditions when they have an option, and available drinking water near the fen margins. However, there were exceptions to these patterns, and with limited water sources and the large majority of palatable vegetation around fens and other wetlands and meadows, it is common for livestock to remain near these areas and create adverse soil disturbances. Tall, dense shrubs limited livestock trampling in portions of some fens.
Twenty-seven (413 acres) of the forty-one fens were rated in Good condition during 2010-2011. Nine of these sites were inside fenced exclosures and five sites were located in the North Sheep Pasture that has not been grazed since 2008. Thus, slightly more than half of the sites in Good condition were not grazed by livestock. Eight fens totaling 65.5 acres were found to be in Fair condition, and six fens totaling 82.2 acres were found to be in Poor condition (Table A-3). The majority of fens observed to be in Poor condition were located in the southeast corner of the Chemult Pasture. These fens are nearest to the entry/exit gate for the pasture.
Of the forty-one fens surveyed during 2010-2011, ten were rated as High-Value and eight of these were evaluated in Good condition, with two of the eight located within fenced exclosures. Of twenty-one fens ranked as Medium-Value in 2010-2011, fourteen were in Good condition, with nine of these occurring in areas not currently grazed by livestock. Three Medium-Value fens were in Fair condition and four were in Poor condition. Compared to High-Value fens, Medium-Value fens tended to be smaller, less wet, or have greater shrub, tall sedge, or tree cover, reducing their value as rare plant habitat. Of ten Low-Value fens, five were in Good condition, four in Fair condition, and one was in Poor condition. Low-Value sites tended to be small fen inclusions or lacked sensitive plant species.
Continued monitoring was conducted in 2014-2016 for the ten High-Value fens, and site evaluations were conducted at seven other fens of less than High-Value (Washington 2017). Changes in monitoring protocol were initiated during 2014 measurements and fully implemented during 2015-2016. The sampling methodology changes are detailed in Washington and Rentz (2016) and Washington (2017), but the most significant changes involved counting all measurement points of bare ground regardless of whether or not is was shallowly flooded (less than 5 cm deep). Decreased emphasis was placed on postholes and pedestals as a measure of soil disturbance due to subjectivity and inconsistencies of measurement. Daubenmire frames were used to measure ground cover components in 2015-2016, versus point sampling in 2010- 2011.
Based on 2015-2016 measurements, five of the ten High-Value fens exceeded 10% bare ground and were therefore rated at less than Good condition (Washington 2017). Two of the five sites rated at Good condition were located within fence exclosures. Although there are exceptions, the decrease in condition ratings from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 among several of the ten measurement sites is largely attributed to changes in sampling methodology and data interpretation between sample periods, rather than decreasing conditions between the sample periods. Observation of seven fens less than High-Value indicated six sites remained in Good condition, while one site increased in condition from Poor to Fair. All six of the Good condition sites were located within fence exclosures.
3-25 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.2.1.3 Sensitive Species Seventy-five of the terrestrial mollusk, insect, and botanical species currently on the Region 6 sensitive species list (USDA Forest Service, 2015) are documented or suspected to occur on the Fremont-Winema NF. These species are shown in Tables A-1 and A-2 of Appendix A in the specialist report, along with information on their habitat and distribution. Two butterfly species are addressed in the wildlife specialist report. Forty-six of the plant, lichen, fungi, mollusk, and insect species in Tables A-1 and A-2, are known or potential habitat in the project area. Eight sensitive vascular plants, one bryophyte, and one fungi have been documented in the project area. Of the 46 species with known or potential habitat, 19 plant species have a low potential to occur within the project area, and 6 plant species have a moderate potential to occur within the project area (Table 3-4). A total of 9 sensitive plant species — 8 vascular plants and 1 bryophyte — have been documented in the project area (Table 3-5).
Invertebrate species (terrestrial mollusks and insects) are address in the Invertebrate section (Sect. 3.3). Analyses for these species were divided by the botanists and wildlife biologists (Eight analyzed in the botany report, and two analyzed in the wildlife report).
3-26 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Table 3-3. Sensitive botanical species with known or potential habitat in the project area and effects determinations by alternative
3-27 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Common Name Scientific Name Potential to Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Occur Crenulate moonwort Botrychium crenulatum Low MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Short seeded Elatine brachysperma Low BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH waterwort Bolander’s spikerush Eleocharis bolanderi Low BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Boggs Lake hedge- Gratiola heterosepala Low BI MMIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH hyssop Bog clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata Low MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Disappearing Erythranthe inflatula Low BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH monkeyflower Annual dropseed Muhlenbergia Low MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH minutissima Blue-leaved Penstemon glaucinus Low NI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH penstemon American pillwort Pilularia Americana Low BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Salty popcornflower Plagiobothrys salsus Low BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Profuse-flowered Pogogyne floribunda Low BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH pogogyne Diverse-leaved Potamogeton diversifolius Low NI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH pondweed Columbia cress Rorippa columbiae Low NI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Lowland toothcup Rotala ramosior Low MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH American Scheuchzeria palustris Low BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH scheuchzeria Swaying bulrush Schoenoplectus Low BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH subterminalis Northern bladderwort Utricularia ochroleuca Low BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH Racomitrium moss Codriophorus depressus Low BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH None Schistidium Low BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH cinclidodonteum Spiny threadwort Cephaloziella spinigera Moderate BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH Great mountain Harpanthus flotovianus Moderate BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH flapwort
3-28 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Common Name Scientific Name Potential to Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Occur Meesia moss Meesia uliginosa Moderate BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH Goblin’s gold Schistostega pennata Moderate BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH Mycorrhizal fungus Hygrophorus caeruleus Moderate NI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Umbrella false morel Pseudorhizina californica Moderate BI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH (saprobic fungus) Lemmon’s milkvetch Astragalus lemmonii Present MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Peck’s milkvetch Astragalus peckii Present MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Pumice grape-fern Botrychium pumicola Present NI MIIH MIIH NI MIIH Capitate sedge Carex capitata Present BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH Slender sedge Carex lasiocarpa var. Present NI MIIH MIIH NI MIIH americana Green-tinged Castilleja chlorotica Present NI MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH paintbrush Tricolor monkeyflower Diplacus tricolor Present MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Lesser bladderwort Utricularia minor Present BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH Blunt water moss Pseudocalliergon trifarium Present BI MIIH MIIH BI MIIH Note: Effect determinations for species with low or moderate potential to occur in the project area apply only if species is present Note: NI = No impact; BI = Beneficial Impact; MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat
3-29 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-4. Location of sensitive botanical species documented within the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area
Name Type Location
Lemmon's milkvetch Vascular Halfway and Antelope 2–4 (Astragalus lemmonii)
Peck's milkvetch Vascular North Sheep (Astragalus peckii) Pumice grape-fern Vascular Chemult & North Sheep Botrychium crenulatum Capitate sedge Vascular Chemult (Carex capitate) Slender sedge Vascular Chemult (Carex lasiocarpa var. Americana)
Green-tinged paintbrush Vascular Tobin Cabin (Castilleja chlorotica) Tricolor monkeyflower Vascular Halfway and Antelope Flats 1–4 (Diplacus tricolor)
Lesser bladderwort Vascular Chemult (Utricularia minor)
Blunt water moss Bryophyte Chemult (Pseudocalliergon trifarium)
3.2.1.3.1 Vascular Plants Occupied and potential habitats for species with known sites or a moderately high likelihood of occurring in the project area are described below. Potential habitats for species with a low likelihood of occurring in the project area are summarized in the botanical technical report (project record). The likelihood of a species being present in the project area was determined by looking at factors such as habitat suitability, the location of known sites, and the degree to which potential habitat has already been surveyed. Lemmon’s milkvetch (Astragalus lemmonii) is a low growing perennial forb with a fleshy taproot. All documented sites on the Forest are located on the Silver Lake Ranger District, almost entirely within the east side of the project area. It is associated with Soil Mapping Unit 14, as defined in the Fremont Soil Resource Inventory (Wenzel, 1979). Potential habitat in the project area has been surveyed. In the Halfway pasture, over 40,000 plants occupy 31 acres around Halfway Lake and in the adjoining shrublands. A second cluster of populations and subpopulations occurs in the Antelope 2-4 pastures. Plants on Antelope Flat are more scattered than at Halfway Lake. Approximately 23 acres of occupied habitat and an estimated 1,200 individuals were documented on Antelope Flat (Lynch, 2011). Peck’s milkvetch (Astragalus peckii) is a low growing perennial with a long taproot. It occurs at seven sites on the Chemult and Chiloquin Districts and occupies approximately 163 acres in forest openings and meadow edges. Within the project area, there is a single known population along a meadow edge near an intermittent reach of Jack Creek in the Lower Davis Flat area of the North Sheep Pasture. Additional potential habitat is present in lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine forested upland areas and along dry meadow edges in the North Sheep, Chemult, and Tobin
3-30 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Cabin Pastures. The known population has declined since 1,260 plants were first recorded in 2001. One hundred plants were found in 2011 and 200 plants were found in 2013. Cushman (2006) states that an increase in grass and forb cover may be partly or wholly responsible for declines in Astragalus peckii plants, but natural fluctuations of various ecological factors also influence plant population dynamics. Increased growth and establishment of shrubs and trees that increase overstory shading and competition can also effect understory populations. A five year study on the Forest and Prineville BLM looked at the effects of fire, soil disturbance, clipping, and removal of competing vegetation on this species (Carr et al., 2008). Results of the study were inconclusive. Carr et al. (2008) speculated that A. peckii may be somewhat resistant to occasional disturbance, but that repeated disturbance could be detrimental. Martin and Meinke (2010) found occupied A. peckii habitat most closely associated with reduced litter cover, indicating occasional disturbance may be beneficial.
Pumice grape-fern (Botrychium pumicola) is a small fleshy fern endemic to south-central Oregon and Northern California (Mt Shasta). On the Fremont-Winema, it occurs at 71 sites on the Chemult, Silver Lake, and Chiloquin Districts and occupies 173 acres. Habitat is primarily lodgepole pine basins with pumice soils, although the species is also found at high elevations. A population of 75 plants was found in the North Sheep Pasture. Three small sites totaling 5 plants were found in the north area of the Chemult Pasture. Two of the northern sites are outside the current pasture boundary, but would be included with a proposed boundary adjustment. The sites in the watershed are managed as part of the Chemult Zone under the draft Conservation Strategy (Powers, 2011). Because the plants are small (less than 2 inches tall), do not emerge every year, and have a large amount of potential habitat in the project area, it is possible that other sites and/or more individuals are present but have not been detected. Botrychium species are highly dependent on mycorrhizal relationships. Because the fungal partner provides the primary ecological interactions, Botrychiums are thought to be less directly sensitive to fluctuations in environmental conditions than many vascular plants (Farrar, 2004). Johnson- Groh et al. (2002) found Botrychiums have a large below ground reserve of gametophytes and juvenile sporophytes that are essentially protected belowground and can easily withstand dry years, fires, herbivory, or other above-ground disturbances. A multi-year study (Amsberry and Meinke, 2003) looked at the effects of mechanical disturbance and clipping on B. pumicola. The study found that burial of emerged plants was detrimental at all sites; aerial leaf removal did not have a negative effect on emergence; and recovery from scraping and compaction occurred at some sites.
Capitate sedge (Carex capitata) is a cespitose sedge with short rhizomes. It has been found at 16 sites on Chemult, Klamath, Silver Lake, and Bly Districts totaling about 32 acres. Nine of the known sites are located in the Chemult Pasture, and it is possible other sites exist. Occupied and potential habitat consists of moist to wet meadows and fens, where the species often forms small hummocks. C. capitata is found in meadows as well as fens, but groundwater appears to influence both types of sites. Peat soils are generally absent from the meadow sites where C. capitata populations are often associated with Eleocharis quinquefolia. C. capitata is reported to respond positively to burning (Walsh, 1994), and a population site is present in a recently burned area of Round Meadow. Other disturbance effects are not documented. Plants in the project area generally appeared ungrazed in 2009, 2010, and 2011, but most of the known population sites are located within fence exclosures or good condition fens with low levels of livestock disturbance. The presence of leaf litter at the base of most plants also suggested low levels of grazing use.
3-31 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Slender sedge (Carex lasiocarpa var. Americana) is a tall, strongly rhizomatous sedge that occurs in the northern latitudes of North America and Eurasia. On the Fremont-Winema, it has been found at 8 sites totaling 7.2 acres on the Chemult and Klamath Districts. Occupied and potential habitat consists of wet areas of meadows, fens, and lakeshores, often in standing water. Currently it is known to occupy less than 0.1 acre in the Chemult Pasture in a fen that had very little grazing use in 2009 and 2010.
Green-tinged paintbrush (Castilleja chlorotica) is a perennial forb that forms hemi-parasitic associations with sagebrush and bitterbrush and occurs in forest openings and shrublands. It occupies 179 sites and 15,694 acres on the Forest. Most of the project area provides marginal habitat for this species, but a single 6 acre site has been reported on top of Bald Mountain in the Tobin Cabin Pasture. The draft conservation strategy for this species (Anderson, 2011a) states that Castilleja chlorotica appears to tolerate, if not avoid damage from livestock grazing as a result of low palatability and rooting locations near or beneath mature shrubs that can provide shelter/protection. The Bald Mountain site is not near a water source and is unlikely to provide significant forage to attract livestock.
Tricolor monkeyflower (Diplacus tricolor) is a small annual forb. It has been found at 12 sites on the Chiloquin and Silver Lake Districts and occupies about 584 acres of open, vernally wet pools, swales, mud flats, and channels in pine and sagebrush habitats. Yearly plant counts vary widely and appear to be tied to high flow events and/or spring and early summer precipitation and runoff. Seed for this species is contained within capsules, which require a lengthy exposure to water before they open and disperse seed (Meinke, 1995). The seeds are also dispersed by water, but the dispersal distance may not be great unless precipitation is ample enough to flood vernal pools or depressions (Meinke, 1995). Approximately 47% of the known habitat for this species occurs in the project area, with the majority of this occurring in the Antelope 1 Pasture of the adjacent Buck Creek Allotment. The population also overlaps portions of the Halfway and Antelope 2, 3, and 4 Pastures. The Antelope Flat population totaled an estimated 1,000,000 plants in 2006, up from 16,000 plants observed in 1993. However, population numbers can widely fluctuate from year to year and plants can be absent during some years. Lesser bladderwort (Utricularia minor) is a small, carnivorous, aquatic forb, adapted to nutrient-poor conditions. Hydrology and water quality are thought to be important in maintaining habitat (Neid, 2006). U. minor has been found at 17 sites on Chemult, Chiloquin, and Klamath Districts, where it occupies approximately 10.5 acres of fen habitats. Twelve of the known sites occur in the Chemult Pasture. The species is typically found in mucky shallow pools with Eleocharis quinqueflora, or floating in shallow water among short statured plant communities. The leaves are highly divided and contain small clear bladders that trap and digest tiny organisms. The small stature and aquatic habitat of the species make it difficult to detect when not in flower, and it is possible that additional sites are present in fens in the project area. U. ochroleuca occurs in similar habitats as U. minor, but is considered to have a low likelihood of occurrence in the project area because it has never been found on the Fremont-Winema NF, despite extensive fen surveys. Bryophytes Eleven sensitive bryophyte species are listed for the Fremont-Winema NF, but populations of only one of the species, Pseudocalliergon trifarium, are documented in the project area. Seven species have potential habitat in the project area, but this habitat is marginal or outside the known occupied range for all but two of the species. Three species have no potential habitat in the project area.
3-32 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Pseudocalliergon trifarium is a sparingly branched moss with round, blunt, worm-like shoots. It is found intermixed with other bryophytes in medium to rich montane fens, where it grows submerged to emergent in pools or on saturated ground, usually in full sunlight (Christy et al., 2007a). The species is typically found in shallow pools, similar to Utricularia minor. Currently, Pseudocalliergon trifarium is only known from the Deschutes and Fremont-Winema National Forests in Region 6. The species has been found at 7 sites occupying 0.8 acres on the Klamath and Chemult Districts of the Fremont-Winema. Five of the known sites on the Forest occur in fens on the Chemult Pasture. The small stature and aquatic habit make the species difficult to detect and it is possible that additional sites are present in fens of the project area.
Cephaloziella spinigera and Harpanthus flotovianus are small bryophytes with circumboreal distribution. They have been previously found in fen habitats on the Fremont-Winema NF and Deschutes NF outside the project area. It is possible these species are present in the project area, but were not detected during recent fen surveys, possibly due to their small size and difficulty of detection. They are included in discussions of species with documented occurrences in the project area due to their high potential to be present.
3.2.1.3.2 Fungi Pseudorhizina californica and Ramaria amyloidea are sensitive fungi or mushroom species with potential habitat in the project area. Habitat for these species occurs within mixed conifer or lodgepole pine forest in both upland and riparian habitats. Similar to the above, the two species have a high potential to occur in the project area and are included in discussions of species with documented occurrences.
3.2.1.4 Cultural Plants The Klamath Tribes and other American Indian Tribes use the Fremont-Winema for collecting plants for consumption, medicinal use, or cultural crafts such as basketry. Traditional gathering is an essential part of maintaining tribal traditions and culture. The location of cultural plant collecting areas and specific plants used by Tribal members is not known by the Forest Service. In addition, it is the intent of the Forest Service not to reveal these locations in keeping with the wishes of The Klamath Tribes. Table A-5 contains a tabular display of fifty-two culturally important plant species that are considered in this analysis. The habitat, grazing use, and ecological information in the table are based on a literature search, Forest inventory data, and the site-specific knowledge of IDT members. The Fire Effects Information System (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/index.html) was a main source for the ecological information displayed in Table A-5. The Range Plant Handbook (USDA Forest Service, 1988), Volland (1985), and Hopkins (2000) contain information about species palatability to livestock and their response to livestock grazing. Palatability is a measure of the percent of the readily accessible herbage of a species that is grazed when the range is properly utilized (USDA, 1988). Actual use can vary for multiple reasons, such as forage availability, stage of plant growth, and geographic differences. Thirty-nine of the cultural plant species evaluated in Table A-5 are known or expected to occur in the project area.
3-33 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.2.1.5 Invasive Plants Although a large proportion of the project area uplands have been disturbed by logging activities and road construction, there are relatively few invasive plant occurrences compared to most areas of the Forest. Moist to dry meadows generally have greater plant diversity and a greater percentage of non-native plants than the uplands, including introduced pasture grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis). Eight invasive plant sites have been mapped in the project area, in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. These sites include reed canarygrass at Davis Flat, Cabin Spring, Squirrel Camp, and Round Meadow; reed canarygrass and Canada thistle at Jamison Meadow; oxeye daisy at Dempsey Spring; and an infestation of tansy ragwort on a landing off of Forest Road 9407. Occurrences of the annual invasive grass, ventenata (Ventenata dubia) was observed in dry portions of Riders Camp Meadow during 2016. It is likely that additional occurrences of this and other invasive grasses are present, particularly in scablands and sagebrush communities of the eastern pastures. Active control measures are implemented across the forest for many noxious/invasive plants and will continue at known and any newly discovered sites in the project area.
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a perennial species with an extensive creeping root system. Canada thistle primarily reproduces vegetatively from its roots, but can also reproduce from seed. Buried seed can remain viable up to 26 years. Seed is dispersed via wind, water, animal, and human activity. Canada thistle is most often found in disturbed sites such as roadsides, landings, burn piles, and plantations. The species also has the ability to invade meadows and riparian areas. Canada thistle is very widespread on the Fremont-Winema and could occur at other sites in the project area. The known site in the project area is less than 0.1 acre in size.
Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) is a perennial in the aster family that spreads by rhizomes and seed. Seed longevity is at least 2 years, and it can germinate throughout the growing season. The species is spread by water, wind, animals, and human activity. Oxeye daisy inhabits mesic, disturbed openings in forestland, riparian sites, meadows and pasture, and roadsides. A single < 0.1 acre roadside site has been found in the project area at Dempsey Spring in the North Sheep Pasture.
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) is a tall perennial grass that reproduces via rhizomes and seed. It can form dense, impenetrable monocultures that choke out other species. Seed viability is not well-studied, but appears to be short when sites are periodically inundated. The species is spread by water, animals, and human activity, and is found most often along streambanks, ponds, lakes, irrigation canals and ditches, and in moist to wet meadows. Because reed canarygrass can be used for hay, forage, and erosion control, some meadows on the Forest may have been seeded with the species in the past. Small patches (<0.1 acre) of reed canarygrass occur at headcut repair sites at Jamison Meadow (same vicinity as Canada thistle) and Davis Flat. Reed canarygrass is also located at Tobin Cabin Spring and a pond in the Squirrel Camp exclosure, and occurs in scattered patches in Round Meadow. Both elk and livestock appear to eat this species during certain growth stages, but are unlikely to provide any significant level of control without intensive livestock management directed to this purpose. Herbicide control efforts will be implemented for this species after further consultation with ODFW regarding management of Oregon spotted frog habitat.
Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) is a biennial in the aster family that produces primarily by seed. After seed production, individual plants generally die. However, the crown and the root system from a flowering plant can produce new rosettes. Seeds require light for germination, but can remain viable in the soil for 10 - 16 years. Tansy ragwort contains toxic alkaloids that can
3-34 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 be lethal to cattle and horses. This species is more common west of the Cascades and few sites have been reported in Lake and Klamath Counties. The site in the Chemult Pasture may have been introduced on logging or chipping equipment brought to a landing. This infestation has been a priority for treatment and has been declining with annual manual control.
3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects of each alternative are analyzed on NFS lands and non-NFS lands under term private land grazing permits within the boundary of the allotment for each alternative. Current management (Alternative 2) serves as a baseline for comparing the potential effects to botanical resources from the other alternatives. The time frame for analysis is 10 years. Effects include both short-term (season of use) and long-term (life of the permit, or 10 years) impacts for the project area. Plants are unlikely to migrate great distances in 10 years. The area of analysis for each species includes potential and occupied habitats on NFS lands in the project area and any adjoining areas that are occupied by the same populations.
3.2.2.1 Measurement Indicators Indicators used to measure effects are selected so that the effects of the project alternatives can be compared and contrasted. The selection of indicators was based on professional judgment and a thorough review of literature on the interaction of the species and grazing. The possible effects of the alternatives on botanical resources and invasive plants are disclosed quantitatively in Table 3-7.
3-35 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-5. Comparison of botanical resources and invasive plant measurement indicators by alternative Management Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a Alternative 5 Indicator Acres of fen habitat 0 372 555 6 568 subject to grazing Number of sites with 0 62 67 1 71 sensitive fen plant speciesb subject to grazing Acres of occupied 0 25.1 29.5 0.1 30.7 sensitive fen plant speciesb habitat subject to grazing Number of sites of 0 20 19 0 19 small capsule dung moss subject to grazing Acres of small 0 4.3 4.3 0 4.3 capsule dung moss occupied habitat subject to grazing Relative Intensityc of Grazing in Key Pastures Containing Sensitive Plants Chemult Pasture Not grazed High Low Not grazed Medium-high, outside fenced variable riparian areas Chemult Pasture Not grazed Not grazed Low / not Not grazed Low inside fenced grazed riparian areas North Sheep Not grazed Not grazed Low Not grazed Low-medium, Pasture variable Antelope Flat 1 Not grazed High Medium Medium Medium Pasture Halfway Pasture Not grazed Medium Medium Medium Low aAll fen habitat in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be excluded in 5–6 years, after fencing is completed. bExcludes small capsule dung moss, which benefits from grazing and is considered separately. cComparative ranking within each pasture by alternative, based on proportion of AUMs to acres grazed; grazing duration; and/or percent utilization allowed. Rankings are not comparable across pastures.
3.2.2.2 Common to All Action Alternatives
3.2.2.2.1 Species Not Affected by the Project None of the alternatives would have any impact on sensitive species whose known range is well outside the project area, or for which there is no suitable habitat in the project area. The alternatives would also have no impact on sensitive species that may occur but are not likely to be affected by grazing, such as species that grow on trees, rock outcrops, or upland habitat that is minimally utilized by livestock in the project area. For some species, adequate surveys have been completed to conclude they are not present. Species not affected by the project because of the factors listed here are discussed in the Botany report (available in the project record).
3-36 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.2.2.2.2 Potential Grazing Effects
Effects of Associated Actions on Plants Actions associated with allotment management such as salting, riding, herding, fence maintenance, water hauling, stock pond maintenance, wheeled motorized access, and occasional trespass or unauthorized grazing were considered to be similar for all of the action alternatives. High use and persistent effects are generally unavoidable around water developments and other areas of repeated use such as livestock trailing and vehicle access routes. Effects of other pasture management activities such as fence maintenance and salting locations are less severe because they are periodically relocated or are short-term and localized and have the opportunity to recover over short time periods. Trespass or unauthorized grazing can have variable effects depending on the location, duration, and number of livestock involved. Sufficient levels of unauthorized use in riparian areas may result in excessive utilization/trampling disturbances that persist to the following year and result in exceeding trigger points or desired conditions before the start of the next grazing season. Unauthorized use in dry meadows is likely to result in less severe effects unless repeated during successive years at high utilization rates. Adjustments to the northern boundary of the Chemult Pasture included in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would add approximately 743 acres but should have negligible effects on sensitive species and their habitats, cultural plants, and invasive plants. Adjustments to the Tobin Cabin Pasture would add about 3,628 acres. The new fence location and affected acres will be surveyed prior to boundary adjustments in order to minimize any adverse effects to botany resources or invasive weeds. The additional acreage is unlikely to appreciably increase the amount of grazing acreage because most of the habitat would involve upland forest with low forage value.
Effects of Grazing on Plants Specific effects of livestock grazing on sensitive plant species of the forest is generally lacking because none of the species comprise key grazing forage for livestock. Available information of grazing on cultural plants is displayed in Table A-5. The direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing include selective use of certain plant species, trampling, soil compaction, and nutrient re- distribution (Allen-Diaz et al., 1999). Selective grazing by livestock can result in reduced vigor, lower productivity, and altered species composition by conferring competitive advantages to species that are not grazed. Persistent grazing disturbances can result in plant community regression towards early seral stages with different plant assemblages. The magnitude of the effects are shaped by the intensity, frequency, season of use, and kind and class of animal (Allen-Diaz et al., 1999), as well as the individual characteristics and habitat requirements of the plant species. Numerous studies have shown differences in vegetation and soil conditions between heavily grazed and ungrazed areas (Allen-Diaz et al., 1999). Some plant species may benefit from light to moderate levels of grazing that can stimulate plant growth, decrease competition from actively selected plants, reduce plant litter and increase available sunlight, increase soil temperature and speed nutrient cycling, and create open sites for seed germination.
Information is not available about the original plant composition in the project area, but because much of it has been similarly grazed for decades, current conditions reflect many of the effects of past livestock grazing. In general, graminoids have a greater potential to be utilized by cows for forage than forbs, which are less likely to be palatable and/or can escape grazing pressure due to their small stature, prostrate growth form, or time of growth. Species that occur in riparian areas and near water sources where livestock concentrate experience additional risks of concentrated and frequent trampling and soil compaction.
Grazing is likely to have much less effect on upland species in the project area relative to the bottomlands because the uplands tend to lack significant forage and water that would attract and
3-37 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
maintain persistent livestock use. However, it is likely that historic upland tree densities were lower than present in the project area and allowed for increased herbaceous cover and somewhat greater use of the uplands by livestock.
Effects of Grazing on Fens and Fen Species Species fact sheets list livestock grazing as a potential threat to all of the sensitive bryophytes known to occur in fens of the project area (Christy and Huff, 2007a; Christy and Huff, 2007b; Christy, et al., 2007a; Christy et al., 2007b; and Wagner and Huff, 2008). These documents state that livestock may trample and destroy bryophyte cover and/or reduce sedges and grasses. These are the principal life forms contributing to the formation and maintenance of peat layers. In addition to direct impacts, fen species could also be affected by alteration of fen conditions, such as changes in surface and subsurface hydrology. Few studies of grazing effects in fens in North America could be found, presumably in part because livestock tend to avoid the flooded or saturated soil conditions of these areas when given an alternative. The unstable or “floating” fen surface is also likely to give livestock pause, as their hoofs can easily break through the overlying sod (postholing). Although various sedges and grasses found in fens may be palatable, areas of relatively high moss cover provide little or no forage value. However, livestock may be attracted to fens as a source of water and relief from summer heat, and remain in the area while grazing the most palatable forage. Extreme levels of livestock trampling can easily occur in fens because they remain flooded or soil saturated during large portions of the grazing season. Livestock grazing in fens will rarely be consistent with the intent or definition of range readiness with respect to soil conditions (Pg. 2-36) due to the saturated conditions, and therefore has the potential to conflict with several LRMP Goals, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines unless aggressive implementation of adaptive management as outlined in Appendix D of the FEIS is utilized to minimize excessive soil disturbances.
Of approximately 84,000 acres comprising the west side pastures that contain fen habitats, only 2,487 acres are determined capable for grazing, and these areas primarily involve moist to dry meadows. Although grazing of various wetland habitats including fens is not desired and acreage of these habitats are not included in calculations of capable grazing acreage, they often receive a high degree of use unless fenced from grazing and contribute an additional 555 acres to utilized acreage on NFS land.
Weixelman and Cooper (2009) developed a method for evaluating the proper functioning condition (PFC) of fens, and along with Sikes et al. (2013), noted that bare soil or peat rarely exceeded 10% of the ground surface in undisturbed fens or those meeting PFC. In most cases, bare ground is much lower than 10% due to the rhizomatous growth of many grasses and sedges typically found in fens, plant litter associated with these species, and/or high cover of bryophyte species. Cooper et al. (2005) determined that cattle grazing that caused 20% or more of the soil surface to be bare of vegetation resulted in oxidation of peat and a negative carbon budget, while less intense grazing was similar in effect to no grazing on the carbon budget. Changes to water flow or soil/water interactions through compaction or creation of trails that divert water flow can also affect fen species. Cooper et al. (2005) note that long-term intensive cattle grazing in some Sierra Nevada fens resulted in loss of the clonal plant species that formed the peat body, and that loss of peat-forming vegetation can lead to erosion and hydrologic changes in fens. They also noted that continued grazing even at low levels in degraded fens resulted in the persistence of degraded conditions.
European studies have evaluated grazing effects on fen bryophytes. The European fens are dominated by different vascular plant species than fens in the project area, but have some overlap in bryophyte species. Bergamini et al. (2001) found bryophyte diversity was 20% higher
3-38 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 in grazed calcareous fens in Switzerland compared to mowed fens, although heavy grazing seemed to negate this effect. Peintinger and Bergamini (2006) found reduced bryophyte diversity and biomass in fens that had been abandoned and were no longer mowed or grazed. The potential benefits of grazing to bryophytes in both studies is presumed to be a result of decreased graminoid growth and plant litter, that therefore increases light availability and space for low-growing bryophytes. Bergamini and Pauli (2001) looked at nutrient loading and found decreased bryophyte biomass and bryophyte species density in response to fertilization treatments in calcareous fens in Switzerland. They attributed the decline in bryophytes to increased vascular plant growth and shading. Bergamini and Pauli (2001) noted that some plant species may be directly effected by nutrient loading.
Effects of Grazing on Fungi A literature search conducted by Region 6 failed to find any studies that evaluated grazing effects on sensitive species of fungi (Ferriel and Grenier, 2010). The most likely effect of livestock grazing would be impacts to underground mycelia from localized trampling and soil disturbance. Grazing would not change habitat features such as forest stand structure, canopy cover, humidity, availability of coniferous hostplants, or woody debris levels. The habitat of Pseudorhizina californica is more likely to be impacted by trampling and soil impacts. This species, if it is present in the project area, could occur in riparian areas where livestock use is more concentrated. Potential effects to Ramaria amyloidea are likely less than P. californica because the species habitat generally involves upland forests with less livestock activity.
3.2.2.2.3 Alternative 1
Fen Habitats
Alternative 1 is expected to maintain or improve fen habitats in the project area. Existing information and field monitoring indicate that livestock trampling disturbances are the primary impact to these wetland habitats. Removal of livestock grazing related disturbances would improve conditions over the 10-20 year timeframe of this analysis. Although several decades have been reported for the recovery of some degraded fens in California (Wolf and Cooper, 2015) local observations suggests improvements may occur in as little as 3-4 years, although greater time may be necessary to reach climax or potential plant composition. During a 2005 mollusk inventory, the Johnson Fen survey form stated that the fence was down and cow pies were prevalent. The photo taken of the site in 2005 showed considerable hoof action. In 2007, the riparian fence at Johnson Fen was reconstructed. By the 2009 field season, little postholing or pedestalling was evident at this fen (Aldous, 2011a). Tall pedestalling may be evident for longer periods, but rapid filling or repairing of deep postholes over the winter observed at other fens was likely facilitated by saturated conditions that promoted swelling or re-expansion of compacted peat (Washington 2017). Without grazing disturbance, some shifts in plant species abundance and distribution may occur. It is possible that taller or late successional graminoids would gradually increase with corresponding losses in plant diversity, including various forbs and bryophytes. Early seral or low growing forbs such as Mimulus primuloides, Hypericum anagalloides, Drosera spp., and others may decline. However, the climax community for many of the primary fen habitats appears to be dominated by bryophytes and short-statured Carex spp., as can be observed in fens that have been excluded from grazing since about 2008. Elk and deer would continue to utilize a portion of the vegetation and maintain areas of localized or less intensive disturbance than occurs at present
3-39 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Sensitive Plant Species
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Low Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
Ten sensitive species have potential habitat in the project area, but a low likelihood of occurrence because the habitat is of marginal quality, and/or the project area is relatively distant from the species known range of documented occurrence. No effects or impacts would be expected to these species or habitat as a result of removing livestock grazing under Alternative 1
Asplenium septentrionale Penstemon glaucinus Barbilophozia lycopodioides Perideridia erythrorhiza Camissonia pusilla Pleuropogon oregonus Gentiana newberryi Sesuvium verrucosum Heliotropium curassavicum Texosporium sanctijacobi
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Moderate Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
At least moderately good habitat is present for twenty-four sensitive species listed below with no known population sites in the project area, but a moderate potential of occurrence. Habitat conditions for these species may improve with the removal of livestock grazing under Alternative 1. Habitat for most of these species involves various riparian or meadow habitat that could benefit from reduced trampling and/or herbivory. Over time, habitat conditions could improve for these species, and vigor and reproduction of any undocumented populations could increase. There is some potential for plant succession to create conditions of increased plant structure that is less suitable for some of the species. However, it is likely habitat would persist in natural openings or as a result of natural disturbances, although possibly at reduced amounts.
Habitat for four of the species involves drier upland sites where current livestock use is minimal, so the potential effects to habitat as a result of livestock removal would be decreased. Conservatively, these species or habitat may experience a degree of positive effect associated with the removal of livestock.
Mesic Habitat Xeric Habitat Botrychium crenulatum Pogogyne floribunda Cryptantha simulans Elatine brachysperma Potamogeton diversifolius Eriogonum prociduum Eleocharis bolanderi Racomitrium depressum Eriogonum umbellatum Erythranthe inflatula Rorippa columbiae Ramaria amyloidea Gratiola heterosepala Rotala ramosior Juncus tiehmii Scheuchzeria palustris Lycopodiella inundata Schoenoplectus subterminalis Muhlenbergia minutissima Schistidium cinclidodonteum Pilularia americana Scirpus pendulus Plagiobothrys salsus Utricularia ochroleuca
Sensitive Plants and Fungi with Known Sites or Moderately High Likelihood of Occurrence.
Astragalus lemmonii
3-40 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Astragalus lemmonii plants do not appear to be actively selected by cattle, but may be trampled during grazing of adjacent vegetation. Removal of grazing disturbance and trampling under Alternative 1 could initially result in improved vigor and reproduction of plants. However, in the absence of grazing, plants may be less able to compete with graminoids over time and could decline with plant succession. This effect would likely be more pronounced in moist habitat around Halfway Lake where the associated meadow-like vegetation nearly forms a sod (Lynch, 2011), than in the sparser upland sagebrush/bunchgrass vegetation type. A. lemmonii is likely to persist under Alternative 1, but may occur at lower population levels than currently. Fence removal and occasional trespass grazing would have little to no effect on this species.
Astragalus peckii Occupied habitat for A. peckii is located in the North Sheep Pasture where grazing currently does not occur. Alternative 1 would have no impact to occupied habitat. Removal of grazing disturbance under Alternative 1 is likely to have no impact to other potential habitat in upland areas of the Chemult and Tobin Cabin Pastures, but may result in increased graminoid growth and vigor in potential habitat located along meadow edges. Increased graminoid growth could reduce habitat suitability for this species in areas such as meadow edges, but would be unlikely to affect habitat in drier uplands comprised of shrub/bunchgrass communities. Alternative 1 is not likely to eliminate any populations that may be present during the 10-20 year timeframe of the analysis.
Botrychium pumicola B. pumicola is unlikely to be affected by livestock grazing, and removal of grazing disturbance under Alternative 1 is likely to have no impact on this species. The species is short statured and is located in lodgepole pine basins that provide little forage and lack water sources to attract livestock. Likewise, it is unlikely that removal of fences or occasional trespass grazing would have any impact to the species.
Carex capitata C. capitata plants observed during the 2009-2011 field season had generally not been grazed, however trampling can occur. Removal of grazing disturbance and trampling under Alternative 1 could result in improved vigor and reproduction of plants. There is no indication the species would decline without grazing. C. capitata tends to grow with other low vegetation (Eleocharis quinqueflora) rather than taller graminoids, reducing the potential for competition effects. Monitoring of populations inside fenced riparian exclosures at Squirrel Camp and Round Meadow in 2011 showed vigorous reproductive plants with 30-40%, and 15% cover, respectively (Anderson, 2011b). Healthy populations were also found at ungrazed fens in other areas of the Forest (Bull Swamp, Gearhart Marsh). Removal of existing riparian fences and occasional trespass grazing could have minor short-term impacts to this species, but overall, it is expected that Alternative 1 would have a beneficial effect on C. capitata.
Carex lasiocarpa var. americana This is a tall, strongly rhizomatous sedge of wet habitats. Its ability to reproduce vegetatively and presence in standing water make it unlikely that it is normally affected by livestock grazing, but it could be disturbed by heavy trampling. The known site in the Chemult Pasture is in a fen that received minimal livestock use during the 2009-2010 field seasons, but subsequent use of the fen is unknown. It is unlikely trespass use would occur. There are no existing fences near the known site. Based on these factors, Alternative 1 is likely to have no impact on this species.
Castilleja chlorotica
3-41 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
The known C. chlorotica site in the Tobin Cabin Pasture is on top of Bald Mountain in an area with limited forage and no water sources to attract livestock. It is unlikely that substantial grazing disturbance is occurring, or that removal of grazing under Alternative 1 would result in improved habitat conditions. There are no existing fences near the known site and it is unlikely trespass use would occur in this area. Based on these factors, Alternative 1 is likely to have no impact on C. chlorotica.
Diplacus tricolor D. tricolor has a low potential to be grazed due to its short stature and limited foliage. Trampling during spring/early summer could destroy individual plants and/or prevent seeding by this annual species. Removal of grazing disturbance and trampling under Alternative 1 could result in improved vigor and reproduction of plants in the short-term. Over the long-term, without grazing disturbance, some of the bare swales and mudflats that support D. tricolor could become vegetated with graminoids, reducing the amount of suitable habitat present. It is likely that disturbance from seasonal flooding/ponding would be adequate to provide sufficient habitat to maintain the Antelope Flat population over the 10-20 year timeframe. Removal of existing pasture fences and occasional trespass grazing under Alternative 1 could have minor short-term impacts.
Utricularia minor Livestock grazing is listed as a potential threat to this species by Neid (2006). Neid (2006) states that field observations of U. minor and U. macrorhiza populations show a decline or localized elimination of populations with trampling by cattle, humans, or motorized vehicles. Although U. minor is sometimes found in livestock hoof prints, it is unlikely that grazing disturbance helps maintain this species. Naturally formed shallow pools are generally abundant in the wetter fens, and U. minor populations have been found at ungrazed fens on the Forest (Johnson and Middle Jack exclosures, Bull Swamp, Mares Egg Spring). Removal of existing riparian fences at Johnson Meadow and occasional trespass grazing under Alternative 1 could have minor short- term impacts to U. minor as a result of trampling. However overall, it is expected that Alternative 1 would have a beneficial impact on the species.
Pseudocalliergon trifarium P. trifarium is generally found in the middle of wet fens with other low growing vegetation. It is unlikely Alternative 1 would cause a decline of this species due to increased vascular plant growth, litter accumulation, and shading in the absence of grazing. As described under Utricularia minor, natural pool habitat is generally abundant in the wetter fens and livestock hoof prints are not needed to maintain habitat for P. trifarium. Minor short-term impacts to the species could occur during removal of the Jack Creek riparian fence, or as a result of occasional trespass grazing. Overall, Alternative 1 is expected to have a beneficial impact to P. trifarium as a result of reduced trampling.
Cephaloziella spinigera and Harpanthus flotovianus Potential habitat for these liverwort species occurs in fens and is likely to be benefited by the removal of grazing and trampling disturbance under Alternative 1. It is unlikely Alternative 1 would cause a decline of habitat suitability for these species as a result of increased vascular plant growth and increased competition, litter accumulation, and shading in the absence of grazing.
Pseudorhizina californica
3-42 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Alternative 1 may have a beneficial impact on potential habitat for P. californica located in forested riparian areas. Removal of grazing disturbance and trampling in these areas could improve habitat suitability for this saprophytic fungus.
Cultural Plants
Discontinued grazing in the project area is expected to have a minor effect on cultural plant species with poor to fair palatability for cattle, especially those occurring in upland sites that experience little livestock use in the project area. Species listed as decreasers by Volland (1985) or Hopkins (2000), and species with fair to good palatability, especially those that occur in meadows or riparian areas where livestock concentrate, may remain static or increase in vigor and abundance under Alternative 1. Species listed as increasers that respond positively to grazing disturbance may decline over a 10-20 year timeframe. Overall, Alternative 1 is expected to have a positive effect on sixteen cultural plant species, a negative effect on ten species, and variable effect or no effect on twenty-six species, including those that are unlikely to be present in the project area (See Project record).
Invasive Plants
The risk of invasive plant introduction and spread would be lowest under Alternative 1. Compared to the action alternatives, Alternative 1 would result in reduced vehicle traffic, ground disturbance, and movement of livestock, decreasing the potential for introducing and dispersing weed propagules or creating sites of disturbance for the establishment of new sites. A possible exception could involve ephemerally wet to dry meadows that are infested with Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and possibly other non-native grasses where the removal of livestock grazing would facilitate the accumulation of plant litter. Increasing plant litter can lead to further decreases in desired native graminoids and increased dominance by the non-native grasses, including the potential development of monocultures.
3.2.2.2.4 Alternative 2
Fen Habitats
Roughly 376 acres of fen habitat in the Chemult Pasture would remain accessible to grazing under Alternative 2 (Table 5). Although there is some potential for livestock distribution and disturbance patterns to shift over time, the current proportion of Good, Fair, and Poor conditions is likely to remain similar to present. However, there is the potential for degraded conditions in some fens to further degrade, including several of the High-Value fens such as Little Parker. Two of the ten High-Value fens would continue to be excluded from grazing by riparian exclosures under Alternative 2. Monitoring in 2015-2016 indicated these and three other High- Value fens accessible to livestock were at or very close to Good condition, while the remaining five High-Value fens were in Fair or Poor condition (Washington 2017).
The condition of all fens are displayed in Table A-3, with most rated in Good or Fair condition. However, fifteen of twenty fens rated in Good condition are located within livestock exclosures or the North Sheep Pasture that would remain ungrazed under Alternative 2 (Table A-3). Of the twenty-six total fens that are accessible to livestock, approximately 40% are in Good condition and 60% are in Fair to Poor condition. Even light grazing of degraded fens has resulted in the persistence of degraded conditions in California (Cooper and Wolf, 2006). Heavily trampled fens can result in hydrologic changes and a shift to grasses and forbs that prefer drier habitats,
3-43 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
with a reduction in sensitive plant populations or habitat. Based on Cooper et al. (2005), fens in poor condition could experience a loss of existing peat due to oxidation in localized areas, and a decrease of plant or peat-building material as a result of increased aerobic decomposition.
Sensitive Plants
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Low Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
Ten sensitive species have potential habitat in the project area, but a low likelihood of occurrence because the habitat is of marginal quality, and/or the project area is relatively distant from the species known range of documented occurrence (see list of species under Alternative 1). No effects or impacts would be expected to these species under Alternative 2.
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Moderate Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
At least moderately good habitat is present for another twenty-four sensitive species with no known population sites in the project area (see list under Alternative 1). Habitat for many of these species involves various riparian or meadow habitat that could be effected by trampling and herbivory. Habitat for four of the other species involves drier upland sites where current livestock use is minimal, so the potential effects to habitat as a result of livestock grazing would be decreased.
Species with Known Sites or a Moderately High Likelihood of Occurrence
Twelve sensitive plant species are either known to occur, or have a high likelihood of occurrence in the project area. The effects of Alternative 2 on these species are discussed below and summarized in Table A-7.
Astragalus lemmonii Nearly all (99%) of the known occupied habitat of A. lemmonii on the Forest occurs in the project area and would be grazed under all of the action alternatives. Habitat in the Halfway and Antelope Pastures is grazed at the same maximum number of AUMs under Alternative 2 as would occur under Alternatives 3 and 4, and 5. The duration of grazing and number of livestock in these pastures would also remain similar under all Alternatives.
Little information is available concerning the effects of grazing on Astragalus lemmonii. However, Astragalus species are generally not actively selected by livestock unless forage availability is limited, and the prostrate growth form of A. lemmonii decreases the likelihood of active forage selection. Trampling likely occurs during early season grazing, especially around Halfway Lake that is utilized as a water source. Grazing of grasses within the community may assist the maintenance of A. lemmonii by reducing competition and maintaining open sites for seedling establishment. During 2009-2013, the A. lemmonii population at Halfway Lake appeared stable under the current management strategy.
Astragalus peckii Occupied habitat of A. peckii located in the North Sheep Pasture is not grazed under Alternative 2. In the Chemult and Tobin Cabin Pastures, potential habitat located in forested upland areas would likely be little affected by grazing disturbance. Potential habitat located along the edges of meadows could be trampled by livestock. This could have a negative effect in localized areas
3-44 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 with concentrated livestock use, but grazing of competing grasses may have beneficial effects as discussed above for A. lemmonii. Existing information (Martin and Meinke, 2010) indicates A. peckii is correlated with reduced litter, but the primary habitat involving shrub/bunchgrass communities inherently provide a niche or open space for A. peckii and other species even in late seral conditions.
Botrychium pumicola B. pumicola is unlikely to be eaten or trampled by livestock. The species is short-statured and is located in lodgepole pine basins that provide little forage and water sources to attract livestock. It is possible livestock could walk through occupied or potential habitat, but the risk of concentrated use or excessive disturbance is low. Effects to this species from grazing in the project area would be minimal.
Carex capitata Six of the fourteen known sites on the Forest and approximately 1.7 acres of occupied C. capitata habitat would be grazed under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 utilizes less occupied habitat than Alternatives 3 and 5, but more than Alternative 4. Effects to fen habitats, which provide the majority of occupied and potential habitat for this species, are discussed above. The palatability of C. capitata is unknown and its response to grazing has not been studied. The species occurs in meadows and fens with other graminoids and may be eaten by livestock, however little use was observed during the 2009-2011 field seasons. Cespitose sedge species, such as C. capitata, are more dependent on seeds for reproduction than highly rhizomatous species and may decline with repeated grazing (Wilson et al., 2008). Some cespitose sedges have been noted to increase with moderate grazing that selectively concentrates on grass forage, but the sedges may decline under heavier use and less discriminate selectivity (Wilson et al., 2008). C. capitata may also be impacted by trampling. The species often forms small hummocks that may be sheared along the edges by hoof action.
Six of the eight known sites in the project area are located in fens rated at Good condition in 2010-2011, five of which occur inside fence exclosures. Outside of exclosures, one of the eight sites was rated Fair to Good, and one site was Poor. Conditions in these sites are likely to be maintained with continuation of current management.
Occupied sites involve five of the ten High-Value fens, of which two were in Good condition during 2015-2016 assessments. An occupied High-Value fen in Fair condition occurs within the recently constructed Upper Jack Creek (Moffit) exclosure, where gradual improvement in condition is expected. The remaining two sites in High-Value fens were in Fair or Good/Fair condition. C. capitata populations also occur in non High-Value fens or meadows of Round, Squirrel Camp, Jack Creek, and Wilshire fenced riparian areas that would remain ungrazed under Alternative 2.
Carex lasiocarpa var. americana C. lasiocarpa var. americana is a tall strongly rhizomatous sedge of wet habitats. Its ability to reproduce vegetatively, and presence in standing water, makes it unlikely that substantial grazing effects would occur. The single known site in the project area occurs in a fen of the Chemult Pasture that received minimal livestock use during the 2009-2010 field seasons. Minimal use is likely to continue under Alternative 2.
Castilleja chlorotica Grazing of C. chlorotica is generally light to moderate (Phillips and Wooley, 1994). The plants are often found under or adjacent to shrubs, which can help protect them from grazing (Phillips
3-45 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Wooley, 1994). In heavily used areas, bitterbrush host shrubs could be browsed by livestock, but this is unlikely to be to an extent that reduces their ability to support C. chlorotica plants. Most bitterbrush is browsed by wildlife during the winter months. The primary host plant, big sagebrush, is generally not heavily affected by livestock grazing. The known C. chlorotica site in the project area occurs in the Tobin Cabin Pasture on top of Bald Mountain in an area with limited forage and no water sources to attract livestock. The Bald Mountain site contains less than 1% of the known occupied habitat for C. chloritica on the Forest, and minimal use is likely to occur under Alternative 2.
Diplacus tricolor The majority (63%) of the Antelope Flat D. tricolor population would be grazed under all of the action alternatives. D. tricolor has a low potential to be grazed due to its short stature and low foliage volume. Trampling during early season grazing and collecting/moving of livestock in the Antelope 1 and 2 pastures is likely to be the most influential affect on this species because it occurs around water holes and seasonally wet swales. Use of the Antelope 2, 3, and 4 pastures in September after the annual species has completed its life cycle is likely to have little adverse impact, and may benefit the species by maintaining a level of bare ground or early seral conditions. Meinke (1995) noted that even though livestock had heavily utilized an occupied area prior to a major bloom, the population seemed largely unaffected. Meinke states that the timing of cattle grazing is probably crucial, and ideally should occur only after fruits have been set, to facilitate replenishment of the seed bank. Wilson and Malaby (2009) observed that during a June 24, 2009 survey in the Bear Flat Allotment, the majority of the plants had completed flowering, set seed, and were beginning to disperse their capsules, despite grazing having occurred throughout the life cycle of the plant. However, no measurements of plant mortality or average seed production with and without grazing disturbance was conducted.
Utricularia minor Nine of twelve population sites and approximately 1.5 acres of occupied U. minor habitat in the project area would be grazed under Alternative 2, compared to nine and ten sites that would be grazed under Alternatives 3 and 5, respectively. No population sites and minimal potential habitat would be grazed under Alternative 4. U. minor sites in the Johnson and Upper Jack Creek (Moffit) fen exclosures, and the Jack Creek fenced riparian area, would not be grazed under Alternative 2. Effects to fen habitats, which provide all of the occupied and potential habitat for this species, are discussed above.
The effects of grazing on U. minor are not known, but are expected to be negative, primarily as a result of trampling and possible nutrient loading. Although trampling and nutrient loading may be a threat to U. minor, local observations suggest the species has some level of tolerance to these impacts. Dewey (2011) found a large population of U. minor with many plants growing in hoof-print pools in a heavily trampled (25-30% bare peat) portion of the Buck Creek Allotment. Dewey (2011) noted that cow pies were mixed in with U. minor in hoof-print pools, indicating nutrient loading. Observations or measurements of nine of the twelve known sites in the Chemult Pasture during 2015-2016 indicated two of the sites were in Good condition, five were Fair, and two were Poor. These conditions are likely to be maintained with continuation of current management.
Pseudocalliergon trifarium Five of the seven known population sites of P. trifarium on the forest occur in the Chemult Pasture, and three of the five sites totaling approximately 0.4 acres would be grazed under Alternative 2. Alternatives 3 and 5 would graze four of the five sites, while Alternative 4 would not graze any of the occupied sites and only a very minimal amount of potential habitat. Effects
3-46 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 to fen habitats, which provide all of the occupied and potential habitat for this moss species are discussed above.
P. trifarium has only been found in High-Value fens. The effects of grazing on P. trifarium are not known, but are expected to be negative, primarily as a result of trampling. One of the five population sites in the Chemult Pasture was in Good condition during 2015-2016 surveys. This site occurs within a fence exclosure, as does a second site that was in Fair condition and fenced during 2015, with conditions expected to improve in the coming years. The remaining three sites are expected to persist at Fair/Good to Poor conditions under Alternative 2. P. trifarium is often found in the open wet areas of fens, but the unfenced fens in less than Good condition with P. trifarium are experiencing moderate to high trampling disturbances in the wet or flooded areas.
Cephaloziella spinigera and Harpanthus flotovianus Potential habitat for these two liverwort species involves fens in the Chemult and Tobin Cabin Pastures, which are accessible to livestock grazing except for ten sites or portions thereof that are excluded by fencing. Effects to fen habitats are described above. The effects of grazing on these two species are expected to be negative, primarily as a result of trampling.
Pseudorhizina californica Alternative 2 may impact potential habitat for P. californica located in forested riparian areas. Trampling by livestock could impact fungi mycelium, compact soils, and reduce habitat suitability for this species in localized areas with concentrated use. Potential habitat that also occurs in forested upland areas is likely to be minimally affected by grazing disturbance due to minor livestock use in these areas.
Cultural Plants Alternative 2 is expected to have no or minor effects to cultural plant species that occur outside of riparian areas and have poor to fair palatability. Low to moderate levels of use or trampling may occur to these species, particularly around the margins of riparian areas. However, species that are favored by grazing disturbance due to low palatability or specific ecology, and listed as increasers by Volland (1985) or Hopkins (2000), may remain static or increase in vigor and abundance with continued grazing. Species listed as decreasers, and species with fair to good palatability, especially those that occur in meadows or riparian areas where livestock concentrate, may remain static or decline in vigor and abundance with continued grazing. Overall, Alternative 2 is expected to have a positive effect on ten cultural plant species, a negative effect on sixteen species, and variable effect or no effect on twenty-six species, including those that are unlikely to be present in the project area (see the biological evaluation and botanical specialist report available in the project record).
Invasive Plants Alternative 2 would permit grazing across the existing Antelope Cattle & Horse and Antelope boundaries totaling 146,155 acres. Livestock grazing can increase the amount of habitat susceptible to invasive plant infestation as a result of localized ground disturbance and reduction in the reproduction and vigor of desirable plants. Cattle can introduce weed seeds from other areas and spread existing sites through attachment of seeds to their coats or muddy hooves, or in some cases ingestion/ excretion of seeds. Vehicles and equipment involved in daily pasture and herd management can also spread or assist the establishment of weed sites. Once established in a system, the most aggressive invasive plants can spread even with relatively low or no apparent disturbances.
3-47 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Current invasive weed infestations in the project area are small compared to most areas of the forest, so continued grazing under all the Action Alternatives has a relatively low risk of assisting the spread of invasive species. Required Forest Plan invasive species prevention standards (USDA, 2005) apply to livestock grazing and would be used where applicable to reduce the risk of invasive plant spreading.
Continued spread of reed canary grass probably represents the greatest invasive plant threat in the project area due to its ability to rapidly colonize riparian areas such as Jack Creek, even without high levels of disturbance. Although livestock grazing may suppress seed production of reed canarygrass in some instances, this is unlikely to have a pronounced effect on control of the species due to low intensity use of the species for forage. Herbicide control treatments are planned for reed canary grass in the project area, but are delayed by consultation with the ODF&W because many of the populations occur within Critical Habitat for the Oregon Spotted Frog. However, treatment approval is likely to be attained by 2018, if not late in 2017.
Another invasive plant species of concern is Ventenata dubia, an aggressive annual grass increasing in prominence on the forest and many areas of the western U.S. This species was noted in dry rocky portions of Riders Camp Meadow during 2016, and has a high potential to be established in other areas. Shrub/bunchgrass communities in the Tobin and Antelope Flat pastures on the eastside of the project area are of primary concern. This species also has the potential to continue spreading with relatively low levels of disturbance, but can be assisted by livestock related dispersal and disturbance. Required Forest Plan invasive species prevention standards and recommended Fremont-Winema prevention practices apply to livestock grazing and would be used where applicable to reduce the risk of weed spread (see Design Criteria, Chapter 2).
3.2.2.2.5 Alternative 3
Fen Habitats An assumption is made that habitat for sensitive fen species would be best maintained in the project area by maintaining proper functioning condition as defined by Weixelman and Cooper (2009). As shown in Table A-3, populations of sensitive plant species whose principal habitat occurs in fens are most often found in the High-Value fens.
Fen habitat in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures permitted for grazing would increase from 376 acres (67%) under Alternative 2, to about 515 acres (92%) under Alternative 3 (Table 5). Livestock grazing would be reintroduced to six riparian exclosures ranging from 12 to 2,332 acres, as well as the North Sheep Pasture (19.063 acres) (Table A-5). All of these sites except the Riders Camp exclosure contain fen inclusions that comprise varying proportions of the total exclosure. Only one of these sites contains a High-Value fen (Jack Creek), but two other sites contain fens with sensitive plant populations that would be monitored to make grazing adjustments if needed to maintain population objectives (Appendix C (specialist report), and Appendix D). All ten High-Value fens would be monitored to ensure they remain or trend towards Good condition with less than 10% bare ground or soil disturbance (Appendix D). Currently, five of the ten High-Value fens meet the objectives for Good condition, including one site in the Jack Creek exclosure where grazing will be reintroduced, and another site within the recently constructed Upper Jack Creek (Moffit) exclosure that is expected to achieve Good condition because it will remain ungrazed. A fence exclosure is also proposed for the High- Value Little Parker fen, which would remain ungrazed. Three other existing fenced riparian
3-48 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 areas with less than High-Value fens would also remain ungrazed. In total, eight of the High- Value fens would be accessible to livestock grazing. Five of these sites are currently at less than Good condition.
In addition to monitoring and adaptive management to achieve or maintain Good fen conditions, Alternative 3 would involve a reduction of 327 AUMS (26%) on NFS land in the Chemult Pasture compared to current management, and the area available for grazing would increase by about 2,873 acres. This would decrease the level of grazing disturbance and has the potential to contribute to improved conditions in all fens that are currently grazed. However, the degree to which this will facilitate improved conditions in some fens is uncertain. Cooper and Wolf (2006) report that even light grazing in degraded fens can perpetuate degraded conditions, and monitoring during 2015-2016 indicated moderate or even light utilization in some sites resulted in more than 10% soil disturbance. As discussed under Existing Conditions, more than 50% of the fens in Good condition are not currently grazed by livestock, suggesting that even a 26% reduction in AUMs for the Chemult Pasture will not ensure Good conditions. Improvement of general fen conditions in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture would have the greatest potential to increase if livestock distribution is increased beyond levels that would be achieved through the reintroduction of grazing within the fenced riparian exclosures. That is, if the proposed increase in livestock head continue to spend a disproportionate amount of time in the same areas that are currently utilized, the potential for improved fen conditions will decrease despite the reduction in total time or AUMs spent in these areas.
Potential improvement of currently grazed fens within the Chemult Pasture is likely to correspond with decreasing conditions in six riparian exclosures and the North Sheep Pasture where grazing would be reintroduced. Maximum AUM’s on private land in the Chemult Pasture with management waived to the Forest Service, would increase 39% from 415 to 575 under Alternative 3. This could adversely affect the condition of any fens on this land, but current habitat types or conditions are unknown.
Fen inclusions in riparian exclosures that have a particularly high potential of being adversely affected by the reintroduction of grazing include Squirrel Camp (21 acres), Dry Meadow (12 acres), and possibly Cannon Well (44 acres). This is largely due to the small size of the exclosures and/or large proportion of the exclosure occupied by fens. Recommendations for not using the Squirrel Camp and Dry Meadow exclosures, or at least fencing the fen habitat within the larger area of the exclosure, were submitted in response to requests to utilize these sites during the 2016 grazing season (Rone et al., 2016).
Sensitive Plants
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Low Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
Ten sensitive species have potential habitat in the project area, but a low likelihood of occurrence because the habitat is of marginal quality, and/or the project area is relatively distant from the species known range of documented occurrence (see list of species under Alternative 1). No effects or impacts would be expected to these species under Alternative 3.
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Moderate Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
3-49 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
At least moderately good habitat is present for twenty-four sensitive species with no known population sites in the project area (see list under Alternative 1). Habitat for many of these species involves various riparian or meadow habitat that could be effected by trampling and herbivory. Habitat for some of the other species involves drier upland sites where current livestock use is minimal, so the potential effects to habitat as a result of livestock grazing would be decreased.
Species with Known Sites or a Moderately High Likelihood of Occurrence Twelve sensitive plant species are either known to occur, or have a high likelihood of occurrence in the project area. The effects of Alternative 3 on these species are discussed below.
Astragalus lemmonii Populations of A. lemmonii are confined to the Halfway and Antelope Flat 2-4 pastures on the east side of the project area. Alternative 3 proposes the same number of AUMs, seasons of use, and cow/calf pairs in the Halfway Pasture as Alternative 2. The Antelope Flat Pastures are primarily used for early and late season use associated with livestock turn-in and/or collection. Management of Pastures 1 and 2 would remain similar to current, while use of Pastures 3 and 4 would shift to the end of the season compared to early and/or late season under current management. Maximum AUMs in all of these pasture would remain at current levels.
Shifting to late season use in the Antelope 3 and 4 Pastures may benefit A. lemmonii populations in this area by allowing for uninterrupted growth and seed production, while still contributing to low or moderate plant structure. However, these pastures support only a small proportion of the total population. Monitoring and adaptive management (Appendix C, specialist report) would be used to maintain at least 10% cover of A. lemmonii along established transects at Halfway Lake, or at least 90% of the occupied acres within the entire project area. Exclosure fences would be a primary means of achieving these goals if necessary.
In summary, Alternative 3 could slightly benefit A. lemmonii due to late season use of Antelope Pastures 3 and 4. Adaptive management to maintain population levels or occupied acreage similar to 2011 levels would also benefit maintenance of the species.
Astragalus peckii Alternative 3 would graze occupied A. peckii habitat located in the North Sheep Pasture. Little information is available about the effects of grazing on A. peckii. It is unlikely the species is eaten by livestock, given its prostrate and relatively small growth form. Trampling may occur, as the species is located along the edge of lower Davis Flat Meadow near an intermittent reach of Jack Creek. Livestock may be attracted to the area by water that remains in the deeper pools of the creek for part of the summer, and loafing may occur in shaded areas along the forested edge.
However, grazing related disturbances could also have a beneficial effect on A. peckii. Martin and Meinke (2010) found A. peckii habitat is correlated with reduced litter. Cushman (2006) noted a declining population at lower Davis Flat with increased grass and forb cover. Selective grazing of competing graminoids and forbs could have some benefit to A. peckii through reduced competition, but shrub/bunchgrass communities that tend to comprise the majority of suitable habitat usually contain high amounts of bare ground for establishment of this and other forbs. Nonetheless, the population at lower Davis Flat has declined in recent years in the absence of grazing. Grazing of occupied habitat under Alternative 3 would be subject to monitoring and adaptive management (Appendix C, specialist report). Monitoring would be conducted to determine the degree to which livestock use the occupied habitat and whether they appear to be contributing to a downward population trend. A 20% reduction in the number of individuals
3-50 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 located in four monitoring plots established in 2013, combined with evidence of concentrated livestock use, would trigger construction of an exclosure to protect A. peckii plants (Appendix C, specialist report).
Other potential habitat located in the North Sheep, Chemult, and Tobin Cabin Pastures would be grazed under Alternative 3. Potential habitat located in forested upland areas would likely be little affected by grazing disturbance, but habitat located along the edges of meadows could be trampled by livestock. This could have a negative effect in localized areas with concentrated livestock use.
In summary, Alternative 3 would reintroduce grazing disturbances to occupied and potential habitat in the North Sheep Pasture that has not occurred since 2007. Monitoring and adaptive management would evaluate and mitigate adverse effects that may occur.
Botrychium pumicola Alternative 3 would permit grazing in occupied and potential B. pumicola habitat located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. However, effects to this species from grazing are assumed to be minimal due to a lack of livestock forage in this habitat.
Carex capitata Eight of the fourteen known sites on the Forest and approximately 2.5 acres of occupied C. capitata habitat would be grazed. Effects to fen habitats, which provide the majority of occupied and potential habitat for this species were discussed above. The amount of occupied and potential habitat permitted for grazing would increase from about 67% under current management, to 92% under Alternative 3. Levels of disturbance within the most currently utilized areas of the Chemult Pasture have the potential to decrease if livestock distribution can be increased, but areas of previous light use would experience increased use, as would areas of reintroduced grazing within the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture, five smaller exclosures, and the North Sheep Pasture.
C. capitata populations occur in fen inclusions within the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture and two smaller exclosures where grazing would be re-introduced. The site in the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture involves a High-Value fen, so monitoring and adaptive management would be used to ensure habitat is maintained in Good condition (Appendix B (specialist report), Appendix D). C. capitata populations would be monitored in the two smaller exclosures to ensure cover does not fall below 10% at Round Meadow, and 30% at Squirrel Camp, as measured by permanent transects at these locations (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D). Three other High- Value fens with C. capitata populations would continue to be grazed under Alternative 3, but with some potential to increase in condition as a result of slightly less AUMs and greater total acreage available for grazing. The degree of potential benefits to C. capitata and fen habitats would depend on increasing the distribution of livestock compared to current management. However, monitoring and adaptive management would be utilized to ensure less than 10% soil disturbance in the four occupied and six unoccupied High-Value fens. A C. capitata population in the recently constructed Upper Jack Creek exclosure (Moffit) would remain ungrazed, as would potential habitat in the proposed Little Parker and Section 9 exclosures.
Maximum AUM’s on private land in the Chemult Pasture with management waived to the Forest Service, would increase from 415 to 575, but the status of habitat conditions and sensitive plant populations is unknown. In summary, C. capitata populations and suitable habitat that are currently grazed in the Chemult Pasture should be maintained or improved compared to current conditions, but there is some
3-51 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement potential for adverse effects to occur in areas that are not currently grazed or grazed very minimally, depending on how well livestock can be distributed throughout the west side pastures. Monitoring and adaptive management has the potential to achieve or maintain Good conditions four occupied and six unoccupied High-Value fens, as well as the occupied sites of Round and Squirrel Camp Meadows.
Carex lasiocarpa americana This species is known from only one site in the project area that was observed to experience little or no use during 2009-2010 field surveys. Alternative 3 is expected to have No Impact on the population because it is unlikely that livestock use near the occupied site would change, despite the objective of increasing livestock distribution. There would be a low potential for active selection of the species even when grazing occurs in or near the site.
Similar to discussions above, potential habitat that is currently grazed in the Chemult Pasture has the potential to be maintained or improve, while habitat conditions in the riparian exclosures and the North Sheep Pasture where grazing is proposed to be re-introduced, has the potential to decrease. Monitoring and adaptive management would be implemented to maintain Good conditions in High-Value fens or those identified for population monitoring of C. capitata.
Castilleja chlorotica C. chlorotica habitat occurs in the uplands that experience relatively little or no livestock use. Population sites are present among sagebrush communities in the Tobin Cabin Pasture, where maximum AUMs would be reduced from 665 under Alternative 2, to 512 under Alternative 3. The grazing season would be reduced by about two weeks. Although two herds would utilize the Tobin Cabin Pasture, they would graze at approximately the same time and would not influence conditions compared to one herd with the same number of head. C. chloritica is not particularly palatable to livestock and there is a low potential for selective use of this species.
In summary, Alternative 3 would have no effect or a slight benefit to C. chloritica as a result of the reduction in AUMs within the Tobin Cabin Pasture.
Diplacus tricolor As described under Alternative 2, the primary impact of grazing on D. tricolor would be trampling prior to seed maturation in the Antelope Flat Pastures. The majority of D. tricolor in the project area occurs in the Antelope Pasture1 of the Buck Creek Allotment, where Alternative 3 would maintain early season use (June) at the same number of livestock head and maximum AUMs as Alternative 2. Mitigation would require utilization monitoring in this pasture to ensure that D. tricolor habitat is grazed at 50% utilization or less, with adaptive management providing a 2.5 acre exclosure around the main concentration of plants if utilization consistently exceeds this level.
Antelope Pastures 2, 3, and 4 would be grazed at the same number of maximum AUMs as current management. These pastures are currently used early and/or late season during livestock turn-in and collection. The potential period of use would remain season-long in Pasture 2, while use of Pastures 3 and 4 would specifically shift to the end of the season compared to current management. This would ensure uninterrupted growth and seed production for D. tricolor, although these pastures tend to contain a small proportion of the total population. The Halfway Pasture also contains a small proportion of the total population, where early season use would be continued at the same number of maximum AUMs. Some early season flowering/seed production could be interrupted by trampling disturbances, but there would generally be ample time and moisture available to minimize any adverse effects.
3-52 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Utricularia minor Effects to fen habitats, which provide all of the occupied and potential habitat for this species, as discussed above. The effects of grazing on U. minor are not known, but are expected to be negative, primarily as a result of trampling and possibly nutrient loading. As noted under Alternative 2, local observations suggest the species has some level of tolerance to these impacts.
The amount of occupied and potential habitat permitted for grazing would increase from about 67% under current management, to 92% under Alternative 3. However, levels of disturbance within currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture should decrease due to the greater amount of acreage, slightly reduced AUMs, and a slightly shorter grazing season. The potential for improved habitat conditions would be dependent on maintaining increased livestock distribution over time, but would involve increased grazing disturbances in areas that are currently grazed at low levels, in addition to reintroduced grazing within the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture, five smaller exclosures, and the North Sheep Pasture.
Three of twelve U. minor population sites in the Chemult Pasture occur within fence exclosures, including the Jack Creek exclosure that would be grazed under Alternative 3. Two of the occupied exclosures (Johnson and Upper Jack Creek) would remain ungrazed, as would a population in the proposed Little Parker exclosure. The Jack Creek exclosure, as well as five other occupied fens that would continue to be grazed under Alternative 3, involve High-Value fens, where adaptive management (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D) would be implemented to ensure the sites are maintained or trend towards Good condition. Four other occupied sites that would remain accessible to livestock are less than High-Value fens, with one in Good condition. Conditions of the three other sites would have the potential to improve as a result of the increased grazing acreage and livestock distribution, but monitoring would be required to evaluate the benefits. Cooper and Wolf (2006) found even light grazing in degraded fens resulted in the persistence of degraded conditions.
Maximum AUM’s on private land in the Chemult Pasture with management waived to the Forest Service, would increase from 415 to 575, but the status of habitat conditions and sensitive plant populations is unknown.
In summary, conditions of occupied and suitable habitat for U. minor that is currently grazed in the Chemult Pasture should be maintained or improved under Alternative 3, but habitat conditions in several sites where grazing is proposed to be reintroduced has the potential to decrease. Monitoring and adaptive management would increase the potential to maintain or trend towards Good conditions in High-Value fens.
Pseudocalliergon trifarium Effects to fen habitats, which provide all of the occupied and potential habitat for this species, are discussed above. The effects of grazing on P. trifarium are not known, but are expected to be negative, primarily as a result of trampling. The amount of occupied and potential habitat permitted for grazing would increase from about 67% under current management, to 92% under Alternative 3.
Four of five population sites in the project area would be grazed under Alternative 3, with the fifth site occurring in a recently constructed exclosure (Upper Jack Creek) that would not be grazed. Grazing would be re-introduced to the occupied Jack Creek exclosure, and the remaining three sites would continue to be grazed under Alternative 3. All five of the known population sites occur in High-Value fens, where monitoring and adaptive management
3-53 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Appendix D) would be implemented to maintain or trend towards Good conditions. Of the four occupied sites to be grazed, three are in less than Good condition and would have the potential to improve under adaptive management. Slight reductions in AUMs and greater acreage available for grazing in the Chemult Pasture could contribute to improved conditions if livestock distribution is increased relative to current conditions. Suitable but unoccupied habitat in five other High-Value fens would have a similar potential to achieve or maintain Good conditions. Suitable habitat in the High-Value Little Parker Fen is proposed for fencing and would remain ungrazed.
Reintroduced grazing within the Jack Creek and five smaller exclosures, as well as the North Sheep Pasture, would have the potential to decrease conditions of potential habitat in these areas.
Cephaloziella spinigera and Harpanthus flotovianus Effects to fen habitats, which provide all of the potential habitat for these bryophyte species are discussed above. The effects of grazing on these species are not known, but are expected to be negative, primarily as a result of trampling. The amount of potential habitat for these species that would be grazed would increase from about 67% under current management, to 92% under Alternative 3.
Maintaining High-Value fens in Good condition, as well as maintaining no grazing in four fenced riparian exclosures and the proposed Little Parker exclosure, should protect a portion of the habitat or any unknown populations of these species. Slightly reduced AUMs and greater acreage available for grazing should improve potential habitat conditions for these species in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture if livestock distribution can be increased. Conversely, habitat in the Jack Creek and five smaller exclosures, and the North Sheep Pasture, has the potential to decrease in condition with the reintroduction of grazing.
Pseudorhizina californica Grazing may impact potential habitat for P. californica located in forested riparian areas. Trampling by livestock could impact fungi mycelium, compact soils, and reduce habitat suitability for this species in localized areas with concentrated use. Impacts to potential habitat in forested upland areas should decrease with increasing distance from meadow edges. Potentially increased impacts under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2 would primarily involve re-introduced grazing in the North Sheep Pasture and Jack Creek Exclosure that contain forested riparian areas. Potential habitat in current areas of grazing in the Chemult Pasture should experience reduced disturbance as a result of slightly decreased AUMs and increased grazing acreage if live stock distribution can be increased.
Cultural Plants Alternative 3 is expected to have no or minor effects to cultural plant species that occur outside of riparian areas and have poor to fair palatability. Low to moderate levels of use or trampling may occur to these species, particularly around the margins of riparian areas. However, species that are favored by grazing disturbance due to low palatability or specific ecology, and listed as increasers by Volland (1985) or Hopkins (2000) may remain static or increase in vigor and abundance with continued grazing. Species listed as decreasers, and species with fair to good palatability, especially those that occur in meadows or riparian areas where livestock concentrate, may remain static or decline in vigor and abundance with continued grazing (Table A-5). Overall, Alternative 3 is expected to have a positive effect on ten cultural plant species, a negative effect on sixteen species, and variable effect or no effect on twenty-six species, including those that are unlikely to be present in the project area.
3-54 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Invasive Plants
Alternative 3 would permit grazing across the 169,599 acre project area. The larger area of grazing disturbances compared to Alternative 2 could increase the risk of invasive plant introduction and spread. However, the risk would still remain relatively low. Livestock grazing and associated activities do not appear to have played a major role in the spread of invasive plants in the project area. The project area currently has few infestations compared to most areas of the Forest, due in part to dry pumice soils in the uplands, and saturated soils in the lowlands that generally support dense rhizomatous native vegetation.
Principle exceptions to the above involve reed canary grass. The spread of reed canary grass can be assisted by disturbance that creates bare ground, but the species is very aggressive once established and can spread throughout riparian corridors without high levels of disturbance. Although livestock or wildlife may suppress seed production of reed canary grass in some situations, this is unlikely to have a pronounced effect on controlling the species without intensive concentrated efforts. Proposed reintroduction of grazing in the North Sheep Pasture, Squirrel Camp Exclosure, and Round Meadow Exclosure, has the potential to assist the spread of existing reed canary grass populations in these areas. The spread of existing populations in Upper Jameson Meadow and the Tobin Cabin Pasture may also be assisted by grazing. However, as discussed under Existing Conditions, herbicide control treatments are planned for this species after consultation with ODF&W regarding Oregon Spotted Frog habitat.
Other potential weed threats include invasive annual grasses such as cheatgrass, medusahead, and ventenata grass. These species are particularly suspect in drier pastures on the east side of the project area, but ventenata grass was also noted in dry areas of Riders Camp Meadow in the Chemult Pasture during 2016. Although these species were not noted in previous botany surveys or assessments, it is highly possible that additional occurrences of these species are present. These grasses can increase with excessive grazing disturbances (Miller et al, 2014), and effective control can be very difficult with major commitments of time and resources. If left untreated, these grasses can seriously degrade forage resources and ecological processes. There is a need to complete thorough and current surveys for these annual grasses starting in the eastern pastures, but Alternative 3 would not be expected to increase their potential spread more than any of the other action alternatives.
Required Forest Plan invasive species prevention standards (USDA, 2005) apply to livestock grazing and would be used where applicable to reduce the risk of invasive plant spread.
3.2.2.2.6 Alternative 4
Fen Habitats Alternative 4 would not graze any of the fens located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. The 6-acre fen at the Section 9 Spring in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be proposed for fencing to exclude grazing. Over the long term, fen conditions would improve across the project area with the removal of livestock related disturbances. Although there may be some contribution of livestock disturbances in maintaining the diversity of fen plant species, decreased diversity or shifts to tall statured graminoid species have not been noted in fens that have been fenced and excluded from grazing in the project area. Although there may be losses or decreases of some species, the climax community of many fen types remain dominated by low-statured sedges and bryophytes. Elk and other wildlife, as well as natural hydrologic processes and conditions,
3-55 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
would have the potential to maintain some habitat for early to mid-seral species, but probably at reduced levels compared to current disturbances.
Sensitive Plants
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Low Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
Ten sensitive species have potential habitat in the project area, but a low likelihood of occurrence because the habitat is of marginal quality, and/or the project area is relatively distant from the species known range of documented occurrence (see species list under Alternative 1). No effects or impacts would be expected to these species or habitat as a result of proposed management under Alternative 4. See Table A-7 for a summary of effects to each sensitive plant species by alternative.
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Moderate Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
At least moderately good habitat is present for another twenty-four sensitive species with no known population sites in the project area (see list under Alternative 1). Habitat for many of these species involves various riparian or meadow habitat that could be effected by trampling and herbivory. Removal of grazing in the Chemult Pasture under Alternative 4 may benefit these species. There is some potential for plant succession to create conditions of increased plant structure that could be less suitable for some of the species. However, it is likely that habitat would persist in natural openings or as a result of natural disturbances, although possibly at reduced amounts. Potential riparian habitat in the east side pastures could continue to be affected by grazing disturbances.
Habitat for four of the twenty species involves drier upland sites where livestock use is minimal, so the potential effects to habitat associated with changes in grazing management under Alternative 4 are greatly reduced.
Sensitive Plants and Fungi with Known Sites or Moderately High Likelihood of Occurrence
The effects of Alternative 4 on sensitive plant species that are either known to occur, or have a moderately high potential of occurrence in the project area are discussed below and summarized in Table A-7.
Astragalus lemmonii Populations of A. lemmonii are confined to the Halfway and Antelope Flat 2-4 pastures on the east side of the project area that would continue to be grazed under Alternative 4. These pastures would receive the same maximum number of AUMs as current management. The Halfway Pasture would be utilized during a similar period as present, so there should be no change in effects under Alternative 4. The Antelope Pastures would be utilized during a single two week period in the second half of July, rather than variable times throughout the grazing season as currently managed. This creates the potential for a greater number of livestock within the pasture for a shorter time period, which could increase the evenness of livestock disturbances within A. lemmonii habitat. Nonetheless, there could be an increased opportunity for A. lemmonii plants to recover from grazing disturbances and complete seed production or other critical growth stages.
3-56 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
As described in Appendix C (specialist report) and Appendix D, monitoring and adaptive management would be used to maintain A. lemmonii populations at Halfway Lake within 10% of numbers that were measured in 2011. Changes of more than 10% in occupied habitat acreage within the entire project area could also trigger protective measures, such as reduced AUMs or exclosure fences.
Astragalus peckii Alternative 4 would not graze A. peckii occupied or suitable habitat located in the North Sheep and Chemult Pastures. This would facilitate plant succession and and potentially increase competition from other plant species on A. peckii. However, typical habitat for A. peckii involves shrub/bunchgrass communities that occur along the edges of some meadows, and which generally provide ample space and resources for a variety of forb species.
Potential A. peckii habitat located in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be grazed, and could be affected by trailing and trampling along meadow edges. This could have a negative effect in localized areas with concentrated livestock use, but grazing of competing graminoids and reduced litter accumulation may have a beneficial effect on maintain A. peckii habitat (Martin and Meinke, 2010). Potential habitat located in upland forest openings would be little affected by grazing disturbance because livestock minimally use these areas.
Botrychium pumicola Alternative 4 would not graze occupied or potential B. pumicola habitat located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Similar to Alternative 1, the lack of livestock grazing would have little or no effect on B. pumicola because there is minimal forage availability and livestock use in habitat for this species.
Carex capitata Alternative 4 would not graze occupied or potential C. capitata habitat located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Potential habitat in the Section 9 Fen of the Tobin Cabin Pasture would not be grazed after construction of a proposed fence exclosure. The removal of grazing disturbances in suitable or occupied habitat would be expected to have a positive effect on C. capitata.
Carex lasiocarpa var. americana Alternative 4 would not graze occupied or potential C. lasiocarpa var. americana habitat located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Potential habitat in the Section 9 Fen of the Tobin Cabin Pasture would not be grazed after construction of a proposed fence exclosure. The removal of grazing disturbances in suitable or occupied habitat would be expected to have a positive effect on the species, although the threat from trampling is likely reduced due to habitat in standing water.
Castilleja chlorotica Grazing would continue in the Tobin Cabin Pasture with the only known C. chlorotica population site in the project area. This site is on top of Bald Mountain in an area with limited forage and no water sources to attract livestock. Therefore, minimal effects to the species would be expected with continued grazing under Alternative 4.
Diplacus tricolor
3-57 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
The main concentration of D. tricolor occurs in the Antelope Fat 1 Pasture, where current early season use (June) and maximum AUMs would be maintained under Alternative 4. The D. tricolor population overlaps the Antelope Flat 2-4 and Halfway Pastures, where maximum AUMs would also remain similar to current levels. The season of use would be more restricted to the second half of July in the Antelope 2-4 Pastures compared to current management.
There is a high likelihood of trampling effects to D. tricolor during seed production, but large numbers of plants and some ability for the annual species to recover from trampling and maintain production of a seed crop can be sufficient to maintain a population (Wilson and Malaby 2009). The shortened grazing season may assist in plant recovery and seed production to some extent. A degree of trampling can benefit the species by maintaining patches of bare ground or early seral conditions.
Mitigation would require monitoring in the Antelope Flat 1 Pasture to ensure that habitat for D. tricolor is grazed at 50% utilization or less. If warranted, additional protection could be provided by construction of a 2.5 acre exclosure around the main concentration of plants in the Antelope Flat 1 Pasture (Appendix D).
Utricularia minor Alternative 4 would not graze occupied or potential U. minor habitat located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Potential habitat in the Section 9 Fen in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be excluded from grazing after construction of a new exclosure. Over the long term, the removal of grazing from U. minor habitat may benefit the species.
Pseudocalliergon trifarium Alternative 4 would not graze occupied or potential P. trifarium habitat located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Potential habitat in the Section 9 Fen in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be excluded from grazing after construction of a fence exclosure. Over the long term, the removal of grazing from P. trifarium habitat may benefit the species.
Cephaloziella spinigera and Harpanthus flotovianus Alternative 4 would not graze potential habitat for these liverworts located in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Potential habitat in the Section 9 Fen in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be excluded from grazing after construction of a fence exclosure. Over the long term, habitat for these species is likely to benefit from the removal of grazing and trampling disturbances.
Pseudorhizina californica Less potential habitat for P. californica would be grazed under Alternative 4 with removal of the North Sheep and Chemult Pastures. Trampling by livestock could impact fungi mycelium and compact soils in or near forested riparian areas within the Tobin Cabin Pasture. Potential habitat for the species in forested uplands would be less affected due to lower livestock use and drier soils that are less compactable.
Cultural Plants Cattle grazing in the east half of the project area is expected to have minor or no effects to species with poor to fair palatability that occur outside of riparian areas. Low levels of use or trampling may occur in forest habitat. Species that are favored by grazing disturbance and are listed as increasers by Volland (1985) or Hopkins (2000) may remain static, or increase in vigor and abundance in areas of greater livestock use. Species listed as decreasers, and species with fair to good palatability, especially those that occur in meadows or riparian areas with greater livestock use, may remain static or decline in vigor and abundance.
3-58 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
In the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures, the effects would be the same as described for Alternative 1, in that without grazing, increaser species may exhibit declines, and decreaser species may exhibit increases. Table A-5 indicates cultural plants classified as decreasers that may benefit from Alternative 4 on the west side of the project area. Overall, Alternative 4 is expected to have a positive effect on 16 cultural plant species, a negative effect on 10 species, and variable effect or no effect on 26 species, including those that are unlikely to be present in the project area.
Invasive Plants Alternative 4 would permit grazing across 80,060 acres in the east side pastures. The reduced area of disturbance could reduce the risk of invasive plant spread and introduction compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. There are currently no known weed infestations in the eastern half of the allotment, but there is at least a moderate potential for occurrences of invasive annual grasses as discussed under Alternative 3. This will be further investigated, and if these grasses or other weeds are present, they will be managed under AOI’s and expanded weed treatment programs wherever feasible. Required Forest Plan invasive species prevention standards (USDA, 2005) apply to livestock grazing, and would be used where applicable to reduce the risk of invasive plant spread.
3.2.2.2.7 Alternative 5
Fen Habitats Fens within the project area accessible to grazing would increase from about 67% under current management, to 93% under alternative 5. Portions of two High-Value fens where exclosure fences were recently constructed or proposed to be constructed would remain excluded from grazing in the Chemult Pasture (Upper Jack Creek and Little Parker). The Section 9 Spring and fen in the Tobin Cabin Pasture is also proposed for fencing and would remain excluded from grazing. Fen or spring conditions would be expected to improve within these three fenced sites.
Reintroduced grazing in the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture, eight smaller riparian exclosures, and the North Sheep Pasture, would have the potential for adverse effects to fen conditions. Fen inclusions in the Sproats, Johnson, Wilshire, Dry, and Squirrel Camp exclosures are especially likely to experience adverse effects due to the small exclosure size (all less than 21 acres), and/or large area of the exclosure occupied by fen habitat. It is uncertain how the exclosures would be grazed at the specified ranges of 2-9 AUMs (FEIS Table 2-7). If a few cows are allowed in the exclosure and the gates are closed, most water would be derived from springs within the fens, which would assure trampling disturbances. Conversely, if gates are left open until the specified 35% utilization is achieved, there would be a high potential for rapid over-utilization and excessive trampling disturbances because all cows in the area would have access. Adaptive management could be utilized to fence fen inclusions within the existing exclosures, but this would be impractical in several of the above sites due to the already small size of the exclosures. None of the five exclosures named above involve High-Value fens, which could impede or delay the incentive for taking corrective actions. An exception involves the Squirrel Camp exclosure, where population monitoring of C. Capitata could trigger adaptive actions if the population numbers or cover decrease below certain thresholds (Appendix D). The same is true of the Round Meadow exclosure, but its larger size of almost 400 acres, several areas of available water, and the location of the fen inclusion in the far northwest corner of the exclosure, deceases the potential for excessive trampling disturbances in the fen.
3-59 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Jack Creek Riparian pasture is the only exclosure with a High-Value fen proposed for the reintroduction of grazing. The fen is currently in Good condition and adverse effects of reintroduced grazing are also relatively small due to the large size of the pasture (2,332 acres) and availability of water from several sources, including Jack Creek. Monitoring and adaptive management (Appendix D) would be implemented to maintain Good conditions of this, and seven other High-Value fens that are unfenced and that would continue to be grazed. Currently, five of the ten High-Value fens do not meet the objectives for Good condition. Moving some of these High-Value fens towards Good condition would be dependent on continued monitoring and aggressive implementation of adaptive management to minimize excessive soil disturbances.
The slight reduction in AUMs and increased acreage for grazing would create the potential for reduced fen disturbances in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture if the increased number of livestock can be evenly distributed across the pasture. The three year grazing rotation schedule (Table 3) may result in variable levels of disturbance from year to year in the Chemult Pasture, and may shift livestock use at individual fens from what has occurred under current management. Splitting the pasture into two pastures on either side of the 94 Road would add to changes in livestock distribution. Effective use of the 94 Road as a pasture boundary is questionable, but an increased intensity of grazing distribution could result in more even use of fens across the pasture. This may contribute to improved conditions in some fens, but also has the potential to decrease conditions in other fens that have received lower use under current management. There may be less incentive or direction for maintaining acceptable conditions in less than High-Value fens, other than general LRMP standards and guidelines that direct for grazing riparian areas in a manner that improves vegetative conditions.
Five fens in the North Sheep Pasture would also be grazed, with the potential season of use increasing from 2.5 months under Alternative 3, to 3.5 months under Alternative 5. Maximum AUMs would increase from 343 to 431. The longer season and increased AUMs would increase the potential for adverse impacts in fen habitat compared to Alternative 3.
Maximum AUMs on private land in the Chemult Pasture, where management would be waived to the Forest Service, would increase from 415 AUMs under current management to 575 AUMs under Alternative 5. This, could adversely affect the condition of any fens in this area, but current habitat conditions are unknown.
In summary, Alternative 5 would graze the greatest proportion of fen habitat. Currently grazed fens would have the potential to experience less disturbance and improved conditions. Fens that are not currently grazed by benefit of an exclosure or under-utilized locations would have the potential for increased disturbances and decreasing conditions. Increased evenness of utilization across the Chemult, North Sheep, and Jack Creek Pastures may ameliorate disturbances sufficiently to improve fen conditions across the landscape, but the potential for excessive disturbances would remain for some of the smaller exclosures or areas of insufficient herding. Cooper and Wolf (2006) found even light grazing of degraded fens resulted in the persistence of degraded conditions, and monitoring during 2015-2016 indicated moderate or light utilization in some sites resulted in more than 10% soil disturbance. It is therefore difficult to ascertain how the level of disturbances will balance across the landscape without additional monitoring. Monitoring and adaptive management of the ten High-Value fens would achieve Good conditions in these sites if aggressively implemented.
Sensitive Plants
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and
3-60 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Low Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
Ten sensitive species have potential habitat in the project area, but a low likelihood of occurrence because the habitat is of marginal quality, and/or the project area is relatively distant from the species known range of documented occurrence (see list under Alternative 1). No effects or impacts would be expected to these species or habitat as a result of livestock grazing under Alternative 5.
Species with Potential Habitat but no Documented Population Sites and Moderate Likelihood of Occurrence in the Project Area
At least moderately good habitat is present for twenty-four sensitive species with no known population sites in the project area (see list under Alternative 1). Habitat for many of these species involves various riparian or meadow habitats that experience the greatest level of livestock grazing and trampling disturbances in the project area with the potential for adverse effects. Conversely, grazing could reduce competition from graminoids and maintain vegetation structure and seral conditions conducive to the persistence of some of these species. Habitat for four of the species involves drier upland sites where current livestock use is minimal, so the potential effects to habitat from livestock grazing are decreased.
Sensitive Plants and Fungi with Known Sites or a High Likelihood of Occurrence
The effects of Alternative 5 on sensitive plant species that are either known to occur, or have a high likelihood of occurrence in the project area are discussed below and summarized in the project record.
Astragalus lemmonii The Halfway and Antelope Flat Pastures would be grazed at the same seasons and maximum AUMs as current management and the effects would be the same as discussed under Alternative 2. The prostrate growth form of A. lemmonii decreases the likelihood of active forage selection. Trampling likely occurs during early season grazing, especially around Halfway Lake that is utilized as a water source. Grazing of grasses within the community may assist the maintenance of A. lemmonii by reducing competition and maintaining open sites for seedling establishment. During 2009-2013, the A. lemmonii population at Halfway Lake appeared stable under the current management strategy.
Disturbances to A. lemmonii habitat outside of known population sites would increase slightly because a greater acreage of riparian habitat, to which this species occurs in close proximity, would be grazed. This includes the North Sheep Pasture and nine riparian exclosures where grazing would be reintroduced. Areas of the currently grazed Chemult Pasture would experience a lower degree of grazing/trampling due to the larger acreage available for grazing, and slightly decreased AUMS under Alternative 5.
Monitoring and adaptive management would be used to maintain acceptable habitat conditions for this species.
Astragalus peckii Alternative 5 would graze occupied A.peckii habitat located in the North Sheep Pasture. Maximum AUMs in the North Sheep Pasture would increase from 343 under Alternative 3, to 431 under Alternative 5. The number of head in this pasture would decrease, but the potential grazing season would increase by one month. The pasture would be rested every third year.
3-61 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
It is unlikely that A. peckii would be actively grazed due to its prostrate growth form and small size. Trampling may occur, as the species is located along the edge of lower Davis Flat Meadow near an intermittent reach of Jack Creek. Livestock may be attracted to the area by water that remains in deeper pools of the creek, as well as shading that occurs along the meadow perimeter. Selective use of competing graminoids through grazing could have a beneficial effect on A. peckii as discussed under the previous alternatives. The population at lower Davis Flat has declined in recent years in the absence of grazing. Reasons for the decline may be due to increased growth of competing plants, but a series of dry years and natural population fluctuations may also be contributing factors. Grazing of occupied habitat under Alternative 5 would be subject to monitoring of A. peckii populations and adaptive management to ensure conservation of these populations. Monitoring would be conducted to determine the degree to which livestock use the habitat area and whether they appear to be contributing to a downward trend. A 20% reduction in the number of individuals located in four monitoring plots established in 2013, combined with evidence of concentrated livestock use, would trigger construction of an exclosure to protect A. peckii populations (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D).
Other potential habitat located in the North Sheep, Chemult, and Tobin Cabin Pastures would also be grazed under Alternative 5. This could have positive or negative effects in local areas as discussed above. Potential habitat located in forested areas would experience decreasing effects of grazing with increasing distance from meadow edges.
Botrychium pumicola Alternative 5 would permit grazing in B. pumicola habitat located in both the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Effects to this species from grazing would be minimal, and similar to those described under Alternative 2.
Carex capitata Eight of the nine population sites of C, capitata in the project area would be grazed under Alternative 5. The amount of occupied and potential habitat permitted for grazing would increase from about 67% under current management, to 93% under Alternative 5. Effects to fen habitats, which provide the majority of occupied and potential habitat for this species are discussed above. Levels of disturbance within currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture should decrease due to the greater amount of acreage and slight reduction in AUMs. However, the potential for reduced trampling disturbances may be decreased by a greater number of livestock head over a shorter period, depending on how evenly livestock are dispersed across the allotment. Conversely, reintroduction of grazing within the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture, nine smaller exclosures, and the North Sheep Pasture, has the potential to reduce habitat conditions on these sites.
C. capitata populations occur in fen inclusions within the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture and three smaller exclosures where grazing would be re-introduced. The site in the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture involves a High-Value fen, so monitoring and adaptive management would be used to ensure habitat is maintained in Good condition (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D). Populations would be monitored in the two smaller exclosures to ensure C. capitata cover does not fall below 10% at Round Meadow, and 30% at Squirrel Camp, as measured by permanent transects at these locations (Appendix C, specialist report). Three other High-Value fens with C. capitata populations outside of exclosures would continue to be grazed under Alternative 5, but with the potential to increase in condition as a result of slightly less AUMs and greater total acreage available for grazing. Additionally, monitoring and adaptive management to ensure less than 10% soil disturbance would occur in these High-Value fens, as well as six other High-Value
3-62 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 fens that contain habitat for C. Capitata. However, fencing of fen inclusions, which would be a main tool of adaptive management to achieve Good conditions, would not be practical in three of the High-Value fens because of the small size of the current exclosure and/or large proportion of fen habitat within the exclosure (Johnson, Squirrel Camp, and Wilshire. A C, capitata population in the recently constructed Upper Jack Creek exclosure (Moffit) would remain ungrazed, as would habitat in the proposed Little Parker and Section 9 exclosures.
Maximum AUM’s on private land in the Chemult Pasture, with management waived to the Forest Service, would increase from 415 to 575 under Alternative 5, but the status of habitat conditions and sensitive plant populations in this area is unknown.
In summary, C. capitata populations and suitable habitat that is currently grazed in the Chemult Pasture should be maintained or improved under Alternative 5 with the slight reduction in AUMs and greater pasture acreage. Monitoring and adaptive management has the potential to achieve or maintain Good conditions in High-Value fens, as well as the occupied sites of Round and Squirrel Camp Meadows. Conversely, occupied and suitable habitat in some of the smaller exclosures where grazing is proposed to be reintroduced has the potential to be degraded if involving less than High Value fens.
Carex lasiocarpa americana This species is known from only one site in the project area that was observed to experience little or no use during 2009-2010 field surveys. Alternative 5 is expected to have no impact on the population because it is unlikely that livestock use near the site would appreciably increase, and there is a low potential for active selection of the species even when grazing occurs in or near the site.
Similar to discussed above, potential habitat that is currently grazed in the Chemult Pasture has the potential to be maintained or improve, while habitat conditions in the riparian exclosures and the North Sheep Pasture where grazing is proposed to be reintroduced has the potential to decrease. Monitoring and adaptive management would be implemented to maintain Good conditions in High-Value fens or those identified for population monitoring of C. capitata.
Castilleja chlorotica The known C. chlorotica site in the project area occurs in the Tobin Cabin Pasture on top of Bald Mountain in an area with limited forage and no water sources to attract livestock. Grazing effects in this site would remain minimal under Alternative 5.
Diplacus tricolor Effects would be the same as described under Alternative 2 with the same number of AUMs and grazing seasons in occupied habitat of the Antelope and Halfway Pastures. Although the potential period of use in the Antelope 2, 3, and 4 Pastures would be season-long, these pastures are assumed to be primarily used during early and late season, which should allow opportunities for seed production without constant interferences of trampling disturbance. Mitigation would require utilization monitoring in the Antelope Pastures to ensure that habitat for D. tricolor is grazed at 50% utilization or less. Additional protection would be provided by potential construction of a 2.5 acre exclosure around the main concentration of plants in the Antelope 1 Pasture.
Utricularia minor Twelve of the seventeen known population sites on the Forest occur in the project area, and ten of the twelve sites would be grazed under Alternative 5. The amount of occupied and potential
3-63 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
habitat permitted for grazing would increase from about 67% under current management, to 93% under Alternative 5. Effects to fen habitats, which provide all of the occupied and potential habitat for this species, are discussed above. Levels of disturbance within currently grazed NFS portions of the Chemult Pasture should decrease due to the greater amount of acreage and slight reduction of AUMs. U. minor habitat in these areas would have the potential to improve over time if the greater number of livestock can be evenly distributed across the pasture. However, reintroduction of grazing within the Jack Creek Riparian Pasture, eight smaller exclosures, and the North Sheep Pasture, has the potential to reduce habitat conditions in these sites. Occupied sites in the recently constructed Upper Jack Creek exclosure would remain ungrazed, as would the proposed exclosure in Little Parker.
Eight of the ten U. minor sites that would be grazed occur in High-Value fens, where monitoring and adaptive management would be used to ensure habitat is maintained in Good condition or trends toward Good condition during the 10-20 year timeframe (Appendix D). Construction of fence exclosures around High-Value fens would be a principal tool of adaptive management to ensure Good conditions. However, it is unlikely that Alternative 5 would appreciably improve habitat conditions in four of the occupied fens that are less than High-Value because mitigation and adaptive management would not be applied as stringently.
Maximum AUM’s on private land in the Chemult Pasture with management waived to the Forest Service would increase from 415 to 575, but the status of habitat conditions and sensitive plant populations in this area is unknown.
In summary, conditions of occupied and suitable habitat for U. minor that is currently grazed in the Chemult Pasture would have the potential to improve under Alternative 5 if livestock can be evenly distributed. Habitat conditions in several sites where grazing is proposed to be reintroduced has the potential to decrease. Monitoring and adaptive management has the potential to maintain or trend towards Good conditions in habitat involving High-Value fens.
Pseudocalliergon trifarium Four of five population sites in the project area (seven known sites on the forest) and approximately 0.4 acres of occupied P. trifarium habitat would be grazed, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. A fifth site in the recently constructed Upper Jack Creek (Moffit) exclosure would remain ungrazed. The amount of occupied and potential habitat permitted for grazing would increase from about 67% under current management, to 93% under Alternative 5. Effects to fen habitats, which provide all of the occupied and potential habitat for this species, are discussed above.
All four sites to be grazed occur in High-Value fens, with one of the sites in Good condition within the Jack Creek riparian exclosure that is proposed to be grazed. The large size of this pasture relative to the fen decreases the potential for adverse effects to existing conditions. Fen conditions in the remaining three sites ranged from Good/Fair to Fair/Poor during 2016 monitoring, and adaptive management would be implemented to maintain or achieve Good conditions in all of the High-Value fens.
Reductions in AUMs and greater acreage available for grazing in the Chemult Pasture should contribute to improved conditions in currently grazed habitat for P. trifarium if the increased number of livestock can be evenly distributed across the pasture. Conversely, reintroduced grazing within the Jack Creek and eight smaller exclosures, as well as the North Sheep Pasture, would have the potential to decrease conditions of potential habitat in these areas, particularly for fens that are not High-Value.
3-64 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Cephaloziella spinigera and Harpanthus flotovianus Effects to fen habitats, which provide all of the potential habitat for these bryophyte species are discussed above. The effects of grazing on these species are not known, but are expected to be negative, primarily as a result of trampling. The amount of potential habitat for these species that would be grazed would increase from about 67% under current management, to 93% under Alternative 5. Maintaining High-Value fens in Good condition, as well as maintaining no grazing in the recently constructed Upper Jack exclosure and proposed Little Parker exclosures would protect a portion of the habitat or any unknown populations of these species. Reduced AUMs and greater acreage available for grazing should improve potential habitat conditions in areas of the Chemult Pasture that are currently grazed if the increased number of livestock can be evenly distributed across the pasture. Conversely, habitat conditions in the Jack Creek and eight smaller exclosures, and the North Sheep Pasture, would have the potential to decrease with the reintroduction of grazing.
Pseudorhizina californica Reductions in AUMs and greater acreage available for grazing in the Chemult Pasture should contribute to improved conditions in currently grazed forested riparian habitat for P. californica if the increased number of livestock can be evenly distributed across the pasture. Impacts to potential habitat in forested upland areas should decrease with increasing distance from meadow edges. Potentially increased impacts under Alternative 5 compared to current management would primarily involve reintroduced grazing in the North Sheep Pasture and Jack Creek Exclosure that contain forested riparian areas. Reintroduced grazing could also degrade habitat in some of the smaller fen exclosures that contain forest habitat. Grazing disturbances within the relatively small amount of potential habitat in the Tobin Cabin Pasture should decrease with the 52% reduction in AUMs.
Cultural Plants Because Alternative 5 would graze cultural plant habitat inside all of the fenced riparian areas and the North Sheep Pasture, effects to cultural plants would be spread over a larger area than under Alternatives 2 and 4. The slight reduction in AUMs and increased grazing acreage could decrease adverse effects to cultural plant species identified as decreasers if the increased number of livestock can be evenly distributed across the various pastures. Grazing related disturbances would likely remain sufficient to maintain cultural plants identified as increaser species.
As described under Alternative 2, cattle grazing in the project area is expected to have little or no adverse effects to species with low palatability that occur outside of riparian areas. Low levels of use or trampling may occur to these plants, but in general, any grazing use of habitat for these species is likely to have a neutral or slightly positive effect by reducing competition from more palatable species. Species that are favored by grazing disturbance and are listed as increasers by Volland (1985) or Hopkins (2000) may remain static, or increase in vigor and abundance, including those species with low palatability.
Species listed as decreasers, and species with fair to good palatability, especially those that occur in meadows or riparian areas where livestock concentrate, may remain static or decline in vigor and abundance (See Table A-5).
Overall, the effects to increaser and decreaser species might be reduced in currently grazed areas as a result of the increased pasture acreage and reductions in AUMs under Alternative 5.
3-65 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
However, these effects would be exerted in the North Sheep Pasture and nine riparian exclosures where grazing is proposed to be reintroduced. In general Alternative 5 is expected to have a positive effect on ten cultural plant species, a negative effect on sixteen species, and a variable effect or no effect on twenty six species, including those that are unlikely to be present in the project area (see the biological evaluation and botanical specialist report available in the project record).
Invasive Plants Alternative 5 would allow grazing across the 169,599 acre project area. The effects would be the same as those described under Alternative 3.
3.2.3 Effects Determination Summary
3.2.3.1 Fen Habitats
3.2.3.1.1 Alternatives 1 and 4 The removal of grazing disturbances, in all but the Section 9 Spring and fen inclusion under Alternative 4, would improve or maintain fen conditions across the Chemult Pasture, as well as the North Sheep Pasture and Jack Creek Exclosure, which are proposed for grazing under Alternatives 3 and 5. The removal of grazing disturbances would facilitate plant succession towards late seral stages or climax communities. This would result in a decrease of early seral species, many of which are facilitated by a degree of disturbance. The sensitive forb species, Utricularia minor, is often found in shallow flooded hoof prints, but also occurs in undisturbed fens and does not appear to require disturbed substrates. Other non-sensitive species of interest that might be affected by a decrease in disturbance include small statured plants such as Mimulus primuloides and Hypericum anagalliodes. Elk and other wildlife, as well as natural hydrologic processes and conditions, would maintain some habitat for early seral species, but probably at reduced levels compared to current disturbances. There would also be the potential for a decrease in bryophyte populations or suitable habitat if the spread of taller graminoids is facilitated by the removal of grazing. However, the climax community for the primary fen habitats appears to be dominated by bryophytes and short-statured Carex spp., as can be observed in fens that have been excluded from grazing since about 2008. Bryophyte dominated communities are also reported from fen habitat that are minimally used by livestock in areas supporting a greater amount and palatability of upland plant communities compared to the project area (Chadde et al. 1998, Gage and Cooper, 2013).
Graminoid communities adjacent to fens or comprising wet to dry meadows will also trend towards late seral communities with the removal of grazing disturbances. There would be a potential for decreased plant vigor without grazing for some species, and accumulating plant litter may contribute to these changes as a result of decreased sunlight and cooler soil temperatures that can reduce soil microfauna activity and nutrient cycling. Conversely, other studies indicate plant community production can be maintained or increase with a lack of grazing (Helechek et al. 2006, Lacey and Van Poollen, 1981). Accumulating plant litter can favor invasive grasses such as Poa pratensis and Bromus inermis, which are present or even dominate portions of some meadows and represent transitions to new vegetative states with dramatic reductions in native plant diversity.
3.2.3.1.2 Alternative 2 Continuation of current grazing management under Alternative 2 is expected to maintain fen conditions in the project area similar to existing conditions. There is some potential for changes
3-66 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 in livestock distribution patterns to shift over time within the Chemult Pasture for a variety of reasons, such that the degree of disturbance within individual fens will change over time. However, average fen conditions across the Chemult Pasture are unlikely to improve, with about half of the High-Value fens at less than Good or desired condition. Fens within riparian exclosures would be maintained in Good condition, but only two of these sites contain High- Value fens. There is the potential for the loss of fen integrity and process in the most repeatedly disturbed sites such as Little Parker. Recent changes in hydrologic patterns observed in the Upper Jameson fen (T3), as well as Upper Jack Creek fen are not fully understood, but these types of changes are regularly cited as effects from excessive grazing disturbances in fens (Weixelman and Cooper, 2009). The potential exists for these types of adverse effects to continue and spread into other fens.
3.2.3.1.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would be expected to maintain or improve conditions of High-Value fens if the design criteria limiting the amount of trampling disturbance and bare soil is effectively implemented (Appendix D). Proposed fencing of the Little Parker and Section 9 fens under this alternative would result in the gradual improvement of these sites. The condition of other less than High-Value fen inclusions within riparian exclosures of Round, Squirrel Camp, Dry, and Cannon Well Meadows would have the potential to decrease under the proposal of re- introducing grazing to these sites. Fens in Squirrel Camp and Dry Meadows would be particularly susceptible to adverse effects due to the small size of the exclosures and/or large proportion of fen habitat within the exclosures. Monitoring of Carex capitata populations in the Squirrel Camp and Round Meadow fens would dictate adaptive management to reduce grazing disturbances through reductions in AUMs, additional fencing around the fen inclusion, or other means. However, additional fencing appears impractical in the Squirrel Camp fen due to the already small size of the exclosure. Down cut channels immediately below the fen also increase the susceptibility of this site to reintroduced grazing disturbances, and the same is true to a lesser extent for Dry and Riders Camp Meadows.
The large majority of fens are not categorized as High-Value and do not occur within riparian exclosures that would be excluded from grazing under Alternative 3. Disturbances would be similar or somewhat less than current levels in these sites, with some potential for changes in livestock distributions to shift disturbance patterns in fens across the pasture. There would be a slight reduction in the maximum number of AUMs in the Chemult Pasture, and this use would be dispersed across a larger acreage, most significantly involving reintroduced grazing to the Jack Creek, Round Meadow, and Riders Camp exclosures. This should result in a decreased level of grazing disturbances in any given fen, but the degree to which this will result in improved conditions could greatly vary among sites. The degree of benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture. Cooper and Wolf (2006) found even light grazing of degraded fens resulted in the persistence of degraded conditions, and monitoring during 2015-2016 indicated moderate or light utilization in some sites resulted in more than 10% soil disturbance, while moderate utilization in other sites resulted in an acceptable level of trampling disturbances (Washington 2017). Potential improvement of some fens would likely occur in combination with potential decreases in condition of other fens, including those in the six exclosures and North Sheep Pasture where grazing would be reintroduced.
3-67 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.2.3.1.4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would be subject to the same mitigation or design criteria as Alternative 3 to limit trampling disturbances in the High-Value fens, thereby maintaining or improving conditions if effective measures are implemented. Proposed fencing of the Little Parker fen would facilitate or hasten improvement of conditions at this High-Value site. The benefit to conditions in these fens would likely occur in combination with reintroduced grazing in nine riparian exclosures, of which only one site contains a High-Value fen. However, two of the exclosures contain fens with C. capitata populations that would be monitored to reduce grazing disturbances if certain thresholds are exceeded. Reintroduced grazing in four of the remaining seven sites has a high potential to adversely affect fen conditions due to the small size of the exclosure and/or large proportion of the exclosure occupied by fen habitat. Three of these sites contain Medium-Value fens, primarily due to the small fen sizes, while two sites contain Low-Value fens. The ninth riparian exclosure does not contain fen habitat.
The large majority of fens are not categorized as High-Value and would be grazed, with some potential for shifting livestock distributions to shift disturbance patterns in fens across the Chemult Pasture. Disturbances would be similar or somewhat less than current levels in these sites, due to a slight reduction in the maximum number of AUMs and increased acreage available for grazing. The degree of benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture. Cooper and Wolf (2006) found even light grazing of degraded fens resulted in the persistence of degraded conditions, and monitoring during 2015-2016 indicated moderate or light utilization in some sites resulted in more than 10% soil disturbance, while moderate utilization in other sites resulted in an acceptable level of disturbances (Washington 2017). Potential improvement of some fens would likely occur in combination with potential decreases in condition of other fens, including those in the nine exclosures and North Sheep Pasture where grazing would be reintroduced.
The three year rotation schedule under Alternative 5 could result in variable impacts from year to year and may shift livestock use at individual fens from what has occurred under current management. This may contribute to a decreased level of grazing disturbances in some fens or allow increased periods of recovery, but the effectiveness of using the 94 Road as a pasture boundary without fencing is questionable.
Table 3-6 Comparison of the Action Alternatives on acres of permitted grazing in fen habitat that is occupied or suitable for sensitive plants, mollusks, and insects.
Number Subject To Grazing by Alternative Total Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 acres of fen habitat 561 376 515 0 524 # of fens with sensitive plant occurrences 15 9 12 0 13 acres of potential sensitive mollusk habitat 942 471 887 0 909
3-68 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
acres of potential Bombus occidentalis habitat 6282 5026 6224 2943 6237 acres of potential Plebejus podarce klamathensis habitat 985 592 940 0 949 Relative Intensity of Grazing in Key Pastures for Sensitive Plants and Terrestrial Mollusks**
Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Chemult Pasture Moderate to Moderate to outside fenced riparian high, high, areas high variable not grazed variable Chemult Pasture inside fenced riparian areas not grazed Medium not grazed Medium
North Sheep Pasture not grazed Medium not grazed Medium Medium to Medium to Medium to Medium to Antelope 1 pasture high high high high Halfway pasture medium medium medium medium *Section 9 Fen and 8 acres of the sensitive terrestrial mollusk habitat in the Tobin Cabin Pasture would be excluded after fencing is completed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. **Comparative ranking within each pasture by alternative, based on proportion of AUM’s to acres grazed, number of livestock, grazing duration, and/or percent utilization allowed.
3.2.3.2 Sensitive Plants
3.2.3.2.1 Known Occurrence or High Likelihood Impact determinations for these 13 species are based on potential direct and indirect effects (Table 3-4). For at least one alternative, direct and indirect effects to these species determined that actions proposed have a MIIH determination for these species. Astragalus lemmonii Alternative 1 Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitat of A. lemmonii but is not likely to cause a loss of species viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 1 would remove trampling impacts, but without grazing disturbance, plants may be less able to compete with graminoids within the relatively densely vegetated habitat where the species occurs. Populations would likely persist, but might be reduced over time.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 may impact individuals or habitat of A. lemmonii, but are not likely to cause a loss of viability of the populations, or the species as a whole, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Trampling of individuals may occur, but grazing of competing graminoids could have a beneficial effect on the species. Populations appear stable with current grazing. Population monitoring at the Halfway and Antelope 3 Pastures would be implemented under Alternatives 3 and 5 to limit excessive grazing related disturbances if linked to declines in population vigor or viability (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D).
3-69 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Astragalus peckii Alternatives 1 and 4 The removal of grazing disturbances in occupied habitat under these alternatives is unlikely to impact individuals or habitat of A. peckii. Increased growth of competing vegetation and litter accumulation may occur in habitat located along meadow edges, but shrub/bunchgrass communities that typify much of the species habitat tends to maintain conditions for the maintenance of A. peckii and other forbs.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 may impact individuals or habitat of A. peckii, but are not likely to cause a loss of existing population viability or cause a trend toward federal listing. Trampling of individuals may occur, but grazing of competing graminoids may have a beneficial effect on maintaining open and lightly disturbed conditions. Monitoring and adaptive management would be implemented under Alternatives 3 and 5 to limit excessive grazing related disturbances if linked to declines in population vigor or viability (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D).
Botrychium pumicola and Castilleja chlorotica All Alternatives Grazing management under any of the alternatives is unlikely to have an appreciable effect on individuals or habitat of these species because there is minimal use of the habitat by livestock. These species occur in areas that provides little forage and water sources to attract livestock. The lack of grazing in westside pastures under Alternative 4 would not be associated with an increased potential for plant community development that could increase competitive effects to either species.
Carex capitata Alternatives 1and 4 Alternatives 1 and 4 would have a beneficial impact on C. capitata because grazing related disturbances would be removed from all occupied and potential habitat in the project area.
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat of C. capitata, but is not likely to cause a loss of existing population viability or cause a trend toward federal listing. Six of the nine occupied sites in the project area are located in fens currently rated as Good condition, and five of these sites are located within fence exclosures that would remain ungrazed under Alternative 2. Four other ungrazed exclosures present habitat of varying quality for the species, but are unoccupied. The remaining three occupied fens, as well as numerous unoccupied fens, are accessible to livestock and vary in condition, with the potential for changes in use and disturbance patterns over time.
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 may impact individuals or habitat of C. capitata, but is not likely to cause a loss of existing population viability or cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 3 potentially reduces the intensity of grazing impacts to wetland habitat in current areas of grazing in the Chemult Pasture by slightly reducing the maximum number of AUMs and increasing the acreage for available grazing. The degree of this benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the pasture.
Grazing disturbances would be reintroduced to habitat in six riparian exclosures as well as the North Sheep Pasture. Three of the exclosures support C. capitata populations, and would be monitored and adaptively managed to maintain Good conditions in association with their status as High-Value fens, or important population sites (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D). It is almost certain that the Squirrel Camp exclosure would require immediate adaptive
3-70 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 management due to the small size of the exclosure and considerations for downcut channels immediately below the occupied fen (Rone et al., 2016).
Of six other population sites, two occur within exclosures and would remain ungrazed, while four occur outside of exclosures and would remain subject to grazing. The four grazed sites are High-Value fens that would be monitored to maintain Good conditions (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D). Other suitable habitat occurs in three other riparian exclosures, as well as three proposed or recently constructed exclosures, all of which would remain ungrazed.
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitat of C. capitata, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the populations or cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 5 reduces the intensity of grazing impacts to wetland habitat in current areas of grazing in the Chemult Pasture by reducing the maximum number of AUMs and increasing the acreage for available grazing. The degree of this benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture.
Grazing disturbances would be reintroduced to habitat in nine riparian exclosures as well as the North Sheep Pasture. Three of the exclosures support C. capitata populations and would be monitored and adaptively managed to maintain Good conditions by virtue of their status as High- Value fens or important population sites (Appendix B and C (specialist report), Appendix D). As discussed above, the Squirrel Camp exclosure would require immediate adaptive management to avoid adverse effects to C. capitata populations and habitat. Adverse population effects would also occur within the six acre Wilshire exclosure, but this is not a High-Value fen and the efficiency or implementation of mitigation is less stringent or certain. Three other population sites that would continue to be grazed under Alternative 5 occur in High-Value fens that would be monitored and adaptively managed to maintain Good conditions (Appendix B (specialist report), Appendix D). An additional site that would continue to be grazed does not occur in a High-Value fen, and improvement of currently poor conditions is uncertain despite AUM reductions and increased acreage for grazing. The final population site occurs within a recently constructed exclosure and would remain ungrazed, as would potential habitat in two exclosures proposed for construction under Alternative 5 (Little Parker and Section 9 Spring).
Carex lasiocarpa var. americana Alternative 1 and 4 Alternatives 1 and 4 would have a beneficial impact on C. lasiocarpa americana because grazing related disturbances would be removed from all occupied and potential habitat in the project area.
Alternatives 2 Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat of C. lasiocarpa americana, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the known population site or cause a trend toward federal listing. The only known occupied site of C. lasiocarpa americana in the project area does not currently experience significant livestock grazing. There is some potential for changing livestock distributions over time to result in increased use of the occupied population site, and other unoccupied fen habitat, but there is also the potential for these other sites to experience decreased use.
Alternative 3 This alternative may impact individuals or habitat of C. lasiocarpa americana, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the known population or cause a trend towards federal listing. Alternative 3 reduces the intensity of grazing impacts to wetland habitat in current areas of grazing on the Chemult Pasture by slightly reducing the maximum number of AUMs and increasing the acreage for available grazing. The degree of this benefit would be
3-71 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture. Grazing disturbances would be reintroduced to habitat in six riparian exclosures as well as the North Sheep Pasture. This would have varying potentials to degrade habitat conditions in these areas, depending on the size or proportion of fen inclusions relative to the total exclosure acreage.
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitat of C. lasiocarpa americana, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the known population or cause a trend towards federal listing. There is some potential for changing livestock distributions to result in increased use of the single known occupied population site. Similar to Alternative 3, grazing intensity would be reduced in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture, but grazing disturbances would be reintroduced to nine riparian exclosures and the North Sheep Pasture. This would have varying potentials to degrade habitat conditions in these areas, depending on the size or proportion of fen inclusions relative to the total exclosure acreage.
Diplacus tricolor Alternative 1 Alternative 1 may impact individuals or habitat of D. tricolor, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the populations or cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 1 would remove trampling disturbances in the Antelope 2-4 pastures and could result in improved vigor and reproduction. However, the removal of grazing disturbances could reduce the amount of open habitat or early seral conditions for the species, with the potential for reduced population numbers over time. The Antelope 1 pasture in the adjacent Buck Creek Allotment contains the majority of the D. tricolor population and would continue to be grazed at current levels.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 may impact individuals or habitat of D. tricolor, but are not likely to cause a loss of viability of the populations or cause a trend toward federal listing. Trampling by livestock prior to seed set may impact reproduction of this species, but also helps maintain open habitat. If warranted, fencing around a portion of the population in Antelope Pasture 1 under Alternatives 3-5 would help ensure viability of the species in the project area (Appendix C (specialist report), Appendix D).
Utricularia minor Alternatives 1 and 4 Alternatives 1 and 4 would remove grazing impacts from all occupied and potential habitat in the project area and have a beneficial effect on U. minor.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 These alternatives may impact individuals or habitat of U. minor, but are not likely to cause a loss of viability of the populations or cause a trend toward federal listing. Grazing may cause trampling of plants and impacts to fen habitats, but local observations suggest U. minor has a degree of tolerance to these impacts. Alternative 2 excludes three of the twelve known population sites from grazing. Alternative 3 and 5 would respectively exclude three and two sites from grazing after construction of the proposed Little Parker fen exclosure. Six of the twelve sites that would be grazed under Alternative 3 and 5 are High-Value fens where monitoring and adaptive management would ensure habitat is maintained or trends toward Good condition. The remaining occupied sites, as well as suitable but unoccupied habitat, would be subject to grazing disturbances that may shift in spacial and temporal intensity over time.
Pseudocalliergon trifarium
3-72 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Alternatives 1 and 4 Alternatives 1 and 4 would remove grazing impacts from all occupied and potential habitat in the project area and have a beneficial impact on P. trifarium.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat of P. trifarium, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the populations or cause a trend toward federal listing. One of the five known occupied sites would be excluded from grazing under these three alternatives, but all five sites are located in High-Value fens where monitoring and adaptive management would ensure habitat is maintained or trends towards Good condition (Appendix B (specialist report), Appendix D). Reintroduced grazing within riparian exclosures would potentially effect one known population site. Other sites of suitable but unoccupied habitat would be subject to grazing disturbances that may shift in spacial and temporal intensity.
Cephaloziella spinigera and Harpanthus flotovianus Alternatives 1 and 4 Alternatives 1 and 4 would remove grazing impacts from all occupied and potential habitat in the project area and have a beneficial impact on these bryophytes.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 may impact individuals or habitat of these species, but are not likely to cause a loss of populations that may be present or cause a trend toward federal listing. There are no known sites of these species in the project area, but monitoring and adaptive management would ensure habitat in the High-Value fens is maintained in good condition or trends toward good condition. Other habitat would be subject to grazing disturbances that may shift in spatial and temporal intensity.
Pseudorhizina californica Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would remove grazing impacts from all occupied and potential habitat in the project area and have a beneficial impact on P. californica.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 These alternatives may impact individuals or habitat of P. californica, but are not likely to cause a loss of viability of any populations that may be present or cause a trend toward federal listing. No population sites are known in the project area, but potential habitat includes riparian woodlands that occur around meadow and fen edges. Forested upland habitat also presents potential habitat, but would remain relatively undisturbed under all alternatives.
3.2.3.3 Cultural Plants The analysis area for cumulative effects on cultural plants includes NFS lands in the project area. Ongoing and future foreseeable activities may have effects on cultural plant species that would overlap with the effects of grazing under the action alternatives. As shown in the biological evaluation and botanical specialist report (available in the project record), cultural plant species have variable ecology and therefore would have variable responses to past, ongoing, and future foreseeable actions.
3.2.3.3.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is expected to have variable effects on cultural plants according to individual species ecology. Species that are favored by grazing disturbance (increasers) may decline. Species at risk to trampling or with fair to good palatability that are utilized by cattle (decreasers) may have improved growth and vigor once grazing is discontinued.
3-73 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.2.3.3.2 All Action Alternatives The action alternatives are expected to have variable effects on different cultural plant species according to their individual ecology. Species that are favored by grazing disturbance and are listed as increasers by Volland (1985) or Hopkins (2000) may remain static, or increase in vigor and abundance, including those species with low palatability. Species listed as decreasers, and species with fair to good palatability, especially those that occur in meadows or riparian areas where livestock concentrate, may remain static or decline in vigor and abundance (See Table A- 5). There is some potential for these effects to be dampened under Alternative 3 and 5 in some currently grazed pastures due to the larger acreage for grazing and/or decreased AUMs compared to current management. However, these effects would be reintroduced to riparian exclosures and the North Sheep Pasture that are proposed for grazing under Alternatives 3 and 5.
3.2.3.4 Invasive Plants The analysis area for cumulative effects on invasive plants includes NFS lands in the project area. Ongoing and future foreseeable activities may have effects on invasive plant introduction and spread that would overlap with the effects of grazing under the action alternatives. Invasive plants may be introduced or spread by vehicles or equipment used in these activities. Ground disturbance caused by these activities may create bare soil susceptible to infestation. The potential for invasive plant introduction and spread would be reduced by implementation of Forest Plan prevention standards. The Fremont-Winema Invasive Plant Treatment Project would reduce the potential for invasive plant introduction and spread by allowing for timely treatment of invasive plant sites in the project area. Implementation of the Travel Rule in 2012 would also help prevent spread by limiting off-road travel in the project area.
3.2.3.4.1 Alternative 1 The removal of grazing related disturbances and management activities would decrease the risk of additional invasive plant introductions. Existing weed populations would have the potential for continued spreading, but areas of heavy ground disturbance that facilitate their spread would decrease. On-going weed management activities would continue in the project area, but opportunities for casual weed detections during the course of regular pasture and livestock management would decrease.
3.2.3.4.2 All Action Alternatives Existing conditions that involve relatively low levels of weed infestations suggest that the livestock grazing action alternatives, along with inherent soil characteristics of the project area, pose a relatively low risk of invasive plant introduction and spread. Many of the weed species that plague central Oregon are poorly adapted to wetland conditions, or at the other extreme, dry pumice soils of the uplands that characterize most of the project area. Exceptions to the low potential of weed or invasive plant infestations in the project area include reed canary grass, Kentucky bluegrass, meadow foxtail, and a few other grasses. The potential exists for these species to become an increasing threat in the future in relatively moist to ephemerally wet meadows. Livestock grazing disturbances may assist the spread of these species but is not necessarily a prerequisite. Another major threat involves annual ventenata grass, which offers little or no grazing value after the earliest stages of growth. Although noted in the Chemult Pasture, this species is most likely to become a threat in the eastside pastures such as Tobin Cabin, but its present occurrence in this portion of the project area remains to be investigated. Grazing likely increases the spread of ventenata grass through soil disturbances and reductions in native plant cover.
3-74 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Required Forest Plan invasive species prevention standards and recommended Fremont-Winema Prevention Practices apply to livestock grazing, and would be used where applicable to reduce the risk of invasive plant spread. The Fremont-Winema Invasive Plant Treatment project also reduces the potential for invasive plant introduction and spread, by allowing for timely treatment of invasive plant sites in the project area.
3.2.4 Cumulative Effects The residual impacts of past actions in the project area have resulted in the current distribution and ecological integrity of potential habitat described in the existing condition. Previous actions that may have impacted habitat conditions include the following:
Except for sporadic interruptions, cattle or sheep grazing has occurred throughout the project area for well over 100 years. Prior to construction of fenced riparian areas in 2006-2008, all occupied and suitable habitat would have been subject to grazing impacts according to the level of use in any given area. Similar to current conditions, it is assumed some areas would have received relatively heavy livestock use while other areas received little use. Grazing related impacts have included damage from trampling, soil compaction, altered hydrologic conditions, dispersal of non-native or invasive seed, and herbivory. These effects may be short-term or long term, depending on the repetition of annual livestock distribution patterns. In some cases, grazing may have influenced present plant composition and seral stages, causing habitat to be less or more suitable for certain plant species.
Past sheep grazing in the North Sheep Pasture that has not occurred for about ten years is likely to have had less impact to fen habitat compared to cattle grazing in the Chemult Pasture. Soil disturbance from past sheep grazing was not observed during recent surveys in the North Sheep Pasture. Sheep cause less trampling damage than cattle and are unlikely to have grazed or congregated near fens or flooded areas to the same extent as cattle. Additionally, sheep cause less trampling damage than cattle due to their lower weight and smaller hoof size. Sheep may have grazed Astragalus peckii plants in the North Sheep Pasture in the past, but any affects are unknown. The potential for cattle grazing of A. peckii under alternatives 3 and 5 is lower than that for sheep grazing in the past, but cattle probably have a greater potential for adverse trampling disturbances to the species around meadow perimeters.
Water developments are likely to have adversely effected habitat conditions for several plant species that occur within a given radius of the development, or more specifically, the trough that is supplied by the development. As currently designed, spring developments are constructed with float valves to maintain flow at the source when water troughs are full. This greatly reduces or eliminates the potential for entirely altering wetland conditions around the source, or even dewatering of a fen system. Several previously developed water collection areas in fens appear to have recovered vegetatively with minimal impacts or alteration to plant composition, including bryophyte cover. Future maintenance and disturbance of these sites is inevitable, but observations suggest that careful design and mitigation criteria should allow for native vegetation recovery of these sites. Vegetative conditions around other spring developments are less certain, but a portion are assumed to have been affected by invasive grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass, meadow foxtail, and others, particularly when the adjacent meadow contains these species. Several undeveloped springs that are used as water sources by livestock exhibit high trampling disturbances and an increased risk invasive or undesired plant species establishment.
3-75 Botanical Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
High levels of trampling, loafing, and grazing typically occur within a certain radius of water troughs or stock ponds and can result in soil compaction, decreased plant cover, shifts to early seral plant communities, and establishment of weedy species. However, based on existing observations in the project area, the level of repeated disturbances and/or existing soil conditions do not appear particularly conducive to the establishment of invasive weeds. Water troughs are generally placed in upland habitats, or at least the boundary of uplands and bottomlands, where gravelly pumice soil inhibits the establishment of most weed species, or herbaceous species in general.
Fence construction and maintenance can result in relatively short term disturbances, but these are not expected to have had an appreciable effect on plant composition or cover. The largest threat of this activity is probably associated with cross-country vehicle travel across meadows or wetlands that can result in disturbed vegetation, rutting that changes hydrologic patterns, and the spread of invasive species. However, severe effects of these or other disturbances related to fence maintenance/construction have not been observed. In most cases, the fencelines are constructed in pumice soils outside the margins of meadows or wetlands.
Off-road vehicle use during pasture management, as well as potentially occurring from recreation, is greatly impeded by dense forested uplands and flooded conditions in many of the lowlands. However, dispersed recreation and off-road vehicle travel have impacted some habitat in the vicinity of Halfway Lake (Lynch, 2011).
Past vegetation treatments involving tree removal along fenceline corridors and encroached meadows also has the potential to contribute to vehicle or equipment related ground disturbances that may have impacted some sensitive plant habitat or populations. Treatment of encroaching trees into meadows or fens are conducted to maintain or improve habitat, but may also cause compaction or displacement of soils, reduce shade, increase temperature and evapotranspiration demand, and changes in woody debris inputs depending on how the cut material is handled. Removal of encroaching lodgepole pine in and around fens is primarily accomplished by hand cutting and piling of the material, which reduces the potential for detrimental soil effects associated with heavy equipment. Mitigation requires burn piles to be located outside of fens, reducing the potential for detrimental burning of peat soils. Removal of encroaching lodgepole pine and burning in Round Meadow appears to have been conducted with broadcast rather than pile burning, without severe soil affects. Mitigation for planned tree encroachment treatments, such as Lower Davis Flat, requires locating slash piles outside the known OSF habitat.
Tree harvest and thinning in upland habits within the project area and across the forest generally results in much larger slash piles, where burning results in sterilization of the underlying mineral soil and slow plant recovery. These sites are also highly susceptible to the establishment of invasive plants, which are often the first species to occupy the site. However, as with most of the project area, invasive plants are not as prevalent on these sites compared to other portions of the forest.
The Oatman timber harvest and stand improvement project is removing encroaching trees around the edges of Astragalus lemmonii habitat. Mitigation is in place to reduce impacts to A. lemmonii plants, and the project should help to maintain suitable open habitat for the species. Several other timber projects have occurred over the years in upland habitat that is suitable for some of the sensitive species. Soil disturbance and altered microsite conditions involving reduced woody debris, overstory shade, and humidity, may have adversely affected habitat for some species but improved habitat for other species. It is likely that upland tree densities were
3-76 Botanical Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 historically lower than present due to current fire suppression, which could have facilitated a greater amount of understory forage and greater livestock use of the uplands.
Spotted frog habitat restoration treatments have and will continue to occur in west side pastures of the project area. While some actions such as pond construction could reduce or alter existing habitat for some sensitive plant and mollusk species, they could also create or improve habitat for other species. Beaver reintroductions have been attempted but failed in portions of Jack Creek, but if potential future reintroductions are successful they could similarly decrease or increase habitat conditions for different plant species depending on areas of increased flooding.
A series of drainage ditches were constructed in Round Meadow while it was under private ownership to facilitate grazing and/or agricultural development. These ditches were partially plugged to slow drainage from the meadow when the Forest Service acquired ownership, but occurrences of non-native grasses, including reed canary grass, persist in some areas of the meadow. Other meadows also contain or are sometimes dominated by non-native grasses, which have the potential to continue spreading to other sites. The degree to which these species naturally spread to their current locations or were actively planted is uncertain.
Implementation of the 2012 Travel Planning Rule could result in the closure of some roads that are contributing to resource damage. This could improve habitat conditions in adjacent or downstream sites for some species. Culvert replacement projects along the road network could have temporary localized impacts to fen or wetland habitat but should help to maintain or improve habitat over the long-term.
As noted in the Affected Environment/Existing Condition section, Bombus occidentalis and many other pollinator species have been in sharp decline since the late 1990’s. The potential causes of the decline are discussed in Evans et al. 2008, but may include introduced diseases and parasites and increased use of various pesticides, including Neonicotinoids. The forest has not applied neonicotinoids, and the use of any herbicides in the project area has been very low.
3-77 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.3 Invertebrates Invertebrates (mollusks and insects) were analyzed in both the Botany and Wildlife reports, and are combined below. Out of the sensitive invertebrate species designated by the Regional Forester (2015), six (three mollusks and three insects, Table 17) have potential habitat within the project area, none have been documented in the project area. Only these six species with suitable habitat are discussed further in this document.
Table 3-7. Sensitive Invertebrate species with potential habitat in the project area Refer to Botany Suitable Common Name Scientific Name or Habitat Wildlife report Present Insects Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni Wildlife Yes Gray blue butterfly Plebejus podarce klamathensis Botany Yes Western bumblebee Bombus occidentalis Botany Yes Mollusks Crater Lake tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum crateris Botany Yes Siskiyou hesperian Vespericola sierranus Botany Yes Traveling sideband Monadenia fidelis celeuthia Botany Yes
3.3.1 Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly
This butterfly ranges from central California to southwest BC; in the Cascades, Blue/Wallowas, Coast and Siskiyous. The Johnson’s hairstreak is linked to old-growth and mature forest habitat. Caterpillars feed on dwarf mistletoe on western hemlock and Douglas-fir. Threats to this species include loss of habitat from logging, and spraying to kill tussock moths and budworms (Pyle 2002). Females lay pale eggs directly on dwarf mistletoes on a variety of conifers, especially on ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine (Pyle 2002). Habitat includes low to high altitude clearings among conifer forests, especially mature ponderosa pine, but also lodgepole, true fir, Douglas-fir, and western larch (Pyle 2002).
Potential habitat exists within the project area in all forested types that contain dwarf mistletoe.
3.3.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.3.1.1.1 Alternative 1 In Alternative 1, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2-5. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
Fence removal would have no impact on Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly.
3-78 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.3.1.1.2 Alternative 2-5 Livestock grazing across the allotments would not modify habitat because it does not change forest structure or the presence of mistletoe. The loss of forage and season of use associated with grazing would not affect Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly. Activities associated with fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal and permitted motorized use would not affect Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly individuals or habitat.
3.3.1.2 Cumulative Effects There are no direct or indirect effects to Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly likely, so there are no effects to accumulate. Effects from the action alternatives would not accumulate with other existing or foreseeable future effects; therefore there would be no cumulative effects to Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly.
3.3.1.2.1 All Action Alternatives With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternatives 1-5 would have “no impact” on Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly.
3.3.2 Gray blue butterfly
Plebejus podarce klamathensis (gray blue butterfly) adult butterflies fly in a single annual brood. In Oregon, the butterfly has been documented from June 21st to August 10th, with the majority of records in July. Males visit muddy pools and both sexes visit flowers, often nectaring on yellow flowered species of the sunflower family and pink flowered species (bistort) of the knotweed family (Opler et al., 2006). Eggs of Gray blue butterfly are laid singly on leaves, bracts, or sepals of the hostplant (Opler et al., 2006). Larval food plants in Oregon have not been reported, but shooting stars (Dodecatheon jeffreyi and D. alpinum) are the larval food plants in the Trinities and Sierra Nevada of California (Pyle, 2002). This butterfly species occurs in moderate to high elevation wet montane meadows. Adults are local and do not appear to wander much beyond their meadow habitat (Jordan and Jepsen, 2009). The species has been documented on Klamath District in the vicinity of Bull Swamp Fen. The project area is east of the suspected range of this species as shown in Jordan and Jepsen (2009). However, fens in the project area are similar to Bull Swamp Fen and often contain abundant plants of shooting star. Potential habitat for blue gray butterfly in the project area is estimated to be 985 acres, the total of TEUI map units 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2017 in the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures. Shooting star was not recorded during a recent survey of the Section 9 Fen in the Tobin Cabin Pasture, so that fen is not considered to be potential habitat.
3.3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.3.2.1.1 Alternatives 1 and 4 Alternatives 1 and 4 are likely to have a beneficial impact on individuals or habitat of P.p. klamathensis located on NFS lands in the project area. Removal of grazing disturbance would maintain forage plant availability and reduce trampling of wetland habitats.
3-79 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.3.2.1.2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat of P.p. klamathensis, but is unlikely to cause a loss of species viability from the project area if present, or contribute towards a trend of federal listing. Potential habitat in all of the fenced riparian areas of the Chemult Pasture would be excluded from grazing and none of the potential habitat in the North Sheep Pasture would be grazed. Existing data suggest continued management under Alternative 2 is likely to maintain populations of the potential hostplant Dodecatheon in the project area.
3.3.2.1.3 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 may impact individuals or habitat of P.p. klamathensis, but is not likely to cause a loss of species viability from the project area if present, or contribute towards a trend of federal listing. Alternative 3 potentially reduces the intensity of grazing impacts to wetland habitat in current areas of grazing in the Chemult Pasture by slightly reducing the maximum number of AUMs and increasing the acreage for available grazing. The degree of this benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the pasture. Grazing disturbances would be reintroduced to habitat in six riparian exclosures, as well as the North Sheep Pasture. Three other riparian exclosures, as well as three proposed or recently constructed exclosures would remain ungrazed. Populations of the host plant, Dodecatheon, are likely to be maintained in the project area.
3.3.2.1.4 Alternative 5
Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitat of P. podarce klamathensis but is not likely to cause a loss of species viability from the project area if present, or contribute towards a trend of federal listing. Alternative 5 potentially reduces the intensity of grazing impacts to habitat in current areas of grazing in the Chemult Pasture by slightly reducing the maximum number of AUMs and increasing the acreage for available grazing. The degree of this benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture. Grazing disturbances would be reintroduced to habitat in nine riparian exclosures as well as the North Sheep Pasture. Three proposed or recently constructed exclosures would remain ungrazed. Populations of the host plant, Dodecatheon, are likely to be maintained in the project area.
3.3.2.2 Cumulative Effects See Botanical resources section 3.2.4 Cumulative Effects
3.3.3 Western bumblebee
Bombus occidentalis (western bumblebee) forms annual colonies initiated by single queens. After mating, new queens dig a hole and hibernate over winter, while the rest of the colony dies out. In the late winter or early spring, each queen emerges from hibernation and selects a nest site, which is often a pre-existing hole, such as an abandoned rodent burrow (Andrews, 2010). Bumblebees are generalist species that gather pollen and nectar from a wide variety of flowering plants and forage relatively long distances from the nest (e.g. 70-631 m in Osborne et al., 1999). They need a constant supply of flowers in bloom (Evans et al., 2008). During later stages of
3-80 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 colony development, production of new queens is dependent on access to sufficient quantities of pollen (Evans et al., 2008). Western bumblebees were widespread and common throughout the western United States before 1998 (Evans et al., 2008). Rapid declines have been noted since that time, possibly a result of introduced diseases and pathogens, or a combination of many factors. Since 1998, western bumblebee’s have been found on the Fremont-Winema near Lake of the Woods, and near the town of Lakeview. No sightings are documented in the project area, but no specific surveys have been completed. Non-forested upland habitats and riparian areas are likely to provide the most suitable foraging habitat in the project area, since they contain the greatest abundance and diversity of forbs and shrubs. Approximately 6,282 acres of non- forested uplands and riparian habitats occur on NFS lands in the project area.
3.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects: All alternatives
Grazing related disturbances are likely to have both positive and negative effects on B. occidentalis. Under all of the Alternatives impacts may occur to individuals or habitat, but are not likely to cause a loss of viability of the species from the project area if present, or contribute towards a trend of federal listing. Although direct trampling on a nest site may occur, the complete destruction of a nest would be unlikely due to response of the hive. Existing studies show variable effects of grazing on bumble bees, and B. occidentalis is a generalist that can fly relatively long distances and forage in a variety of habitats in and outside the project area boundary. Grazing can contribute to maintaining a diversity and abundance of forb species that provide nectar, particularly in dry or moist meadow systems. Although Alternatives 1 and 4 may reduce this beneficial effect to some degree, upland habitat that comprises the vast majority of acreage in the project area is minimally utilized by livestock, and is characterized by understory plant communities that support nectar species, although at reduced levels compared to most areas of the forest.
3.3.3.2 Cumulative Effects See Botanical resources section 3.2.4 Cumulative Effects
3.3.4 Sensitive mollusks
Pristiloma arcticum craterisis (Crater Lake Tightcoil), Vespericola sierrianus (Siskiyou Hesperian), and Monadenia fidelis ssp. celeuthia (traveling sideband) are tiny snails 2-3 millimeters in diameter that inhabit riparian areas. Although suitable habitat is present for these species in the project area, the potential for occurrence is low. These three mollusks have not been located outside of the Klamath Ranger District, despite sampling hundreds of riparian sites across the forest. Riparian sites on the Klamath District where Crater Lake Tightcoil has been found are characterized by a mix of conifer and hardwood trees, including Douglas-fir, white fir, Engelmann spruce, and cottonwood. These types of habitats are not present in the project area.
3-81 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.3.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.3.4.1.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is likely to have a beneficial impact (BI) on habitat for three sensitive mollusks located on NFS lands in the project area. Wetland habitat conditions would improve with the removal of grazing and trampling disturbances.
3.3.4.1.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat for the three mollusks but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the species from the project area if present, or contribute towards a trend of federal listing. The closest documented populations of two of the species occurs on the Klamath Ranger District, while the third species is reported from the district but not verified. However, the minute size of these mollusks makes them difficult to find, and also increases their likelihood of persisting in protected microsites if present. Alternative 2 would exclude grazing from approximately 50% of sensitive mollusk habitat in the project area.
3.3.4.1.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 may impact individuals or habitat of the three mollusks, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the species from the project area if present, or contribute towards a trend of federal listing. Alternative 3 potentially reduces the intensity of grazing impacts to sensitive mollusk habitat in current areas of grazing in the Chemult Pasture by slightly reducing the maximum number of AUMs and increasing the total acreage available for grazing. The degree of this benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture. Grazing would be permitted in 94% of mollusk habitat, including six riparian exclosures and the North Sheep Pasture. Habitat in three other riparian exclosures, as well as two proposed or recently constructed exclosures would remain ungrazed.
3.3.4.1.4 Alternative 4 The removal of west side pastures for grazing would have a beneficial impact on individuals or habitat of the three mollusks located on NFS lands in the project area. Alternative 4 would also exclude grazing in mollusk habitat in the Tobin Cabin Pasture through fencing around the Section 9 spring and fen.
3.3.4.1.5 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 may impact individuals or habitat of the three mollusk species, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the species from the project area if present, or contribute towards a trend of federal listing. The intensity of impacts to sensitive mollusk habitat in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture could be reduced by the slight reduction in AUMs and increased acreage available for grazing. The degree of this benefit would be partially dependent on increasing the distribution of the greater number of proposed livestock when they are in currently grazed areas of the Chemult Pasture. Grazing disturbances would be reintroduced to mollusk habitat in all nine riparian exclosures, as well as the North Sheep Pasture. Three proposed or recently constructed exclosures would remain ungrazed.
3.3.4.2 Cumulative Effects See Botanical resources section 3.2.4 Cumulative Effects
3-82 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.4 Wildlife The USFWS identified the TEPC species that should be considered during project planning on the August 16, 2017, list. This list was reviewed for species that may be present on the Fremont- Winema National Forest and found within or immediately adjacent to the project area. All TEP and sensitive species and management indicator species (MIS) were initially considered for this analysis. Of the 36 species considered, the analysis determined there would be no effects/impacts from Alternative 1 or the action alternatives on 3 TEP species and 16 sensitive species because source habitat for these species would not be impacted by proposed activities, the project area is outside their current and historical range, there is a lack of source habitat and/or key habitat features within the project area, or no populations are known to be present within the project area (Table 3-8). Therefore, these species will not be addressed further in this document. Of the 36 species considered, 17 could potentially be affected by the proposed action (Table 3-8). These species are analyzed in detail below and include 1 endangered species, 1 threatened species, 7 sensitive species, and 8 MIS species. Invertebrates are discussed in section 3.3.
Table 3-8. Threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and sensitive wildlife species considered Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Species or Potentially Habitat Present Affected Gray wolf Canis lupis Endangered Yes Yes Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened No No MISb Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa Threatened Yes Yes Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Proposed No No occidentalis Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus Candidate/ No No urophasianus Sensitive Fisher Pekania pennanti Proposed No No Wolverine Gulo luscus Sensitive No No Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Sensitive No No Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Sensitive Yes Yes Fringed bat Myotis thysanodes Sensitive Yes Yes Townsend’s big- Corynorhinus townsendii Sensitive Yes Yes eared bat Bald eagle Haliaeetus Sensitive/MIS No No leucocephalus American peregrine Falco peregrinus Sensitive/MIS No No falcon Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Sensitive No No Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena Sensitive No No Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Sensitive No No Yellow rail Coturnicops Sensitive Yes Yes noveboracensis Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Sensitive No No Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Sensitive No No Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Sensitive Yes Yes
3-83 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Species or Potentially Habitat Present Affected White-headed Picoides albolarvatus Sensitive Yes Yes woodpecker Purple martin Progne subis Sensitive No No America white Pelecanus Sensitive No No pelican erythrorhynchos Columbia spotted Rana luteiventris Sensitive No No frog Northern leopard frog Rana boylii Sensitive Yes No Northwestern pond Clemmys marmorata Sensitive No No turtle Mardon skipper Polites mardon Sensitive No No Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus MIS Yes No American marten Martes MIS Yes No Goshawk Accipiter gentilis MIS Yes No Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus MIS Yes No Red-naped Sphyrapicus nuchalis MISc Yes No sapsucker Black-backed Picoides arcticus MISc Yes No woodpecker Three-toed Picoides tridactylus MIS Yes No woodpecker Primary excavators Various MISc Yes No aMIS = Management Indicator Species bMIS on Winema portion of the Fremont-Winema National Forest only cMIS on Freemont portion of the Fremont-Winema National Forest only
3.4.1 Gray Wolf Wolves are considered a federally endangered species on the Fremont-Winema National Forest (see specialist report for map). The consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is completed for effects of grazing to gray wolves. The Biological Assessment and Letter of Concurrence is on file and incorporated by reference.
Species description, habitat, and life history Despite their name, gray wolves may be white, tawny gray or black, or any combination of those colors. Approximately half of any gray wolf population actually is gray. Adult male gray wolves typically weigh between 90 and 110 pounds, and may exceed 5-1/2 feet in length from nose to tail tip. Adult females typically weigh between 80 and 90 pounds and can be 5-feet long. Pups are born with black spots on the upper outside of their tails, which may fade with age.
Between April 1 and July 15, pack activity is centered near the den or at one or more rendezvous sites in close proximity to the den, as the adult wolves hunt and return with food for the pups. Rendezvous sites typically are located in meadows or forest openings near the den, but can be several miles away as pups become more mobile. Adults carry small pups between the
3-84 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 rendezvous sites, where the pups stay until they are able to travel and hunt with the pack, which usually occurs by September.
Wolves are habitat generalists and will establish territories anywhere there is a sufficient food source (primarily large ungulates). When setting out to establish new territories, young male wolves disperse an average of 50 to 60 miles from their source pack, and females disperse an average of 40 miles. However, dispersals of more than 500 miles have been reported. Pack boundaries and territory sizes vary from year to year depending on changes in prey availability, distribution, conflict with nearby wolf packs, or the establishment of a new neighboring pack.
Wolves are opportunistic carnivores whose primary prey is deer, elk and moose. When these prey are not available, wolves will eat smaller animals such as rabbits, beavers, grouse, ravens, skunks, coyotes, porcupines, eagles and fish. Wolves also may kill and feed upon domestic livestock such as cattle, sheep, llamas, and goats. When necessary, wolves also will eat insects, nuts and berries.
Summary of Relevant Findings in the Scientific Literature Research has pointed to three factors that influence wolf dispersal: prey abundance, age, and sex of the individual (Messier 1985). Potvin (1988) found an average dispersal age of 10-20 months, and an average distance of 25 miles, which closely mimics other studies that have shown an average 30 mile dispersal range (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Data collected from Oregon radio- collared wolves show dispersal ranges far greater than those in other literature, probably due to the range expansion as wolves move westward. Mean dispersal distance in Oregon is 90 miles (2009-2015, ODFW). From 2011-2015, dispersing wolves traveled from the northeast part of the state to central Oregon, the Cascade Range, and into California.
A review of relevant literature also found: • Response of wolves to human disturbance is variable. • Wolves typically avoid areas of high human use; but can tolerate human activity. • Land cover and prey availability are the most important factors of wolf habitat. • Wolves are generalists and adaptable. Wolf behavior is relatively well understood, but exceptions exist and response to disturbance is variable.
Project Area Information See the specialist report for a map of the Areas of Known Wolf Activity (AKWA) areas identified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife dated December 2016. The Silver Lake AKWA overlaps a small portion of the project area. The nearest known wolf denning activity is the Rogue Activity Area located approximately 40 miles to the southwest on the Rogue-River Siskiyou National Forest. The Antelope Project Area provides deer and elk, as well as other prey species for wolves year-round.
3-85 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.1.1 Direct & Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 In Alternative 1, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2-5. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
There would be no direct or indirect effects to wolves. Existing habitat conditions and prey base would not change. The potential for wolf/human conflict from fence removal would not be of magnitude to cause an effect. Natural processes over the long term such as growth in vegetation would not affect wolf behavior or ability to survive.
3.4.1.2 Direct & Indirect Effects - Alternatives 2 - 5 Wolves may be temporarily displaced or effect the behavior of resident or dispersing wolves during or after grazing associated activities, but it would be difficult to attribute wolf movement to a specific activity. The scale of most management activities on the Forest is small in comparison to the normal range and movements of wolves. Therefore, wolves may avoid or not be present in a particular area during activities, but this is likely to have discountable effects to wolves due to their wide-range behavior.
Elk, deer, and livestock share rangelands throughout the Forest from late spring to early fall. Studies have demonstrated spatial displacement and niche shifts of native ungulates by livestock, but displacement was temporary and only occurred while livestock were present on the allotment (Stewart et al. 2002, Wallace and Krausman 1987, Loft et al. 1991, and Coe et al. 2005). Cattle use on the Forest may cause big game to change their use patterns, which may change the use patterns for wolves. However, the scale of displacement is small and discountable in comparison to the normal range and movements of wolves.
Livestock grazing could result in livestock/wolf interactions which is an alteration from normal wolf behavior. Although wolves normally prey on wild ungulates or other wild animals, they sometimes attack and kill livestock or other domesticated animals. Livestock depredation by wolves is difficult to predict and seems to be influenced by many factors.
3.4.1.3 Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the area of the allotments, including all National Forest System lands and non-National Forest System lands (private). All activities listed in Appendix C were reviewed for potential effects to wolves within the cumulative effects analysis area. The only projects that could cause a cumulative effect to wolves are past, ongoing, and future grazing, vegetation management, or fuels management activities.
Wolves may be temporarily displaced or effect the behavior of resident or dispersing wolves during or after a vegetation, fuels, or grazing associated activities, but it would be difficult to attribute wolf movement to a specific activity. The scale of most management activities on the Forest is small in comparison to the normal range and movements of wolves. Therefore, wolves may avoid or not be present in a particular area during activities, but this is likely to have discountable effects to wolves due to their wide-range behavior.
3-86 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Elk, deer, and livestock share rangelands throughout the Forest from late spring to early fall. Cattle use, vegetation management, or fuels management on the Forest may cause big game to change their use patterns, which may change the use patterns for wolves. However, the scale of displacement is small and discountable in comparison to the normal range and movements of wolves. Livestock grazing could result in livestock/wolf interactions which is an alteration from normal wolf behavior. Although wolves normally prey on wild ungulates or other wild animals, they sometimes attack and kill livestock or other domesticated animals. Effects Determination With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects considered, the effects of Alternatives 1-5 are insignificant and discountable because: 1. Wolves may avoid or not be present in a particular area during grazing activities, but this is likely to have discountable effects to wolves due to their wide-range behavior. 2. Cattle use on the Forest may cause big game to change their use patterns, which may change the use patterns for wolves. However, the scale of displacement is small and discountable in comparison to the normal range and movements of wolves.
Therefore, the implementation of Alternative 1-5 May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect gray wolves.
3.4.2 Oregon Spotted Frog The Jack Creek OSF population was discovered in 1996 and was known to exist between the Moffit private and Lower Jamison private parcels. In 2013-2016, OSF were detected south of Lower Jamison private land near the junction of NFS road 8821 and just south of Davis Flat Bridge near Yellow Jacket Spring. Potential habitat also exists south of Davis Flat to NFS road 83. This discovery indicates a larger area of use and an increase in numbers for the Jack Creek population. This area has received very little attention and the extent of breeding, summer, or overwintering habitat within this area is unknown. Breeding surveys commenced in this area in between 2014-2016 to gain additional knowledge of the potential habitat and use by OSF. This area of Jack Creek is intermittent and much of the late summer habitat is remnant pools that are probably hydrologically influenced by springs or seeps. OSFs have been found using undercut banks, beaver runs, and deep pools in the main creek channel at Jack Creek. In addition, there are several seeps and springs along Jack Creek that likely provide overwintering habitat. Breeding sites on Jack Creek tend to occur in ephemeral pools in open sunny conditions. Water depths range from 4 cm to 37 cm. In low water years, egg masses located in water depths <10 cm are susceptible to desiccation and stranding, which has been documented at Jack Creek. With the loss of beavers in the Jack Creek system, open water habitat has declined so OSFs are increasingly confined to the main channel of Jack Creek. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa), which is incorporated by reference, includes a detailed account of the life history, threats, and management considerations for this species (Cushman and Pearl 2007). In addition, a Conservation Agreement for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Klamath Basin of Oregon, was completed in May of 2010 in partnership between the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, Lakeview District of the Bureau of Land Management and Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management. This document includes the following information about the life history and threats to the OSF Region-wide and within the Klamath Basin.
3-87 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Species Description, Habitat, and Life History The OSF is the most aquatic ranid frog in western North America (Leonard et al. 1993). The back usually has black spots or rings with uneven edges and light centers (Leonard et al. 1993, Corkran and Thoms 1996). The belly and groin region display a mottled wash of red-to-orange in adults, but coloration in juveniles can be absent or occurs over small portions of underside of thighs or groin (Hayes 1998). The eyes are upturned relative to other Northwestern native frogs, and the feet can be fully webbed (Corkran and Thoms 1996). The hind legs are relatively short compared to body length. Eggs are laid in fist-sized spherical masses containing 300 to 1500 embryos, and tadpoles are brown or gray with gold flecks, and the tail is about twice the body length (Leonard et al. 1993, Corkran and Thoms 1996). Oviposition sites tend to be near the shore in shallow water, and are usually positioned above vegetated, gently-sloped substrates (Pearl et al. 2009a) Eggs are generally laid above sedges, grasses, and rushes in early spring before plant growth has begun (Pearl et al. 2009a). Post-breeding habitats used by OSFs are typically aquatic and often have areas of floating, emergent, or submergent vegetation that is near refuge that can be used to escape predators. One study in Oregon found that egg mass numbers were positively related to the presence of other OSF breeding sites nearby and the amount of emergent and submergent vegetation coverage (Pearl et al. 2009a). Habitats used during winter include flowing channels and springs (Shovlain 2005, Chelgren et al. 2008). Based on a telemetry study at one lowland site in western Washington, Watson et al. (2003) summarized seasonal requirements for OSFs as 1) stable, shallow water for egg and tadpole survival in the breeding season; 2) deep, moderately vegetated pools for adult and juvenile survival in the dry season; and 3) shallow water levels over emergent vegetation for protecting all age classes during the cold weather in the wet season. OSFs typically oviposit communally and these aggregations can contain eggs from 100 or more females in larger populations (Pearl et al. 2009a). Communal oviposition may be linked to the female’s affinity for depositing egg masses on top of previously laid egg masses (Licht 1969). Licht (1969) reported that initial breeding activity from one low elevation site in British Columbia began when air temperatures were at least 5 degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit). However, the trigger for breeding is not well understood and is likely to vary geographically and with elevation (C. Pearl, pers. comm). High breeding site fidelity is suspected because oviposition often occurs within 0.5 meters (20 inches) of previous years locations (Licht 1969). Use of traditional oviposition sites that may have limited availability because of unique characteristics, and the possibility that adults may have limited flexibility to switch sites, makes the OSF particularly vulnerable to habitat changes at oviposition sites (Hayes 1994). The species is currently known from less than 50 population complexes in southwestern British Columbia; western and south-central Washington; and western, central, and south-central Oregon; no populations are known to persist in California (Cushman and Pearl 2007). Revisits of historic localities led Hayes (1997) to conclude that the species may be lost from 70 to 90% of its historic range. Most of the extant sites in the Klamath Basin are relatively higher in elevation and maintain the least altered hydrology (Hayes 1997). These sites also have the fewest exotic aquatic predators when compared to historic sites (Hayes 1997). In general, habitat modifications and aquatic predators have been more substantial at lower elevations than higher elevations, suggesting that either one or a combination may be responsible for the failure to record the species at lowland historical sites (Hayes 1997).
3-88 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Species Vulnerability and Threats to the Species The following aspects of the OSF's life history have been proposed as contributing to the species’ vulnerability to habitat alterations (Hayes 1994, 1997, Watson et al. 2003, Pearl et al. 2004, Cushman and Pearl 2007, Pearl et al. 2009b): • Communal egg laying at sites used year after year restricts the number of reproductive sites • The species' warm water requirement results in habitat overlap with introduced warm water fish • The active season warm water requirement may limit suitable habitat in the cool climates of the Pacific Northwest • The species may be vulnerable to the potential loss or alteration of springs used for overwintering • Changes that increase deep, permanent water components are likely to favor establishment of non-native bullfrogs and fish, both of which may be detrimental to OSFs Several threats or stressors occur across the range of the species (detailed information about these stressors is available in the wildlife technical report in the project record): • Loss and alteration of wetland habitat—Fluctuating water levels at critical periods in the species’ lifecycle may negatively affect the species. • Plant succession and other vegetative changes—Succession by native and non-native vegetation has the potential to modify conditions at wetlands associated with OSF habitat (Cushman and Pearl 2007). • Livestock grazing—Factors such as grazing intensity, timing of grazing relative to vulnerable life stages of the OSF, and habitat type and extent all contribute to whether grazing has a positive or negative effect on the species. • Water quality degradation—Water quality and the absorption of contaminants in water through the skin and gills in immature forms may threaten this species (Marco et al. 1999). • Isolation and ownership—With the exception of the upper Deschutes Basin sites, distances separating most of the known OSF populations are generally at least 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) from one another (Cushman and Pearl 2007). Long-distance movements by OSF appear to be infrequent and strongly linked to aquatic corridors (Watson et al. 2003). Most of the known populations of OSF in the Klamath Basin are found in mixed ownerships, including federal and private lands, which may provide challenges for conservation and restoration. • Climate change— Changes in water levels or localized drought from climate change can cause seasonal loss of habitat and degradation of essential shoreline vegetation. In general, the water supply in the Klamath Basin is expected to become more variable. Therefore, the magnitude of stressors to OSF are expected to increase as they interact with water supply. • Disease—Disease can strongly impact small populations that are already stressed by other factors (e.g., drought or low food availability). In general, little information is known about the prevalence and magnitude of threats to this species in the Klamath Basin. More importantly, the relative importance of each stressor and the potential for interaction is not well understood. However, because multiple stressors can interact, all potential threats to OSF in addition to grazing must be addressed.
3-89 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Jack Creek Oregon Spotted Frog Management Plan The Jack Creek OSF Site Management Plan, which is incorporated by reference, provides an overview of conservation challenges and opportunities for Jack Creek and it summarizes possible actions that may help to achieve the management goals for that particular site for a species of interest (Gervais 2011). The goal of this management plan is to restore habitat so that OSF can expand and recolonize formerly occupied habitat along Jack Creek. This management plan lists altered hydrologic regimes as a conservation challenge. Hydrological regimes in Jack Creek may be affected by grazing, particularly in drought years when removing water for livestock may be proportionately greatest. However, whether or not cattle remove enough water to be of concern is not known. Cattle trails may increase water flow off of meadows, reducing the amount of water in shallow, flooded habitat. In addition, cattle–frog conflicts may increase under limited stream flow, especially if cattle are using the same few pools as frogs; direct risks, such as trampling, and indirect risks, such as reduced water quality, increase. Desired conditions for Jack Creek include restored hydrological conditions with unshaded open water for breeding and rearing and plentiful off-channel shallows. Deep water and springs for overwintering would also help maintain summer water. Desired site conditions also include maintenance of appropriate vegetation structure in breeding pools and summer areas, and a restored water table. Other desired conditions include off-channel habitat in the form of ponds and springs that maintain water throughout the active season, and pools and channels within the creek that are sufficiently deep to provide overwinter habitat. The Jack Creek OSF population is at critically low numbers, with fewer than 20 known breeding females. Because such small populations are prone to wide fluctuations solely due to chance, frog numbers are not a reliable benchmark for management actions. Instead, habitat characteristics can serve as restoration goals and triggers for changes in management strategy. Even if frogs are not detected, maintaining habitat would protect any undetected animals and maintain the integrity of the riparian wetlands and allow for reintroduction if the population becomes extinct. Several management actions are identified in the management plan, including reinforcing existing beaver dams, planting and protecting willow, reintroducing beaver, repairing channels, removing lodgepole pine, reintroducing fire, removing invasive species, preventing disease introductions, minimizing the risk of research, mowing oviposition habitat, restoring cattle trails, and implementing adaptive management. Cattle grazing is also identified as a potential management action.
Distribution It is unknown whether Round Meadow provides the habitat variables necessary for all life stages of OSFs. The site appears to provide breeding habitat in the spring and maintains open water through the summer. It is unknown whether the site provides suitable overwintering habitat. The site is also hydrologically isolated and there is no perennial connection with other OSF populations. Therefore the likelihood of discovering OSFs at Round Meadow is slim. It is likely that the only potential for establishment of a population at Round Meadow would be through relocation (A. Markus pers. opinion). OSF surveys were conducted at Round Meadow in 2001 and 2002 and there were no detections of OSF. For reasons described above, Round meadow will not be considered potential habitat for OSF in this assessment.
The Jack Creek OSF population was discovered in 1996 and it was known to exist between the Moffit Private and Lower Jamison Private. In 2013-2016, OSF were detected south of Lower
3-90 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Jamison Private near the junction of road 8821 and just south of Davis Flat Bridge near Yellow Jacket Spring. Potential habitat also exists south of Davis Flat to Road 83. This discovery is extremely positive because it may indicate a larger area of use and an increase in numbers for the Jack Creek population. It is important to recognize that this area has received very little attention and it is unknown the extent of breeding, summer, or overwintering habitat within this areas. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, four, five and two eggmasses were detected on Forest Service land in Davis Flat respectively. This area of Jack Creek is intermittent and much of the late summer habitat is remnant pools that are probably hydrologically influenced by springs or seeps.
OSF habitat on USFS and private land were identified based on the designation of critical habitat for the species as well as the criteria that the USFWS used to delineate critical habitat based on 2012 aerial photo imagery and mapping all associated riparian and wetland habitats.
OSFs have been found using undercut banks, beaver runs, and deep pools in the main creek channel at Jack Creek. In addition, there are several seeps and springs along Jack Creek that likely provide overwintering habitat. Breeding sites on Jack Creek tend to occur in ephemeral pools in open sunny conditions. Water depths range from 4 cm to 37 cm. In low water years, eggmass located water depths <10 cm are susceptible to desiccation and stranding, which has been documented at Jack Creek. With the loss of beavers in the Jack Creek system, open water habitat has declined so OSFs are increasingly confined to the main channel of Jack Creek.
Potential habitat includes only those lands that currently are capable of supporting OSFs based on ground knowledge and professional judgment. Other areas exists within the project area (i.e. Upper Jack to the headwaters of Jack Creek, Johnson and Jamison Tributaries, etc.) that could become potential habitat with intensive restoration such as pond creation or beaver establishment. Restoration within these areas is not a reasonable foreseeable future action and is not likely to occur within the next 10 years. Therefore, these areas are not considered to provide potential habitat for this species and therefore are not considered in the analysis.
The newly discovered habitat at located within the North Sheep Pasture is based on EUI data and general habitat surveys conducted in 2013. Ground surveys were not completed within the private land located within the North Sheep Pasture (O’Connor Meadow), so the habitat generalizations are based on the EUI data only.
Table 3-9 provides a summary of location by name, ownership, total size, total acres by TEUI, and description of habitat. See Maps in the Appendix B of this wildlife report of Jack Creek Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat.
Table 3-9. Oregon spotted frog habitat on Jack Creek Location Land Ownership Acres Chemult Pasture National Forest System and private lands 48 Jack Creek Unit Pasture 1 National Forest System lands 8 Jack Creek Unit Pasture 2 National Forest System lands 56 Jack Creek Unit Pasture 3 National Forest System and private lands 57 Jack Creek Unit Pasture 4 National Forest System and private lands 94 North Sheep Pasture National Forest System and private lands 261
3-91 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.3 Oregon Spotted Frog Critical Habitat The proposed project occurs within the Oregon spotted frog Williamson River Critical Habitat Unit (Unit 12). This unit is 15,152 acres in size of which, the Fremont-Winema manages 619 acres of Oregon spotted frog critical habitat. There is currently 522 acres of critical habitat within the proposed project area. 424 acres of critical habitat occur within the project area and are associated with the proposed action.
3.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.3.1.1 Measurement Indicators Indicators used to measure effects are selected so that the effects of the project alternatives can be compared and contrasted (Table 3-10). Measures were selected for project effects based on professional judgment and a thorough review of literature on the interaction between wildlife and grazing. Indicators for wildlife species are based on the amount of potential and/or occupied habitat for each species.
Table 3-10. Comparison of effects to Oregon spotted frog (OSF) by alternative using the measurement indicators Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Acres of OSF habitat permitted for 27 27 525 27 525 grazing
Acres of OSF habitat Critical Habitat 27 27 404 27 404 permitted for grazing
3.4.3.1.2 Alternatives 1 and 4 In alternatives 1 and 4, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
Alternatives 1 and 4 would potentially have both positive and negative impacts to OSF or OSF habitat. There would be no grazing within the entire Chemult Pasture, Jack Creek Unit, or North Sheep Pasture. Grazing on Jack Creek may benefit OSF by helping to maintain the early seral stages in the vegetative structure and by removing biomass from oviposition sites (White 2002). With no grazing in OSF habitat, there would be no potential benefit by the removal of biomass from oviposition sites. Removing fences and water developments may cause localized sedimentation if located on Jack Creek. On the other hand, no grazing is expected to improve stream conditions over time in the localized areas that are damaged from grazing, there would be no risk of trampling, livestock trails would fill in overtime, and there would be no risk of cattle introducing invasive species.
3.4.3.1.3 Alternative 2 Grazing is proposed on Jack Creek in the Chemult Pasture in 27 acres of OSF habitat on USFS land. Direct and indirect effects to the species and its habitat from the management of the allotment include: the potential destruction of riparian habitat, the potential alteration of the hydrology within the Jack Creek system, the potential to trample individuals, and the potential to
3-92 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 introduce non-natives, parasites, or pathogens. The modification of riparian habitat includes the direct removal of vegetation either through consumption or trampling. This has the potential to be both detrimental and beneficial depending on the extent of the impact, the duration, and the features impacted (i.e. springs, banks, etc). The alteration of the hydrology of the system includes spring trampling which can reduce the amount of water entering the creek, reduction in water due to cattle consumption, bank erosion which eliminates potential breeding habitat and increases sedimentation in the system, and removal of vegetation which creates a “flashy’ hydrologic system. In addition, cattle moving across the landscape can maintain existing or potentially create new cattle trails throughout the riparian area. These trails behave like conduits and shunt water rapidly across the landscape, which has the potential to result in off channel breeding areas being drained more rapidly than naturally expected and threatening eggmasses with desiccation. Cattle also bed down in specific areas which can have detrimental impacts to Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat.
In Alternative 2, there would be no grazing on FS lands within the Jack Creek Unit or North Sheep Pasture. However, it is expected that some cattle may periodically get through the fence into these areas. As described above under Alternative 2, unauthorized use is expected to occur and the number of livestock involved in the unauthorized use varies between 4 cow/calf pairs to 20 cow/calf pairs resulting in light use (5-10% utilization). If this occurs, the permit would be alerted immediately to remove cattle from the area. Although the potential is slim, this could result in trampling of frogs. Due to the short duration of grazing from potential unauthorized cattle, potential impacts such as a potential decline in water quality, reduction in vegetation that provides cover and prey habitat, establishment of cattle trails that may divert water, loss of water from livestock drinking, and a reduction in residual vegetation in breeding habitat are expected to have negligible impacts to OSF habitat.
In Alternative 2, the only monitoring within the allotment would be stubble height and utilization implementation monitoring. Without the additional monitoring and adaptive management process as described for Alternatives 3 and 5, long-term trend of the stream channel would not be monitored, and therefore would not allow for changes in management overtime to assure maintenance of suitable habitat for OSF.
3.4.3.1.4 Alternatives 3 and 5 Under Alternatives 3 and 5, grazing management would incorporate the recommendations from the Jack Creek Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan (Gervais 2011) on both NFS and private lands as summarized in Chapter 2. Direct and indirect effects to the species and its habitat from the management of the allotment include: the potential destruction of riparian habitat, the potential alteration of the hydrology within the Jack Creek system, the potential to trample individuals, and the potential to introduce non-natives, parasites, or pathogens. The modification of riparian habitat includes the direct removal of vegetation either through consumption or trampling. This has the potential to be both detrimental and beneficial depending on the extent of the impact, the duration, and the features impacted (i.e. springs, banks, etc). The alteration of the hydrology of the system includes spring trampling which can reduce the amount of water entering the creek, reduction in water due to cattle consumption, bank erosion which eliminates potential breeding habitat and increases sedimentation in the system, and removal of vegetation which creates a “flashy’ hydrologic system. In addition, cattle moving across the landscape can maintain existing or potentially create new cattle trails throughout the riparian area. These trails behave like conduits and shunt water rapidly across the landscape, which has the potential to result in off channel breeding areas being drained more rapidly than naturally expected and threatening eggmasses with desiccation.
3-93 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Cattle also bed down in specific areas which can have detrimental impacts to Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat.
The incorporation of the North Sheep Pasture would increase the overall amount of area available for grazing. The Chemult Pasture would also be grazed under a deferred rotation grazing system and would be on a two-year rotation schedule with the North Sheep Pasture. This reduction in the grazing duration and use of a rotational grazing system would further reduce the grazing intensity and increase the time plants have to recover from being grazed the prior year. In general, deferred rotation grazing systems have less of a negative impact to hydrologic resources than continuous season-long grazing (Antelope Project Hydrology Report). The increased grazing duration would increase the potential for negative impacts to hydrologic resources, such as soil compaction and removal of vegetation. The addition of the North Sheep Pasture would increase the length of Jack Creek that is grazed, however Jack Creek flows intermittently through the North Sheep Pasture, and negative impacts to water quality and/or channel morphology within perennial reaches of Jack Creek would not be likely.
The advantage of converting to a deferred rotation grazing strategy is better control of animal distribution. Unlike the open season system, cows would be herded between pastures and pressure would be relieved on the heavily-used Chemult pasture. An additional benefit is that forage use and timing can be programmed to meet the ability of the stream habitat to maintain itself productively (Antelope Project Soils Report). The grazing season would be shorter, and changes in timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing would allow for longer periods of ecosystem recovery (Antelope Project Soils Report). The disadvantage with respect to the soil resource is that every year livestock would continue to concentrate in riparian areas and could damage riparian vegetation, streambanks, and soils.
Grazing under deferred-rotation systems will also allow grazing to occur early, mid, and late season. This will vary the timing of plant exposure to grazing each year. Thus, species favored one year may be less favored another year. While this will maintain species diversity, density, and productivity within riparian/meadow areas, the mid-season grazing which these areas would periodically sustain may slow the shift towards more deeply rooted perennial plants and the opportunity for rapid successional change to desired conditions (Antelope Project Range Report).
Herd number and size may vary each year for ease of management and movement of cattle through the pastures, meadows, and units. The improved dispersal of livestock and flexibility in the grazing management makes it possible to adjust grazing systems and numbers of livestock as needed to minimize impacts to fens, wet meadows, and sensitive species habitat and will apply the Forest Plans allowable use standards to private lands under permit.
Monitoring will play a large role in terms of the management of this allotment in conjunction with Oregon spotted frog habitat. The FS has established a monitoring plan to accompany the implementation of this grazing allotment. This plan consists monitoring the different resources associated with the allotment and Oregon spotted frogs, including but not limited to: hydrologic, range, and wildlife resources. This monitoring is intended to evaluate the FS progress toward the management goals, detect changes in the resources, and determine trends in resource condition. The data collected is intended to provide a basis for implementing adaptive management in order to meet the management objectives associated with this permitted action.
There is a potential for unauthorized cattle use to occur within the allotment and its associated pastures. In the event this use occurs the effects would be similar to the effects of authorized
3-94 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 grazing. However, the FS has permit violation policies in place to deal with this occurrence (USDA 2005). In addition, there are monitoring and compliance personnel directly associated with this allotment, therefore while the effects will be similar they will be greatly reduced and managed in a timely manner.
Additional detail on the effects to OSF or OSF critical habitat can be found in the Biological Assessment for the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project which is incorporated by reference.
3.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area extends to the OSF habitat on Jack Creek within the Antelope Allotments. All actions included in Appendix C were considered for cumulative effects. .
3.4.3.2.1 Oregon Spotted Frog Conservation and Population Status On the Fremont-Winema National Forest, there is occupied OSF habitat at Sevenmile Creek, Fourmile Creek, and Williamson River, and potential habitat at Buck Lake. Adult OSF were also discovered near Wood River Day Use Area. In general across the Klamath Basin, OSF populations appear low. It is expected that there are undiscovered population of private land within the Klamath Basin, and three new populations were discovered by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2010. As stated in the 2010 Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Spotted Frog Species Assessment, which is incorporated by reference, there are several efforts taking place on the Forest and adjacent agency and private land to restore and conserve populations. Activities on the Forest include, the development of a Site Management Plans for the Jack Creek, Sevenmile Creek, and Buck Lake populations; completion of a Conservation Agreement in 2010; annual interagency eggmass surveys; collaboration with the Regional Interagency Oregon Spotted Frog Working Group; collaboration with US Geological Survey on research studies; and various restoration activities at Jack Creek as stated in the above cumulative effects section. This project impacts a very small portion of suitable habitat across the Forest, and the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in small-scale negative impacts to habitat as well as some positive impacts to habitat. The impacts to habitat will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. Therefore, this project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Fremont-Winema National Forest for OSF
3-95 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.3.2.2 Alternative 1 and 4 In Alternatives 1 and 4, the private landowner would not waive management of private lands to the USFS and therefore the timing, intensity, and duration of grazing is unknown. Future actions on these lands are expected to occur, but specific details are not known. Therefore, cumulative adverse effects associated with grazing will be additive to the effects of the proposed action. Grazing would continue on USFS land for 2 years resulting in potential adverse effects on FS lands to OSF or OSF critical habitat associated with grazing and associated activities. Restoration projects to enhance habitat on USFS lands would also continue which would benefit habitat for OSF. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects considered these alternatives are Likely to Adversely Affect the species and OSF critical habitat.
3.4.3.2.3 Alternative 2 In this Alternative 2, the private landowner would not waive management of private lands to the USFS and therefore the timing, intensity, and duration of grazing is unknown. Future actions on these lands are expected to occur, but specific details are not known. Therefore, cumulative adverse effects associated with grazing will be additive to the effects of the proposed action. Grazing would continue on federal land under current management. Restoration projects to enhance habitat on USFS lands would continue which would benefit habitat for OSF. As described above, the potential effects on FS lands to OSF or OSF critical habitat would be the potential adverse effects associated with grazing and associated activities. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects considered this alternative is Likely to Adversely Affect the species and OSF critical habitat.
3.4.3.2.4 Alternatives 3 and 5 In Alternatives 3 and 5, the private landowner would waive management of private lands on Jack Creek located within the Jack Creek Unit and Chemult Pasture to the USFS. As described above, the potential effects to OSF or OSF critical habitat would be the potential adverse effects associated with grazing and associated activities. In addition, there could be potential cumulative adverse effects associated with grazing on private lands, although the effects are expected to be reduced from current management because FS grazing standards and the terms and conditions identified in the Biological Opinion would be applied to the private lands through a term private permit. Restoration projects to enhance habitat on USFS lands would continue which would benefit habitat for OSF.
The timing, intensity, and duration of grazing on the private land located on Jack Creek within the North Sheep Pasture (O’Conner Meadow) are unknown. Future actions on these lands are expected to occur, but specific details are not known. Therefore, cumulative adverse effects associated with grazing will be additive to the effects of the proposed action for the private land located on Jack Creek within the North Sheep Pasture (O’Conner Meadow).
The selected actions will contain implementation monitoring trigger points and thresholds that will indicate when livestock will need to be removed from an area or pasture once allowable utilization standards have been reached. The actual timing and intensity of use will be evaluated to indicate when changes are needed for the next year of grazing. Development and implementation of resource protection plans for specific areas will guide when changes in the grazing strategies are needed and provide flexibility to assure resource objectives can be met. The selected grazing systems (deferred and rest rotations) will allow for improving range condition and providing stable, functioning, conditions in wet meadows.
3-96 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
While the project design features and monitoring strategy will minimize the effects significantly, there will still be adverse effects to the species and its habitat beyond the ESA standards of insignificant or discountable. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects considered this alternative is Likely to Adversely Affect the species and OSF critical habitat.
3.4.4 Pallid Bat Pallid bat is found throughout southern and eastern Oregon but is absent from coastal Oregon and higher elevations in the Cascades. This large species roosts in colonies and may use multiple day roosts (Cross and Waldien 1995). Pallid bats use rock crevices, trees, cliffs and snags, abandoned mines, buildings, and bridges for roosting and/or nesting. They hibernate in the winter but little is known about winter locations. Pallid bats are among the few bats typically bearing multiple young (two), which are born in May or June. Pallid bats use various arid habitat types including open forests, sagebrush, juniper and salt-desert scrub, as well as open, large-diameter ponderosa pine stands (Csuti et al. 2001, Cross and Waldien 1995). They roost in large diameter snags and live trees with deep furrowed bark, old buildings, tree hollows, and creviced rock outcrops. Pallid bats forage on the ground, which is unusual for a bat, and feed on Jerusalem crickets, beetles, grasshoppers, and scorpions, and have even been known to eat lizards and pocket mice. Pallid bats will readily abandon a roost site if disturbed. Cross and Kerwin (1995), with Southern Oregon State College, surveyed for bats on the Winema National Forest in 1994 and detected pallid bats. However, there are no detections within the project area. Potential habitat exists within the project area in the areas with open ponderosa pine habitats.
3.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.4.1.1 Measurement Indicators Indicators used to measure effects are selected so that the effects of the project alternatives can be compared and contrasted. Measures were selected for project effects based on professional judgment and a thorough review of literature on the interaction between wildlife and grazing. Indicators for wildlife species are based on the amount of potential and/or occupied habitat for each species. No measurement indicators were used for the pallid bat.
3.4.4.1.2 Alternative 1 In Alternative 1, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2-5. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
There could be disturbance to roost sites from fence removal which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on pallid bats.
3.4.4.1.3 Action Alternatives Livestock grazing across the allotments would not modify habitat because it does not affect snag, tree, or cliff habitat. Because pallid bats forage on the ground, the loss of forage from grazing could result in a reduction of insect habitat for prey (insects). It is not expected that the type of grazing strategy or season of use would result in substantial differences between alternatives. The
3-97 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
development of water structures may increase water availability for pallid bats across the allotments. There could be disturbance to roost sites from fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal and permitted motorized use which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on pallid bats. Overall, the scale of the effects would be less with Alternative 4 which does not propose to graze in the North Sheep or Chemult Pastures, than Alternatives 2, 3, and 5.
3.4.4.2 Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the area of the allotments, including all National Forest System lands and non-National Forest System lands (private). Pallid bat habitat within the allotments project cumulative analysis area primarily occurs in open ponderosa pine habitat. All activities listed in Appendix C were reviewed for potential impacts to pallid bats within the cumulative effects analysis area. The residual impacts of past actions in these areas have resulted in the distribution of pallid bat habitat described in the existing condition. Past actions that occurred during the past 50 years that may have affected the species include the following:
• Federal and private timber harvest (salvage and green) has impacted habitat for pallid bats on these lands because past management removed snags and large trees. • Personal use firewood gathering has removed snags which provides potential habitat. • The effects of past livestock grazing on pallid bats and their habitat were likely similar to those described above for Alternative 2. Impacts may have included the loss of forage from grazing could result in a reduction of insect habitat for prey (insects).
On-going and future foreseeable activities are listed in the Appendix C. These projects may have effects on pallid bat habitat that overlap with the effects of grazing under the alternatives. On-going and future foreseeable activities that may impact pallid bats include the following:
• Future timber sales and prescribed burning within ponderosa pine dominated habitat would likely improve habitat for pallid bats due to the maintenance and increased resiliency of large trees. • Personal use firewood gathering would continue to occur, which will reduce snag habitat. However, snag habitat may increase due to wildfire and bark beetle activity.
3.4.4.2.1 Alternative 1- 5 There could be some disturbance to individuals which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on pallid bats. There may also be a reduction in insects for foraging due to the reduction in vegetation from grazing. The incremental effects of Alternatives 1-5, when added to all of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in a loss of viability to pallid bats. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 1-5 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.”
3-98 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.4.5 Fringed Myotis Fringed myotis is found throughout western North America. In Oregon, it occurs along the Coast Range, Willamette Valley, southern Cascades, and Blue Mountains. Found in a variety of habitats, the fringed myotis prefers forested or riparian areas (Csuti et al. 2001). In Washington, fringed myotis can be found in interior sagebrush/grassland habitats, but it is apparently absent from the Olympic peninsula (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). It is considered to have a patchy distribution and is rare in the Pacific Northwest. One young is born in late June to mid-July. Maternity colonies may number several hundred individuals. Roosts include caves, mines, rock crevices, tree cavities, conifer snags, bridges, and buildings (Cross and Waldien 1995). Fringed myotis migrate between summer and winter roosts, but little is known about the type or locations of winter roosts. They eat beetles, moths, crickets, and other insects captured in flight or by gleaning from a surface. Known locations in Oregon are caves, mines, old buildings, and old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Elsewhere they have been found in sagebrush, oak, and pinyon near willow or alder dominated riparian areas. The “hovering gleaner” picks insects off surfaces, especially beetles and moths. Cross and Kerwin (1995) surveyed for bats on the Forest in 1994 and detected fringed myotis. In addition, surveys conducted by Forest Service personnel (Pat Ormsbee) detected fringed myotis in several locations on the Forest (USDA Forest Service, unpublished data). Although habitat exists within the project area, no known detections have occurred within the project area.
3.4.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.5.1.1 Measurement Indicators No measurement indicators were used for the fringed myotis.
3.4.5.1.2 Alternative 1 In Alternative 1, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2-5. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
There could be disturbance to roost sites from fence removal could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on fringed myotis.
3.4.5.1.3 Action Alternatives Livestock grazing across the allotments would not modify habitat because it does not affect snag, tree, or cliff habitat. Because fringed myotis forage on insects, the loss of forage from grazing could result in a reduction of insect habitat for prey (insects). It is not expected that the type of grazing strategy or season of use would result in substantial differences between alternatives. The development of water structures may increase water availability for fringed myotis across the allotments. There could be disturbance to roost sites from fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal and permitted motorized use which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on fringed myotis. Overall, the scale of the effects would be less with Alternative 4 which does not propose to graze in the North Sheep or Chemult Pastures, than Alternatives 2, 3, and 5.
3-99 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the area of the allotments, including all National Forest System lands and non-National Forest System lands (private). Fringed myotis habitat within the allotments project cumulative analysis area primarily occurs near caves, mines, rock crevices, tree cavities, conifer snags, bridges, and buildings. All activities listed in Appendix C were reviewed for potential impacts to fringed myotis within the cumulative effects analysis area. The residual impacts of past actions in these areas have resulted in the distribution of fringed myotis habitat described in the existing condition. Past actions that occurred during the past 50 years that may have affected the species include the following:
• Federal and private timber harvest (salvage and green) has impacted habitat for fringed myotis on these lands because past management removed snags and large trees. • Personal use firewood gathering has removed snags which provides potential habitat. • The effects of past livestock grazing on fringed myotis and their habitat were likely similar to those described above for Alternative 2. Impacts may have included the loss of forage from grazing could result in a reduction of insect habitat for prey (insects).
On-going and future foreseeable activities are listed in Appendix C. These projects may have effects on fringed myotis habitat that overlap with the effects of grazing under the alternatives. On-going and future foreseeable activities that may impact fringed myotis include the following:
• Future timber sales and prescribed burning within ponderosa pine dominated habitat would likely maintain habitat for fringed myotis due to the maintenance of snags and increased resiliency of large trees. • Personal use firewood gathering would continue to occur, which will reduce snag habitat. However, snag habitat may increase due to wildfire and bark beetle activity.
3.4.5.2.1 Alternative 1-5 There could be some disturbance to individuals which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on fringed myotis. There may also be a reduction in insects for foraging due to the reduction in vegetation from grazing. The incremental effects of Alternatives 1-5, when added to all of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not result in a loss of viability to fringed myotis. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 1-5 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.”
3.4.6 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a large bat with unusually long ears. This bat occurs from southern British Columbia and the western U.S. to southeastern U.S. and southern Mexico. Townsend’s big- eared bats inhabit a wide variety of habitats from old-growth forests to extreme desert. It roosts in buildings, caves, mines, rock crevices, and bridges. One young is born from April to July (Maser et al. 1981). This bat feeds primarily on moths, but will also eat beetles, true bugs, and flies. It captures prey in flight or by gleaning from foliage (Csuti et al. 1997). Big-eared bats hibernate in winter and are not known to migrate long distances. These bats are very intolerant of human disturbance at either winter hibernacula or summer roosts (Csuti et al. 1997). Large declines in total
3-100 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 number of animals and average colony size have been documented. Pierson (1988) found one-third of historic roost sites no longer being used. Cross and Kerwin (1995) surveyed for bats on the Winema National Forest in 1994 and detected Townsend’s big-eared bats. In addition, surveys conducted by Forest Service personnel (Pat Ormsbee) detected Townsend’s big-eared bat in several locations on the Forest. However, no known detections have occurred within the project area.
3.4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.6.1.1 Measurement Indicators No measurement indicators were developed and used for the Townsend’s big-eared bat.
3.4.6.1.2 Alternative 1 In Alternative 1, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2-5. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
There could be disturbance to roost sites from fence removal could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on Townsend’s big-eared bat.
3.4.6.1.3 Action Alternatives Livestock grazing across the allotments would not modify habitat because it does not affect caves, mines, rock creviced or bridges. Because Townsend’s big-eared bats forage on insects, the loss of forage from grazing could result in a reduction of insect habitat for prey (insects). It is not expected that the type of grazing strategy or season of use would result in substantial differences between alternatives. The development of water structures may increase water availability for Townsend’s big-eared bats across the allotments. There could be disturbance to roost sites from fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal and permitted motorized use which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on Townsend’s big-eared bats. Overall, the scale of the effects would be less with Alternative 4 which does not propose to graze in the North Sheep or Chemult Pastures, than Alternatives 2, 3, and 5.
3.4.6.2 Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the area of the allotments, including all National Forest System lands and non-National Forest System lands (private). Townsend’s big- eared bats habitat within the allotments project cumulative analysis area primarily occurs near buildings, caves, mines, rock crevices, and bridges. All activities listed in Appendix C were reviewed for potential impacts to Townsend’s big-eared bats within the cumulative effects analysis area. The residual impacts of past actions in these areas have resulted in the distribution of Townsend’s big-eared bats habitat described in the existing condition. Past actions that occurred during the past 50 years that may have affected the species include the following:
• The development of roads has increased habitat by creating bridges across the landscape. • It is unknown whether harvest adjacent to caves has had a positive or negative effect.
3-101 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
• The effects of past livestock grazing on Townsend’s big-eared bats and their habitat were likely similar to those described above for Alternative 2. Impacts may have included the loss of forage from grazing could result in a reduction of insect habitat for prey (insects). • Past timber sales or road maintenance near existing bridges may have resulted in a disturbance to Townsend’s big-eared bats. On-going and future foreseeable activities are listed in Appendix C. These projects may have effects on Townsend’s big-eared bats habitat that overlap with the effects of grazing under the alternatives. On-going and future foreseeable activities that may impact Townsend’s big-eared bats include the following:
• Timber sales or road maintenance near existing bridges could result in a disturbance to Townsend’s big-eared bats.
3.4.6.2.1 Alternative 1- 5 There could be some disturbance to individuals which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on Townsend’s big-eared bats. There may also be a reduction in insects for foraging due to the reduction in vegetation from grazing. The incremental effects of Alternatives 1- 5, when added to all of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not result in a loss of viability to Townsend’s big-eared bats. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 1-5 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.”
3.4.7 Yellow Rail The yellow rail breeds from central and eastern Canada south to New England, Great Lakes region, and northern Midwest (e.g. North Dakota, Montana). The Pacific Northwest populations are disjunct from the main range, are extremely limited, and were thought to have disappeared early this century. Yellow rails inhabit freshwater marshes and wet meadows with a growth of sedges, usually surrounded by willows, and often with standing water up to a foot deep during the breeding season. Yellow rails begin nesting in Oregon by May. Their nest is a cup covered with a canopy attached to emergent plants above water levels. Habitat includes native sedge, rush, reedgrass (Calmagrostis sp.), and tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia spp.) (Stern and Popper 2003). It is very secretive, and little is known about its habits in Oregon. Rails have been mainly detected through its vocalizations during breeding season. Yellow rails are rarely seen or heard during the day and most surveys are completed during the night. During the breeding season, male yellow rails call at night almost continuously. Winter residence of Oregon populations of yellow rail is unknown, but the species will winter in and migrates through freshwater and brackish marshes, dense, deep grass, and grain fields (NatureServe 2010). The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center and The Nature Conservancy began doing surveys in 1988 to increase existing information on the Oregon population. Recent surveys have included Klamath Marsh, Sycan Marsh, Big Marsh, and areas in eastern Oregon (Popper 2006). Yellow rails are reported to eat invertebrates, seeds of sedges and rushes, and freshwater snails (Stern and Popper 2003), but diet information for Oregon is not available.
3-102 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Yellow rail survey reports completed by Popper (2004, 2006) were reviewed to determine known locations of yellow rails in south-central Oregon. The nearest known yellow rail populations occur on the Forest near Fourmile Spring and on The Nature Conservancy land at Sycan Marsh. No detections or known yellow rail populations occur within the project area. Although marginal, the only potential habitat exists at Round Meadow. Based on the TEUI, approximately 185 acres of potential habitat occurs here (USDA Forest Service 2001–2008). Round Meadow was reviewed on several occasions. The restoration work conducted at Round Meadow since 2003 appears to have improved wildlife habitat. Based on pre- and post- project photos and an assessment of current condition, the restoration work appears to have greatly improved wetland-associated wildlife habitat. The meadow appears flooded in the spring, the sedge- dominated vegetation has expanded, and a series of pools provide habitat for many wildlife species.
3.4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.7.1.1 Measurement Indicators The measurement indicators for yellow rail were selected for project effects based on professional judgment and a thorough review of literature on the interaction between wildlife and grazing (Table 3-13).
Table 3-11. Comparison of effects to yellow rail by alternative using the measurement indicators Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Acres of potential habitat permitted for 0 0 185 0 185 grazing
3.4.7.1.2 Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 There will be no grazing within Round Meadow, so there would be no impact to potential yellow rail habitat. Outside of Round Meadow, livestock grazing would not impact yellow rails or their habitat because this part of the allotments does not contain suitable habitat. Fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal, water developments, and permitted motorized use would have no impact to yellow rails.
3.4.7.1.3 Alternatives 3 and 5 Grazing within Round Meadow would impact yellow rail habitat on approximately 185 acres. The loss of vegetation could result in negative impacts to nesting and foraging habitat. Riparian pasture standards are expected to maintain the overall integrity of the riparian area including vegetation and bank stability. Direct impacts to yellow rail are not likely because yellow rail have not been detected at Round Meadow. Outside of Round Meadow, livestock grazing would not impact yellow rails or their habitat because this part of the allotments does not contain suitable habitat.
In Round Meadow, there could be disturbance from fence construction and permitted motorized use which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on yellow rail. Fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal, water developments, and permitted motorized use outside Round Meadow would have no impact to yellow rails.
3-103 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.4.7.2 Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the area of the allotments, including all National Forest System lands and non-National Forest System lands (private). The only known potential habitat within the allotments area is Round Meadow, so cumulative effects analysis only includes those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the existing fenced riparian area at Round Meadow. All activities listed in Appendix C were reviewed for potential impacts to yellow rail within the cumulative effects analysis area. The residual impacts of past actions in these areas have resulted in the distribution of yellow rail habitat described in the existing condition. Past actions that occurred during the past 50 years that may have affected the species include the following:
• All past restoration efforts in Round Meadow including plugging the ditches resulted in an increase in riparian habitat and potential habitat for yellow rail. • Past grazing may have reduced the suitability of habitat for yellow rail.
On-going and future foreseeable activities are listed in Appendix C. These projects may have effects on yellow rail habitat that overlap with the effects of grazing under the alternatives. On-going and future foreseeable activities that may impact yellow include the following:
• All future restoration work at Round Meadow would likely improve habitat for yellow rail.
3.4.7.2.1 Alternatives 1-5 Yellow rail habitat at Round Meadow is considered to be marginal habitat and there are no detections of yellow rail within the cumulative effects analysis area. Past and future restoration work is expected to increase the suitability of habitat at Round Meadow. Riparian pasture standards are expected to maintain the overall integrity of the riparian area including vegetation and bank stability for Alternatives 3 and 5. Therefore, the incremental effects of Alternatives 3 and 5 when added to all of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions would be minimal. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 3 and 5 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.” There is no grazing proposed for alternatives 1, 2, and 4 so there would be “no impact” to yellow rail.
3.4.8 Lewis’ Woodpecker The Lewis’ woodpecker was placed on the Region 6 sensitive species list in January 2008. It is also identified as a focal species in burned pine forest in the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000). Habitat for the Lewis’ woodpecker, a migrant in this part of its range, includes old-forest, single-storied ponderosa pine with a brush understory. Lewis’ woodpeckers are aerial insectivores during the breeding season, relying on flying insects as forage. They require large snags in an advanced state of decay that are easy to excavate, or they use old cavities created by other woodpeckers because they are not strong cavity excavators. Nest trees generally average 17– 44 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (Saab and Dudley 1998, Wisdom et al. 2000). Burned ponderosa pine forests created by stand-replacing fires provide highly productive habitats as compared to unburned pine (Wisdom et al. 2000). Abele et al. (2004) completed a Technical Conservation Assessment for the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service that identified perceived threats to the conservation of the Lewis’ woodpecker.
3-104 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Cattle grazing was identified as a threat by altering the historic fire regimes with a reduction of understory vegetation. In addition, altering understory can influence the composition and abundance of prey (flying insects) (Abele et al. 2004). One Lewis’ woodpecker was detected in 2010 within a recently burned area at Round Meadow. Potential habitat occurs in open ponderosa pine habitat.
3.4.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.8.1.1 Measurement Indicators No measurement indicators were developed or used for the Lewis’ woodpecker.
3.4.8.1.2 Alternative 1 In Alternative 1, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2-5. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
There could be disturbance to Lewis’ woodpecker from fence removal could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on Lewis’ woodpecker.
3.4.8.1.3 Action Alternatives Livestock grazing would not reduce Lewis’ woodpecker nesting habitat because it would not affect large trees or snags. However, grazing is expected to reduce understory vegetation. A reduction of understory vegetation can reduce the abundance of flying insects (Lewis’ woodpecker prey) (Abele et al. 2004). This could result in reduced foraging habitat for Lewis’ woodpecker. There could be some disturbance to individuals from fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal and permitted motorized use which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. PDC 1 will reduce the potential for disturbance. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on Lewis’ woodpeckers. Overall, the scale of the effects would be less with Alternative 4 which does not propose to graze in the North Sheep or Chemult Pastures, than Alternatives 2, 3, and 5.
3.4.8.2 Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the area of the allotments, including all National Forest System lands and non-National Forest System lands (private). Lewis’ woodpecker habitat within the allotments project cumulative analysis area primarily occurs in open ponderosa pine habitat. All activities listed in Appendix C were reviewed for potential impacts to Lewis’ woodpeckers within the cumulative effects analysis area. The residual impacts of past actions in these areas have resulted in the distribution of Lewis’ woodpecker habitat described in the existing condition. Past actions that occurred during the past 50 years that may have affected the species include the following:
• Past timber harvest on federal and private lands has removed or degraded some nesting habitat by removing large diameter trees. • The exclusion of fire has increased stand densities, which has reduced Lewis’ woodpecker habitat by creating heavily stocked stands with higher canopy cover than historically occurred.
3-105 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Ponderosa pine stands have experienced reductions in snag and down wood habitat due to firewood cutting. • Road development over the past 100 years has likely not had a significant impact on Lewis’ woodpecker, other than increased disturbance associated with the development and presence of the transportation system. • The effects of past livestock grazing on Lewis’ woodpeckers and their habitat were likely similar to those described above for Alternative 2. Impacts may have included the loss understory vegetation that results in a reduction of prey habitat. On-going and future foreseeable activities are listed in Appendix C. These projects may have effects on Lewis’ woodpecker habitat that overlap with the effects of grazing under the alternatives. On- going and future foreseeable activities that may impact Lewis’ woodpecker include the following: • Future timber sales, such as the Oatman Project Area, within ponderosa pine dominated habitat would likely improve habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers due to the maintenance and increased resiliency of large trees and a conversion to more open stand conditions. • Personal use firewood gathering would continue to occur, which will reduce snag habitat. However, snag habitat may increase due to wildfire and bark beetle activity.
3.4.8.2.1 Alternative 1- 5 There could be some disturbance to individuals which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on Lewis’ woodpeckers. There may also be a reduction in insects for foraging due to the reduction in vegetation from grazing. The incremental effects of Alternatives 1-5, when added to all of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in a loss of viability to Lewis’ woodpeckers. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 1-5 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.”
3.4.9 White-headed Woodpecker The white-headed woodpecker was placed on the Region 6 sensitive species list in January 2008. It is also identified as a focal species in pine forests in the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000). White-headed woodpecker habitat typically consists of large, open ponderosa pine; low shrub levels; and large snags. The white-headed woodpecker is a primary cavity excavator of soft snags. The white-headed woodpecker is the only woodpecker species to rely heavily on seeds of ponderosa pine for food (Marshall et al. 2003, p. 364). A long-term study on the white-headed woodpecker occurred on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests from 1997 to 2004. Frenzel (2000) calculated the mean diameter for white-headed woodpecker nest trees to be 26.2 inches dbh, while Dixon (1995) found similar results (mean diameter of 25.6 inches dbh). Frenzel (2003) found that nests located at sites with a high density of large diameter trees had a higher survival rate than nests in recently harvested sites. Unharvested sites, or sites with greater than 12 trees per acre greater than 21 inches dbh, had a success rate of 63.1% while nests at previously harvested sites or lower densities of large trees had a success rate of 39.8%. Therefore, white-headed woodpeckers were positively associated with higher densities of large trees. On the Winema National Forest, white-headed woodpeckers were found to be using small-diameter trees, logs in a slash pile and upturned roots (6–13 inches dbh) where large snags were uncommon (Frenzel 2002).
3-106 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Although several sightings of white-headed woodpeckers likely occurred within the project area in the past, only 3 documented sightings occur in the NRIS wildlife database: 2 sightings in 1993 and 1 sighting in 1997 (NRIS 2011).
3.4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.9.1.1 Measurement Indicators No measurement indicators were developed or used for the white-headed woodpecker.
3.4.9.1.2 Alternative 1 In Alternative 1, grazing would remain in effect for two years and the effects would be the same as those described below in Alternative 2-5. The following analysis describes the effects after grazing is cancelled on the allotment.
There could be disturbance to white-headed woodpecker from fence removal could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on white-headed woodpecker.
3.4.9.1.3 Action Alternatives 2-5 Livestock grazing across the allotments would not modify nesting habitat because it does not change forest canopy or reduce large trees and snags. The loss of forage and season of use associated with grazing would not affect white-headed woodpecker habitat or prey habitat. There could be some disturbance to individuals from fence construction/reconstruction/maintenance/removal and permitted motorized use which could result in the displacement of animals from a specific location. PDC 1 will reduce the potential for disturbance. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on white-headed woodpecker. Overall, the scale of the effects would be less with Alternative 4 which does not propose to graze in the North Sheep or Chemult Pastures, than Alternatives 2, 3, and 5.
3.4.9.2 Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the area of the allotments, including all National Forest System lands and non-National Forest System lands (private). White-headed woodpecker habitat within the allotments project cumulative analysis area primarily occurs in open ponderosa pine habitat. All activities listed in Appendix C were reviewed for potential impacts to white-headed woodpeckers within the cumulative effects analysis area. The residual impacts of past actions in these areas have resulted in the distribution of white-headed woodpecker habitat described in the existing condition. Past actions that occurred during the past 50 years that may have affected the species include the following: • Past timber harvest on federal and private lands has removed or degraded some nesting habitat by removing large diameter trees. • The exclusion of fire has increased stand densities, which has reduced white-headed woodpecker habitat by creating heavily stocked stands with higher canopy cover than historically occurred. • Ponderosa pine stands have experienced reductions in snag and down wood habitat due to firewood cutting. • Road development over the past 100 years has likely not had a significant impact on white- headed woodpecker, other than increased disturbance associated with the development and presence of the transportation system.
3-107 Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
• The effects of past livestock grazing on white-headed woodpecker were likely similar to those described above for Alternative 2. Impacts may have included short term disturbance to individuals. On-going and future foreseeable activities are listed in Appendix C. These projects may have effects on white-headed woodpecker habitat that overlap with the effects of grazing under the alternatives. On-going and future foreseeable activities that may impact white-headed woodpecker include the following: • Future timber sales, such as the Oatman Project Area, within ponderosa pine dominated habitat would likely improve habitat for white-headed woodpecker due to the maintenance and increased resiliency of large trees and a conversion to more open stand conditions. • Personal use firewood gathering would continue to occur, which will reduce snag habitat. However, snag habitat may increase due to wildfire and bark beetle activity.
3.4.9.2.1 Alternative 1-5 There could be a disturbance to individuals. In general, these effects would be short-term, localized, and are expected to have little impact on white-headed woodpecker. Therefore, the incremental effects of Alternatives 1-5 when added to all of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions would be minimal. With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 1-5 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.”
3.4.10 Northern Leopard Frogs Northern leopard frogs are a highly aquatic species. Water at breeding sites must persist long enough to permit the completion of larval development. Shoreline cover, submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, appears to be an important habitat characteristic. For reproduction leopard frogs prefer cattail and sedge marshes, weedy ponds, or other water with aquatic vegetation (Nussbaum et al., 1983). Eggs are attached to emergent vegetation. Tadpoles use shallow water near shores. At colder localities, adults hibernate on the bottoms of unfrozen bodies of water. Submerged vegetation is apparently unnecessary for hibernation cover. Despite their very aquatic nature, these frogs will disperse across upland areas to reach breeding ponds, overwintering sites, and during migration (Smith 2003). Some northern leopard frogs have been measured moving up to 5 km from the point they were marked (Smith 2003).
Adults are opportunistic feeders, taking a variety of aquatic and terrestrial prey. They primarily eat small adult insects, but sowbugs, spiders, leeches, snails, small fishes, amphibians (cannibalism has been reported), small snakes, and birds are also taken (Smith 2003). Tadpoles probably feed primarily by filtering algae and diatoms, but may also consume some plant material and animal food incidentally encountered.
Potential habitat exists at Jack Creek only. Amphibian surveys have been conducted in the Jack Creek area since 1997, and Northern leopard frogs were not detected.
3.4.10.1 Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.10.1.1 Measurement Indicators See measurement indicators under OSF above.
3-108 Wildlife Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.4.10.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Northern leopard frogs are very similar to OSFs because they use similar habitat and they are also highly aquatic. Therefore, the effects to Northern leopard frogs would be the same as the effects to OSF, except there is not likely to be any direct effects to individuals because they have not been detected within the project area. See direct and indirect effects under OSF above.
3.4.10.2 Cumulative Effects See cumulative effects under OSF above.
3.4.10.2.1 All Action Alternatives With all direct, indirect, and cumulative effects discussed above, Alternatives 1-5 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.”
3.4.11 Management Indicator Species The wildlife technical report assessed the effects of Alternative 1 on the population trend and habitat trend of Forest Plan MIS potentially present in the project area. That report documents that Alternative 1 would not have an effect on the existing quantity of source habitat for mule deer, American marten, goshawk, pileated woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, black-backed woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, or any of the primary excavators analyzed. Alternative 1 would not affect individuals of these species or populations on either the Fremont or Winema portions of the Forest. The effects of Alternatives 2–5 on the population trend and habitat trend of mule deer, American marten, goshawk, pileated woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, black-backed woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, or any of the primary excavators analyzed would be insignificant at the Forest scale. Effects from disturbance, if any, would be short term and localized and expected to have little impact on these species. The incremental impacts of the action alternatives when added to all past, ongoing, and future activities would be minimal. The Antelope Grazing Project is consistent with the Fremont and Winema Forest Plans, and thus continued viability of the MIS analyzed is expected on the Forest.
3-109 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5 Socioeconomics
3.5.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for an economic and sociological impact assessment involves the discussion of the current economic state, the current social culture, and the current state of Indian tribes within the project area.
3.5.2 Economic State The approximately 168,565-acre project area comprises land in Klamath County (87% of the project area) and Lake County (13%). Livestock production and livestock products comprise approximately 47% of Klamath County’s agriculture commodity sales and 44% of Lake County’s agriculture commodity sales (Oregon State University 2007). Gross sales of cattle and calves for 2007 were $116,649,000 for Klamath County and $28,200,000 for Lake County (Oregon State University 2008). According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2008), the number of livestock in Klamath County is 94,500 head and in Lake County 85,000 head. Because 77% of the lands in Lake County and over 50% of the lands in Klamath County are in public ownership, the current level of livestock production depends on the use of public lands. Federal rangelands are critical to the economic viability of the livestock industry in 11 western states, including Oregon. An estimated 21,000 federal permits have been issued in the western states, representing roughly 22% of all livestock producers in the region (report produced by Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit, available in the project record). Locally, the percentage of livestock producers with federal permits is probably higher, because almost all the producers on the Fremont-Winema National Forest depend on the forage produced on federal lands to support their livestock operations. The Fremont Forest Plan notes that the demand for acres of land permitted for grazing on the Forest far exceeds the available supply (USDA Forest Service 1989). The Fremont Forest Plan recognizes that livestock production is the second most important industry in Lake County, and states that “[c]oordination of livestock grazing use and management of other Forest resources is a major emphasis item in this Plan” (USDA Forest Service 1989, p. 65). The Fremont Forest Plan establishes almost all of the over 1 million NFS acres across the Forest as suitable rangelands and divides the Forest into 71 grazing allotments. This portion of the Forest now has 75 active allotments. The Winema Forest Plan notes that the demand for acres of land permitted for grazing on the Forest is far less than the available supply. Because demand is low, the Winema Forest Plan states that “[r]angelands and grazing on the Forest will continue to play a minor role in the economic growth of Klamath County” (USDA Forest Service 1990, p. 2-6). The Winema Forest Plan establishes 335,000 acres as suitable rangelands, divided into 25 grazing allotments to provide this land use on the Forest. This portion of the Forest now has 12 active allotments. Both of the Forest Plans and the NFS grazing permit program share the goal of providing stability to local ranch operations. Permittees within the project area depend on NFS-administered rangelands. NFS allotments are an important part of the total year-round ranch operation. They provide high- quality forage for cow/calf herds when home pastures are growing and being harvested for winter hay. This analysis presents 2 methods of calculating the economic effects of grazing in Lake and Klamath counties. Both methods use employment, labor income, and output as indicators for measuring the economic effects of grazing in the project area. These indicators are used to compare the economic
3-110 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 effects of the project alternatives. However, the 2 methods produce different results so both methods and the associated results are presented for comparison. This analysis also presents estimated costs of implementing each alternative and identifies the parties responsible for assuming the costs. Costs are presented here merely to provide a comparison across alternatives and should not be considered final costs, as market prices will likely have changed before the chosen alternative is implemented.
3.5.2.1 Social Culture The Antelope Grazing Allotments project area was first grazed in the 1870s with livestock belonging to Oregon homesteading families. Thousands of cattle, sheep, and horses are known to have used the area during this early period. Grazing in the project area watersheds occurred seasonally during spring and summer months while lower-elevation homesteads were growing and putting up hay to feed livestock during the winter months. Within the communities of Silver Lake and Fort Rock, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting constitute the largest industry for men (52%) and the second largest industry for women (18%) (City-Data.com 2011). These communities, like much of Lake and Klamath counties, largely depend on local ranching operations for jobs and livelihoods. The Antelope Allotments are currently permitted to the Iverson Management Limited Partnership, a ranch that provides sole income to 4 households within the town of Silver Lake. Raising cattle has been the primary or only occupation for the Silver Lake population of the Iverson family since they settled in the area 5 generations ago, around the 1870s. Grazing on federal lands garners mixed levels of support nationally, statewide, and locally. Bruson and Steel (1996) discovered that attitudes, values, and beliefs regarding rangeland management on federal lands varied most sharply between responses from urban, amenity-driven communities and responses from rural communities driven by traditional practices, regardless of their location in the United States (i.e., eastern or western). This study also analyzed eastern, rangeland-dominated Oregon counties and compared their attitudes to the attitudes of Oregon residents as a whole. Differences were found in all value and belief categories between the eastern Oregon sample and the statewide sample. The eastern Oregon sample was found to be “the most supportive of a multiple benefits approach like that of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management” (Bruson and Steel 1996). However, as clearly expressed through comments received for this project, local support for multiple-use management is conflicted. The project area provides multiple Forest user opportunities, including dispersed camping, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, motor vehicle recreation, scenic views, moderate levels of solitude, and spiritual retreat. Grazing within the project area, like other land management practices, currently has differing levels of impact to Forest users; for some Forest users, the impact influences the value of their Forest experience. However, the majority of the landscape included within the project area would be classified as Roaded Natural or Roaded Modified in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classifications. Both classifications indicate a certain level of inherent likelihood that Forest users will encounter people, see signs of Forest use by people, and see signs of multiple-use land management. Expectations of solitude or absence of signs of land management are not appropriate for recreation classifications within the project area.
3-111 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.2.2 Indian Tribes The lands within the project area also encompass lands assigned to Indian tribes under the 1864 Klamath Lake Treaty. This treaty, signed between the United States and the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Paiute tribes ceded land for a reservation and ensured the retention of tribal rights to hunt, fish, and gather “in perpetuity.” In 1954, the Klamath Tribes were terminated as a federally recognized tribe; however, the Termination Act also expressly recognized and affirmed the continuation of the tribes’ treaty rights on former reservation lands. In 1961, many of the reservation lands were transferred to NFS management with the establishment of the Winema National Forest. The Klamath Tribes were restored as a federally recognized tribe in 1986, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed between the Klamath Tribes and the Forest Service in 1999 (amended 2005). This MOA established “policies and procedures that implement a government-to-government consultation process between the two parties.” While members of the Klamath Tribes now retain treaty rights only on former reservation lands, the MOA clearly identifies that the availability of resources for which treaty right practices depend on “include interests in off reservation areas” (USDA Forest Service and Klamath Tribes 2005, p. 5). The project area is not within the former reservation lands boundary but is within the land boundary associated with the 1864 treaty. Government-to-government consultations prior to public scoping identified this project as a project of interest to the Klamath Tribes. The project was first presented to the Natural Resources and Cultural departments of the Klamath Tribes in July 2010. Grazing projects are of general interest and concern to the Klamath Tribes because of potential impacts to ethnobotanical plants of importance to tribal practices. The Antelope Grazing Allotments Project could impact such plants and is therefore of interest to the Klamath Tribes. Potential habitat and effects for species of concern to the Klamath Tribes are being analyzed as part of this project (see the “Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants” section). While traditional-use practices do occur on lands within the project area, government-to-government consultations did not identify any specific geographical areas of concern or highly repeated use within the project area. Surveys conducted within the project area, combined with local knowledge, identified that 39 of the known 54 ethnobotanical species of concern to the Klamath Tribes exist within the project boundary (see the “Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants” section). However, where found, these species are not known to be in densities or levels of production that would make the project area an economical or prolific area for these treaty right practices. The nearest area specifically identified through public comments as an area of special interest or concern is Yamsay Mountain, which is approximately 9 miles from the project area.
3.5.2.3 Civil Rights Impact Analysis One comment claimed that civil rights impact analyses (CRIA) are not completed for Forest projects, specifically claiming that statistics of members of the Klamath Tribes employed or given contracts within the Forest should be disclosed. This comment misinterprets the role of a CRIA assessment at project-level analysis. A CRIA assessment will be completed on the selected alternative for the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project, disclosing all applicable information. Preliminary analysis to this point has not identified any measurement variables with any potential for significant impacts. No alternatives are currently determined to contain proposed actions that would constitute a “major action.” Comments received during the 30-day comment period will be factored into final considerations and the final CRIA assessment prior to the Decision.
3-112 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.5.3 Economic Analysis Methodology
3.5.3.1 Forest Service Economic Contribution Analysis The regional economic contributions of grazing to the economies of Lake and Klamath counties are estimated using permitted head months (HMs), which are a measure of access to forage by cattle. Employment, income, and output are estimated using a 2009 IMPLAN® model for Lake and Klamath counties. IMPLAN® (Impact Analysis for Planning, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.) is a regional economic impact analysis system. The IMPLAN® model determines how much a given activity, such as the sale of livestock, contributes to the local economy. The interactions between different sectors within the local economy are traced by the model, and it calculates the employment, income, and output effects that directly result from an impact on the economy. In this case, the direct impact is the sale of cattle, which are raised in part on forage from NFS lands. The sale of cattle stimulates private-sector activity that contributes to employment, income, and output in the project area. The first step of this analysis uses IMPLAN® to derive the response coefficient specific for the cattle sector in Lake and Klamath counties. The response coefficient for the cattle sector represents the employment, income, and output associated with each million dollars of final demand to the cattle industry. Final demand represents the cattle industry’s goods and services sold to all the other sectors in the local economy. A Forest Service computer program called FEAST (Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool) applies the cattle sector response coefficients to the total industrial output in order to generate the estimated economic contributions. FEAST calculates the total industrial output by using data on price and inventory to convert Forest Service permitted HMs to an estimate representing a change in total industrial output attributable to grazing. These estimates of economic contribution do not include the total number of ranchers and their employees. This is a conservative method of calculation, because it takes into account only the proportion of the total industrial output that is attributable to forage provided from the allotment. A less conservative method of analysis would claim that all of the income from the sale of the cattle, along with all of the associated labor and output, is made possible by grazing on NFS lands.
3.5.3.2 Bureau of Land Management Economic Contribution Analysis The BLM recently developed a revised methodology to measure the economic contribution of BLM forage; this methodology is based on AUMs. The method is still under review by the Department of the Interior. The main difference between the BLM’s approach and that of the Forest Service is the incorporation of unpaid, family labor into the BLM calculation. In agricultural operations, family members often provide significant amounts of the labor. Excluding unpaid, family labor, as the Forest Service method does, may lead to an underestimation of employment effects. In order to demonstrate the difference in results between the BLM and the Forest Service approaches, the BLM method is also used to make economic contributions estimates based on permitted AUMs. This BLM approach estimates the economic effects of grazing by first deriving the “contribution to AUM” ratios for employment, labor income, and output. The “contribution to AUM” ratio for employment, for example, is the number of full- and part-time jobs associated with a certain level of grazing. In this case, the level of grazing is per 1,000 AUMs. The BLM calculates these contribution ratios for 17 western states. The ratios for Oregon are presented here. An internal BLM briefing paper describes the methodology in detail (USDI BLM, unpublished data).
3-113 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.3.3 Baseline Costs The evaluation of economic costs for allotment infrastructure discussed below is based on current market estimates (Table 3-15). These estimates are not intended to establish the final costs of proposed improvements but instead are meant to allow a comparison across alternatives. The estimates are based on the following assumptions: • Fence materials are for 4-strand barbed wire fence. • Labor rates were estimated at $20/person, for a 5-person crew working 10-hour days, achieving 0.5 miles/day. • The average rate of $300/acre for clearing and leaving slash is thought to not be adequate for linear feature, so the rate was doubled to more adequately represent costs expected. • Reconstruction labor costs are higher because older materials must be removed and new materials installed, increasing the time needed to accomplish distances. • Reconstruction right-of-way (ROW) costs were estimated to be lower than construction costs since maintaining a clearing is less labor-intensive. • Spring construction materials include trough, pipeline, headbox, and associated plumbing parts. • Pond construction/reconstruction materials include bentonite, but this material is not always necessary. The application rate was estimated to be 3pounds per square foot on a 50-by-50-foot pond dimension. • Spring and pond labor costs include average rental cost of machines to complete the work.
Table 3-12 Baseline costs used for infrastructure economic comparisons
Infrastructure Materials Labor Right-of-Way Clearing Fence Construction $8,000/mile $2,000/mile $600/mile Fence Reconstruction $8,000/mile $2,500/mile $200/mile Fence Removal n/a $500/mile n/a Spring Construction $2,500/each $1,000/each n/a Spring Reconstruction $2,500/each $1,000/each n/a Pond Reconstruction $975/each $1,000/each n/a
3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects of each alternative are analyzed on NFS lands and non-NFS lands under term private land grazing permits (where appropriate) within Klamath and Lake counties when analyzing the economic impacts. The boundary of the allotment for each alternative was used for analyzing social and tribal impacts. Alternative 2 (current management) served as a baseline for comparing the effects from the other alternatives. For all alternatives, effects were analyzed for economic impacts, sociological concerns, and tribal concerns. The analysis of effects considered both short-term (season of use) and long-term (life of the permit, or 10 years) impacts for economic, social, and tribal impacts. All calculations disclosed are estimates and should be used only for comparative purposes.
3-114 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.5.4.1 Measurement Indicators Indicators used to measure effects are selected so that the effects of the project alternatives can be compared and contrasted. The selection of indicators was based on public comments received. The possible effects of the alternatives are disclosed quantitatively and qualitatively in Table 3-16.
Table 3-13 Comparison of socioeconomic measurement indicators by alternative (Alt.) Measurement Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Full-time employees required to 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 administer, monitor, and conduct key area evaluations Cost of fence construction, $5,279 $9,249 $32,448 $14,528 $24,121 reconstruction, and removal to Forest Cost of fence construction, $0 $174,046 $399,501 $133,607 $405,360 reconstruction, and removal to Permittee Cost of fence Year 1–2 $5,279 $8,699 $31,938 $11,528 $23,571 construction, reconstruction, and Year 3–4 $0 $550 $550 $3,000 $550 removal by year to Forest Year 5–6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cost of fence Year 1–2 $0 $131,246 $222,160 $26,839 $222,160 construction, Year 3–4 $0 $42,800 $134,541 $76,947 $134,408 reconstruction, and removal by year to Year 5–6 $0 $0 $42,800 $29,821 $48,792 Permittee Days of grazing proposed in a pasture 0 0 60/15 0 90/45 grouping within the deferred rotation strategy Total miles of herding per cow/per herd 0 50 40 20 20/38 needed to implement grazing system* Duration (months) of cattle on National 0 4.5 5 2.5 5 Forest System lands Estimated Employment 0 2.24 1.93 0.56 2.29 average annual Labor Income $0 $28,957 $24,919 $7,269 $29,504 values from Head Months (Forest Output $0 $175,248 $150,808 $43,992 $178,555 Service method) Estimated Employment 0 9.09 7.82 2.28 9.27 average annual values from Labor Income $0 $118,438 $101,913 $29,738 $120,793 Animal Unit Output $0 $580,434 $499,447 $145,740 $591,977 Months (Bureau of Land Management method) aMiles calculated are sums of air miles from centers of pastures for 1 cow of each herd.
3-115 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.4.2 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 (No Grazing Alternative) would eliminate livestock grazing from 137,189 acres of NFS lands. Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing would be eliminated on the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, and livestock grazing permits would be cancelled (FSH 2209.13–92.31). In accordance with agency regulations (36 CFR 222.4), grazing would cease 2 years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would continue unchanged during this 2-year interval, and these allotments would not be available for permit reissuance for a minimum of 10 years.
3.5.4.2.1 Economic Economically, Alternative 1 would be the least expensive alternative to implement, because no allotment infrastructure (e.g., fences, stock ponds, spring developments) construction, reconstruction, or maintenance would be required. Removal of the allotments from Forest range management duties would not significantly reduce the overall workload of the Forest range program or the number of full-time employees (FTEs) on the Forest. Current range personnel would continue to administer the remaining 87 allotments across the Forest. Associated costs of implementing Alternative 1 are restricted to removing approximately 10.6 miles of fence that encloses meadows within the Chemult Pasture (estimated at $5,279). This cost would be the responsibility of the Forest. With the removal of cattle from the surrounding area, fences to protect the sensitive resources would not be needed. These fences would be removed to eliminate the long-term costs of their maintenance by the District. Existing internal pasture and allotment division fences and range-related water developments (ponds and springs) in the project area would not be removed. These infrastructures would be left in place to deteriorate or to await removal for utilization elsewhere. If any infrastructures of benefit to other resources (e.g., water developments providing water for wildlife) need to be maintained or improved, subsequent decisions would need to be made, and funding for maintenance of these improvements would need to be secured. Alternative 1 would cause the most economically adverse impacts to the ranch operation permitted for the allotments. Currently, the allotments provide approximately 85% of the grazed summer pasture for the permittee. This livestock operation is a family business. Comparable grazing opportunities would be difficult to find near the home ranch, due to the high demand and high cost for grazing lands in Klamath and Lake counties. If the permittee is not permitted continuing use of the allotments, the operation would likely be forced to downsize (comment letter from Keith Little, Iverson Management, to Barbara Machado, Forest Service, available in project record). Estimated annual employment, labor income, and output from Alternative 1 is zero under both analysis methods reviewed for this project (Table 3-16). Alternative 1 would have beneficial direct and indirect impacts to Forest range administration costs because removing the allotments from the program would reduce expenditures on infrastructure and would not increase FTEs within the range program. However, Alternative 1 would have adverse direct and indirect impacts on the permittee ranching operation, including the potential need for downsizing and dismissal of employees.
3.5.4.2.2 Social Commenters expressed concern that cattle reduce the quality of social experiences on the Forest by reducing wildlife and water availability and impacting recreational opportunities, aesthetics, and spiritual values. With the removal of cattle from the landscape, short-term benefits would include the
3-116 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 presence of more wildlife and fewer impacts to recreational opportunities and aesthetic values. Long- term benefits would include the improved aesthetics of unaltered natural surroundings as meadows and other visibly grazed areas return to an ungrazed state. Removing this landscape from suitable grazing would impact the local grazing community and permitted ranch operation. The operation is currently the primary-source or sole-source income for 4 households within the community of Silver Lake, which has a population of 149 people (U.S. Census 2011). Downsizing would likely eliminate the current employment for at least one of these households. The community of Silver Lake does not have many other opportunities for employment, so downsizing would likely require any released employees to change their livelihood or travel longer distances to regain employment. Alternative 1 would have beneficial direct and indirect impacts on public social values associated with social Forest use. However, Alternative 1 would cause adverse direct and indirect impacts to the permitted ranching operation and the local ranching community.
3.5.4.2.3 Tribal Cattle would be removed from the landscape and would no longer be present to cause potential conflicts with traditional tribal practices, uses of plants, or aesthetics within the project boundary. Alternative 1 would have beneficial direct and indirect impacts to tribal resources.
3.5.4.3 Alternative 2
3.5.4.3.1 Economic Under Alternative 2, grazing would continue as currently managed within the project area. Continuing with current management would be the least expensive action alternative to implement, because minimal allotment infrastructure construction, reconstruction, or maintenance would be completed. Continued management of the current permit and the allotment boundaries would not change the workload or number of Forest range management personnel. The Forest allotments would be administered as part of one FTE’s program of work; approximately 24 other allotments would be administered by the assigned range management specialist. Rangeland technicians would also be assigned duties within these 24 allotments and within any number of the Forest’s 87 allotments. Associated costs of implementing Alternative 2 include reconstructing 17.3 miles of fence and removing 1.1 miles of fence, totaling $9,249 for costs to the Forest and $174,046 for costs to the permittee (Table 3-16). Construction and maintenance of 3.6 miles of fence would be shared between the two permittees; the Forest Service would be responsible for the cost of materials. Alternative 2 also includes the cleaning out and sealing of 11 ponds, reconstructing 3 spring developments, and constructing 3 new spring developments, totaling $25,725. Costs for these improvements would be spread out over approximately 6 years and are not extraordinarily more than would be anticipated for any Forest allotment where infrastructure had not been reconstructed since the 1960s. Therefore, these costs were not used as measurement indicators for comparing alternatives. Maintenance of allotment and pasture boundary fences would remain the responsibility of the permittee. Costs to the permittee for fence maintenance would likely increase, as newly constructed and reconstructed fence not previously assigned to the permittee because of substandard construction quality would be built to standards and assigned to the permittee for maintenance. Fences around interior fenced riparian areas would remain the maintenance responsibility of the District. Alternative 2 would keep the costs of management for the permitted ranch operation about the same as the costs currently being accrued. Alternative 2 would allow the ranch operation to continue
3-117 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
management at the existing size. The allotments would continue to provide the needed summer forage lands for approximately 85% of the ranching operation, saving the permittee the increased grazing expenses associated with Alternative 1. Total livestock under permitted grazing at the peak of the grazing season is 419 cow/calf pairs (3,218 AUM). In an average summer grazing, the calves could each gain approximately 1.5 to 2 pounds per day. The permitted season, mid-May through the end of September, is approximately 135 days, so calves should realize between 200 and 270 pounds live weight gained. In total, between 83,800 and 113,130 pounds of live weight production may be realized. Depending on market conditions, the financial gain could be up to $156,119 ($1.38 per 1 pound of live weight calves). Annual averages for employment, labor income, and output for Alternative 2 were used as the baseline for comparing the effects between alternatives (Table 3-16). Alternative 2 would most closely maintain economic commitments by both the Forest and the permitted ranching operation at cost levels similar to those of the past few years. Costs to the permittee for infrastructure improvements are within comparable ranges of improvement costs in other allotments of similar size and infrastructure age. Spreading the costs over 6 years should not create any adverse direct or indirect impacts to continued management of the allotments. Increased miles of fence assigned to the permittee for additional fence maintenance are within reasonable amounts for a ranching operation. The potential increase in operational costs would be expected to be minimal, but this increase could have some adverse direct and indirect impacts to the operation, including the potential need to hire additional workers or pay extra hours to current employees.
3.5.4.3.2 Social Under Alternative 2, grazing would continue as currently managed within the project area. Commenters noted that the presence of cattle reduces the quality of social experiences by reducing wildlife and water availability and impacting recreational opportunities, aesthetics, and spiritual values. Continued management would retain similar availability and opportunities for these social experiences and maintain their existing quality. Alternative 2 would maintain short-term negative direct and indirect impacts to Forest users whose experience of the Forest is diminished by the presence or evidence of cattle within the project boundary. However, cattle are fairly antisocial animals and would move away quickly at the sound of Forest users approaching; this livestock behavior would reduce negative direct impacts from the physical presence of cattle. Long-term direct and indirect impacts would also be maintained, because evidence of grazed meadows would be present during snow-free, off-season Forest use. Comments expressed a concern that permittees receive special use privileges of NFS lands. Commenters stated that the financial benefit the Forest gains from these permits does not outweigh the social costs, such as those discussed above. Rates for permit fees are set at a national level, and permit fees are not meant to produce profits to the Forest, but are instead intended to assist with management costs. The social impacts discussed above are no greater than impacts from other nonsocial Forest multiple use (such as timber harvest or prescribed burning) and are within an acceptable range of impacts to Forest users as a result of multiple-use land management. Continuing use of the allotments would not impact ranching operations for the permittee; no downsizing would be required. The ranching operation would continue to provide income for 4 households within the community of Silver Lake. Cattle would move in 2 herds throughout the pastures, traveling approximately 50 miles each and moving approximately every 15 to 30 days until July 1 when no additional pasture changes occur before cattle are removed from the allotments 3 months later. Operational viability would remain the same as the past several years, with use, movements, and number of cattle moving through the allotment remaining unchanged. Alternative 2 would cause no short- or long-term direct or indirect impacts to the ranching operation.
3-118 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Alternative 2 would maintain current levels of negative direct and indirect impacts on public social values associated with social Forest use. However, Alternative 2 would maintain beneficial direct and indirect impacts to the permitted ranching operation’s way of life and the local ranching community.
3.5.4.3.3 Tribal Under Alternative 2, no changes to grazing management practices would occur. Opportunities for tribal traditional practices within the project area would remain the same as they have been for the past several years. Short-term impacts include disturbance from cattle, which consume, trample, and defecate on plants; disperse wildlife; and impose on visual aesthetics by their physical presence and by forage consumption that changes the visual appeal of the landscape. Alternative 2 would have short-term impacts for the approximately 4.5 months the cattle would be on the allotments each year. Long-term impacts include the maintenance and availability of opportunities similar to those that have been present for the 30+ years that cattle have been grazing the project area under current management practices. Plant populations would not change (increase or decrease) in size, and off-season signs of cattle (e.g., dung, grazed meadows, allotment infrastructure) would remain. Alternative 2 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to opportunities for tribal traditional practices to continue within the project area. Impacts to tribal opportunities would be similar to those discussed under social impacts discussed above. No highly utilized or spiritually significant locations have been identified within the project area. Therefore, continuing impacts of grazing are not expected to affect continuation of traditional practices. The nearest area specifically identified through public comments as an area of special interest or concern is Yamsay Mountain, which is approximately 9 miles from the project area. Alternative 2 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to Yamsay Mountain.
3.5.4.4 Alternatives 3 and 5
3.5.4.4.1 Economic Under Alternatives 3 and 5, grazing would continue across the Antelope Grazing Allotment and the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment and within additional acreages assigned to the allotments at Cannon Well, Tobin Cabin, and the North Sheep Pasture. Deferred-rotation grazing would also be permitted within some of the fenced meadows where grazing is currently excluded. Alternatives 3 and 5 would be the most expensive alternatives to implement for all alternatives. Continued management of the permit and the allotment boundaries would not change the workload or number of Forest range management personnel. The Forest allotments would be administered as part of one FTE’s program of work; approximately 24 other allotments would be administered by the assigned range management specialist. Rangeland technicians would also be assigned duties within these allotments and within any number of the Forest’s 87 allotments. Associated costs of implementing Alternatives 3 and 5 include approximately 20.7 miles of fence reconstruction, 20 miles of fence construction, and 1.4 miles (Alternative 3) and 1.1 miles (Alternative 5) of fence removal, totaling $32,448 for the Forest and $399,501 for the permittee under Alternative 3, and $24,121 for the Forest and $405,360 for the permittee under Alternative 5. These alternatives also include the cleaning out and sealing of 14 ponds, reconstruction of 5 spring developments, and construction of 4 new spring developments, totaling $36,150 for each alternative. Costs for these improvements would be spread out over approximately 6 years in order of priority for completion. These costs are higher than what is generally available within the Forest’s rangeland management budget for allotment infrastructure, and successful acquisition of these funds would
3-119 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
depend on partnerships or on additional resources being allocated to the Forest for this allotment. Maintenance of allotment and pasture boundary fences would remain assigned to the permittee. Costs to the permittee for fence maintenance would likely increase, as newly constructed and reconstructed fence not previously assigned to the permittee for maintenance because of substandard construction quality would be built to standards and assigned to the permittee. For Alternatives 3 and 5, additional economic effects (specific to these alternatives) were considered, with particular attention given to past investments within currently fenced meadows on the Chemult RD portion of the allotments that would be grazed. Commenters expressed concern about restoration efforts and associated costs invested by the District and partner groups for restoration efforts within the fenced areas. Past investments from the District and partner groups are estimated at $473,542. Grazing within locations that received restoration investments could alter current conditions, particularly in areas where grazing does not now occur. However, project-specific design criteria (section 2.3.7) would impede detrimental changes to these areas. Securing the investments made to restore lands within the project area to maintain or allow restoration conditions to improve would be accomplished through implementation of these design criteria, monitoring, and adaptive management. Alternatives 3 and 5 would allow the ranch operation to continue management at the existing size. The allotments would continue to provide the needed summer forage lands for approximately 85% of the ranching operation, saving the permittee the increased grazing expenses associated with Alternative 1. Total livestock under permitted grazing at the peak of the grazing season is 494 cow/calf pairs (2,769 AUM under Alternative 3 and 3,282 AUM under Alternative 5]). In an average summer grazing, the calves could each gain approximately 1.5 to 2 pounds per day. The permitted season, mid-May through mid-October, is approximately 150 days, so calves should realize between 225 and 300 pounds live weight gained. In total, between 111,150 and 148,200 pounds of live weight production may be realized. Depending on market conditions, the financial gain could be up to $204,516 ($1.38 per 1 pound of live weight calves). Average annual employment, labor income, and output for Alternative 3 are estimated to be 86% of the current (Alternative 2) averages. Average annual employment, labor income, and output for Alternative 5 are estimated to be 102% of the current averages. Both methods of calculating these outputs, while producing different values for these measures (Table 3-16), produced the same percent change from current management operation averages. However, allotment management costs to the permittee under Alternatives 3 and 5 would likely increase, because more riding and on-the-ground management would be required with the proposed deferred-rotation grazing strategy than with an open-season grazing strategy. Costs to the permitted ranching operation could increase if additional riders need to be hired and/or current employees need to be paid for more days of work. In addition to the increased costs associated with a deferred- rotation grazing system, Alternatives 3 and 5 have increased costs associated with allotment management requirements for hauling water to the eastside pastures. With the increased on-the- ground management, costs under Alternatives 3 and 5 would be higher than the costs incurred under current management. Alternatives 3 and 5 would require increased economic commitments by both the Forest and the permitted ranching operation; costs under either of these alternatives would be higher than the costs of the past few years. Costs would be higher than what is generally available within the Forest’s rangeland management budget for allotment infrastructure, and successful acquisition of these funds would depend on partnerships or on additional resources being allocated to the Forest for this allotment. Spreading the costs over 6 years (as opposed to having to pay the full amounts in 1 year) would reduce any adverse direct or indirect impacts to continued rangeland management on the
3-120 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Forest. Increased miles of fence assigned to the permittee (from additional fence maintenance) and increased on-the-ground allotment management (from a deferred-rotation grazing system and water hauling) are within reasonable amounts to be assigned to a ranching operation. Increased operational costs could cause adverse direct and indirect impacts under these alternatives; however, these alternatives also present the greatest potential for financial return on calf weight gain, which would directly and indirectly benefit the ranching operation.
3.5.4.4.2 Social Under Alternatives 3 and 5, grazing would continue within the project area. A deferred-rotation grazing strategy would be implemented, and the allotment boundary would be extended to include currently ungrazed areas within the North Sheep Pasture. Continued grazing throughout the project area would retain similar availability and opportunities for these social experiences and maintain their existing quality. However, under these alternatives, cattle would be less concentrated in individual locations, and monitoring and riding requirements would reduce the length of time cattle would be in any one location. As a result, forage utilizations would likely be less evident, and cattle would be less likely to be found in any one location for more than a month during most years. This grazing strategy would maintain or decrease short-term negative direct and indirect impacts to Forest users whose experience of the Forest is diminished by the presence or evidence of cattle within the project boundary. Additionally, cattle are fairly antisocial animals and would move away quickly at the sound of Forest users approaching; this livestock behavior would reduce negative direct impacts from the physical presence of cattle. Long-term direct and indirect impacts would be maintained or decrease if less grazing evidence remains during snow-free, off-season periods of use. Comments expressed a concern that permittees receive special privileges of NFS lands. Comments stated that the financial benefit the Forest gains from these permits does not outweigh the social costs, such as those discussed above. As discussed in Alternative 2, rates for permit fees are set at a national level, and permit fees are not meant to produce profits to the Forest, but are instead intended to assist with management costs. The social impacts discussed above are no greater than impacts from other non-social Forest multiple use (such as timber harvest or prescribed burning) and are within an acceptable range of impacts to Forest users as a result of multiple-use land management. Continuing use of the allotments would not impact ranching operations for the permittee. The ranching operation would continue to provide income for 4 households within the community of Silver Lake, and no downsizing of the operation would be required. However, the management strategies proposed under these alternatives would require changes to existing operational methods and would potentially require hiring of additional riders, as discussed in the economic effects section (above). Under Alternative 3, cattle would move in 1 herd throughout the pastures, traveling approximately 40 miles and moving every 15 to 30 days until the herd is removed from the allotment. Under Alternative 5, cattle would move in 2 herds throughout the pastures, traveling approximately 20–38 miles each and moving every 15 to 30 days until July 1; after July 1 cattle would move every 1.5 months until the herds are removed from the allotments. Under Alternatives 3 and 5, operational viability for the ranch would remain; however, financial and management changes would be required to implement either alternative successfully. Implementing the new management strategy would have negative short-term direct and indirect effects on the operation’s viability while ranch employees and managers identify internal needs for successful management. No long-term negative direct or indirect impacts to the ranching operation are anticipated under Alternatives 3 and 5, as off-season management of the ranch would not be impacted. Alternatives 3 and 5 would maintain or reduce current levels of negative direct and indirect impacts on public social values associated with social Forest use. Alternatives 3 and 5 would maintain current
3-121 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
beneficial direct and indirect impacts to the permitted ranching operation’s way of life and the local ranching community, although some minimal short-term negative impacts to the permittee’s ranching management are anticipated.
3.5.4.4.3 Tribal Under Alternatives 3 and 5, grazing management would employ a deferred-rotation system and incorporate additional lands, including the North Sheep Pasture. Opportunities for tribal gathering and traditional practices within the project area would remain the same as they have been for the last several years or improve. Short-term impacts include disturbance from cattle, which consume, trample, and defecate on plants; disperse wildlife; and impose on visual aesthetics by their physical presence and by forage consumption that changes the visual appeal of the landscape. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have short-term impacts for the approximately 5 months the cattle would be on the allotment each year. However, duration of grazing on the western pastures would decrease by 1 month from what is currently permitted. Many ecosystems supporting summer game wildlife and botanical species of tribal importance occur on the western pastures; these pastures also contain visually diverse landscapes. Short-term impacts in these locations would be decreased by 1 month. Additionally, the expansion of the current allotment boundary to include the North Sheep Pasture, along with the deferred-rotation strategy and on-the-ground active management by the permittee, would decrease the indirect impacts of concentrated grazing areas, decreasing the visibility of cattle disturbance in the pastures. However, the North Sheep Pasture would undergo some short-term impacts that do not occur under current management. Long-term impacts include the maintenance and availability of opportunities similar to those that have been present for the 30+ years that cattle have been grazing the project area under current management practices. Plant populations would vary, some increasing, some decreasing, depending on the plant’s responsiveness to impacts from grazing (see Botany Report). Off-season signs of cattle (e.g., dung, grazed meadows, allotment infrastructure) would remain: in some areas, these signs would be less concentrated or intense; in the North Sheep Pasture, however, signs of cattle would be introduced. Alternatives 3 and 5 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to opportunities for tribal traditional practices to continue within the project area. Impacts to tribal opportunities would be similar to those discussed under social impacts discussed above. No highly utilized or spiritually significant locations have been identified within the project area. Therefore, continuing impacts of grazing are not expected to affect continuation of traditional practices. The nearest area specifically identified through public comments as an area of special interest or concern is Yamsay Mountain, which is approximately 9 miles from the project area. Alternatives 3 and 5 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to Yamsay Mountain.
3.5.4.5 Alternative 4
3.5.4.5.1 Economic Under Alternative 4, grazing would continue only on the eastside pastures (North Willow, Halfway, Tobin Cabin, and Antelope Flat 1–4). Alternative 4 would be the second least expensive alternative to implement of all the action alternatives, because infrastructure improvements associated with the west pastures would not be implemented under this alternative. Continued management of the permit and the allotment boundaries would not change the workload or number of Forest range management personnel. The Forest allotments would be administered as part of one FTE’s program of work; approximately 24 other allotments would be administered by the assigned range management specialist. Rangeland technicians would also be assigned duties within these allotments and within any number of the Forest’s 87 allotments.
3-122 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Associated costs of implementing Alternative 4 include approximately 8.8 miles of fence reconstruction, 4.5 miles of fence construction, and 11.7 miles of fence removal, totaling $14,528 for the Forest and $133,607 for the permittee. Alternative 4 also includes the cleaning out and sealing of 11 ponds, reconstruction of 2 spring developments, and construction of 2 new spring developments, totaling $20,725. Costs for these improvements would be spread out over approximately 6 years in order of priority for completion. These costs are not extraordinarily more than would be anticipated for any Forest allotment where infrastructure had not been reconstructed since the 1960s. Maintenance of allotment and pasture boundary fences would remain assigned to the permittee. Costs to the permittee for fence maintenance would likely remain the same or decrease. Newly constructed and reconstructed fence not previously assigned for maintenance by the permittee because of substandard construction quality would be built to standards and assigned to the permittee, but all fences on the west pastures would be removed from the permittee’s maintenance responsibilities. With the removal of cattle from the surrounding area, fences to protect the sensitive resources within would not be needed. These fences would be removed to eliminate the long-term costs of their maintenance by the District. Alternative 4 would not allow the ranch operation to continue management at the existing size. The eastside pastures generally provide early-season forage lands, which would not sustain 85% of the operation’s cattle through the summer months. This livestock operation is a family business. Comparable grazing opportunities would be difficult to find near the home ranch, due to the high demand and high cost for grazing lands in Klamath and Lake counties. Total livestock under permitted grazing at the peak of the grazing season is 419 cow/calf pairs (1,534 AUMs). In an average summer grazing, the calves could each gain approximately 1.5 to 2 pounds per day. The permitted season, mid-May through end of July, is approximately 75 days, so calves should realize between 113 and 150 pounds live weight gained. In total, between 47,347 and 62,850 pounds of live weight production may be realized. Depending on market conditions, the financial gain could be up to $86,733 ($1.38 per 1 pound of live weight calves). Average annual employment, labor income, and output for Alternative 4 are estimated to be 25% of the current (Alternative 2) averages. Both methods of calculating these outputs, while producing different values for these measures (Table 3-16), produced the same percent change from current management operation averages. Operations costs would increase because the permittee would have to find suitable replacement pastures or provide feed for the cattle. Costs associated with developing new range and trucking cattle to new pastures would also increase. If the permittee is not permitted continuing use of the allotments, the operation would likely be forced to downsize (comment letter from Keith Little, Iverson Management, to Barbara Machado, Forest Service, available in project record). The allotments that would be removed under this alternative are most beneficial to the ranching operation for the summer forage they provide; without that forage, downsizing of the operation would be likely to occur. Costs to the permittee for allotment management would likely remain the same or decrease. Costs associated with hauling water to the pastures would increase, but all on-the-ground allotment management associated with the west pastures would be removed from the permittee’s maintenance responsibilities. Alternative 4 would have beneficial short-term and long-term direct and indirect economic impacts on Forest range administration costs, because removal of the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment would reduce expenditures on infrastructure and not impact FTEs within the range program. However, Alternative 4 would have adverse direct and indirect impacts on the permittee ranching operation, including potential downsizing and dismissal of employees.
3-123 Socioeconomics Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.5.4.5.2 Social Under Alternative 4, grazing would continue on the eastern pastures and be removed from the western pastures. Short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects on social opportunities, perceptions, and quality of experiences for Forest users under Alternative 4 would be the same as under Alternative 1 for the western pastures and the same as under Alternative 3 for the eastern pastures. Removal of the western pastures from available pastureland would impact the local ranching community and the permitted ranch operation. On the eastern pastures, cattle would move in one herd, traveling approximately 20 miles and moving every 15 to 30 days. Short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects on operational viability for the permittee under Alternative 4 would be the same as under Alternative 1 for the western pastures and the same as under Alternative 3 for the eastern pastures. For western pastures, Alternative 4 would have beneficial direct and indirect impacts on public social values associated with social Forest use. For eastern pastures, Alternative 4 would maintain current levels of negative direct and indirect impacts on public social values associated with social Forest use. However, Alternative 4 would have overall adverse direct and indirect impacts to the permitted ranching operation’s way of life and the local ranching community, because the ranching operation would likely have to downsize with the loss of the western pastures for grazing.
3.5.4.5.3 Tribal Under Alternative 4, grazing would cease on the Chemult RD portion of the Antelope Grazing Allotment. Opportunities for tribal gathering and traditional practices within the project area would remain the same as they have been for the last several years or improve, particularly on the western pastures. Short-term impacts include disturbance from cattle, which consume, trample, and defecate on plants; disperse wildlife; and impose on visual aesthetics by their physical presence and by forage consumption that changes the visual appeal of the landscape. Alternative 4 would eliminate these short-term impacts on the western pastures and maintain existing short-term impacts for the approximately 2.5 months the cattle would be on the allotment each year. Long-term impacts include the maintenance and availability of opportunities similar to those that have been present for the 30+ years that cattle have been grazing the project area under current management practices. Plant populations would vary, some increasing, some decreasing, depending on the plant’s responsiveness to impacts from grazing (see “Botany” section). Off-season signs of cattle (e.g., dung, grazed meadows, allotment infrastructure) would be removed from the western pastures; these signs would remain on the eastern pastures but would be less concentrated or intense in some areas. Alternative 4 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to opportunities for tribal traditional practices to continue within the project area. Impacts to tribal opportunities would be similar to those discussed under social impacts discussed above. No highly utilized or spiritually significant locations have been identified within the project area. Therefore, continuing impacts of grazing are not expected to affect continuation of traditional practices. The nearest area specifically identified through public comments as an area of special interest or concern is Yamsay Mountain, which is approximately 9 miles from the project area. Alternative 4 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to Yamsay Mountain.
3-124 Socioeconomics Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.5.5 Cumulative Effects This analysis considers economic factors within Lake and Klamath counties, and social and tribal factors within the overlapping drainages (Deschutes, Klamath, and Oregon closed basins). Lake and Klamath counties have been determined to be appropriate bounds for measurement because common economic elements occur in this geographical area. The drainages have been determined to be appropriate bounds for social and tribal considerations because opportunities similar to those offered within the project area are most likely to occur within these bounds.
3.5.5.1 All Alternatives When considering cumulative effects of actions for analysis, the context and intensity of impacts within the analysis area are important for overall evaluations.
3.5.5.1.1 Economics No alternative considered would measurably change economic conditions for Klamath or Lake counties. Changes in the average annual employment, labor income, and output do not contribute to measurable changes within the bounds of the analysis under any alternative. Additionally, the lands included in the project area do not provide a unique opportunity for grazing. The inclusion or exclusion of the project area as land available for grazing would not create measurable changes in the opportunities for grazing within Lake and Klamath counties.
3.5.5.1.2 Social No alternative considered would measurably change the availability or quality of social Forest uses within the overlapping drainages. Ongoing multiple-use land management would continue to cause changes on the landscape, but none of these uses would likely change primary uses of these lands. Recreational and spiritual opportunities would remain the same as they have been for the past several years; grazing would continue on lands within portions of these drainages under all alternatives. The lands included in these drainages do not provide a unique opportunity for any one social Forest use or multiple-use land management. The inclusion or exclusion of the project area as land available for grazing would not create measureable changes in the opportunities within the drainages.
3.5.5.1.3 Tribal No alternative considered would measurably change the availability or quality of tribal traditional practices within the overlapping drainages. Ongoing multiple-use land management would continue to cause changes on the landscape, none of these uses would likely change primary uses of these lands. Subsistence practices and spiritual opportunities would remain the same as they have been for the past several years; grazing would continue on lands within portions of these drainages under all alternatives.
3-125
Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.6 Hydrology
3.6.1 Affected Environment The project area is located within both Lake and Klamath counties and includes mainly the headwater portions of 3 river basins: Deschutes River, Klamath River, and Oregon closed basins. The project is located in the Little Deschutes, Williamson, and Summer Lake subbasins (Figure 3-1). The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for each subbasin and subwatershed in the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area is listed in Table 3-17.
Figure 3-1. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) location of the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area
Table 3-14. Basins, subbasins, and subwatersheds in which the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area is located. HUCs are listed for each basin (6 digit), subbasin (8 digit), and subwatershed (12 digit). Basin Subbasin Subwatershed HUC 12 Acres within Project Area Deschutes Little Deschutes Corral Springs 171200050501 9 (170703) (17070302) Crescent Butte 170703020505 413 Lower Sellers Creek 170703020404 942 Marmot Butte 170703020503 861 Sellers Marsh 170703020402 12,383 Upper Sellers Creek 170703020401 9,300 Klamath Williamson Dillon Creek 180102010402 979 (180102) (18010201) Lower Jack Creek 180102010403 19,590 Mosquito Creek 180102010404 1,239 Shoestring Creek 180102010202 2,367
3-127 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Upper Jack Creek 180102010401 23,115 Oregon Closed Summer Lake Bear Creek 171200050105 9,697 Basins (17120005) Buck Creek 171200050107 864 (171200) Dry Creek 171200050403 36 Lower Bear Flat 171200050102 28,201 Draw Lower Rock Creek 171200050104 8,963 Oak Butte 171200050201 713 Oatman Flat 171200050202 3,174 Timothy Creek 171200050106 4,869 Upper Bear Flat 171200050101 16,172 Draw Upper Rock Creek 171200050103 25,689
3.6.1.1 Groundwater-dependent Ecosystems Riparian and wetland areas play an essential role in the health of a watershed. Properly functioning riparian zones, the land adjacent to a stream channel, trap and filter sediments traveling to the stream channel, act as giant sponges during flood events, and provide vegetation necessary to stabilize stream banks and shade the stream channel (Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Belsky et al. 1999). A wetland is an area of land where soil remains saturated with water. Wetlands provide similar ecosystem services, such as water storage and filtration. Many riparian and wetland areas are GDEs. GDEs are ecosystems that depend on surface or near-surface expressions of groundwater (Eamus et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007) and are located in areas where the groundwater table remains at or near the ground surface. GDEs are often associated with springs, which are concentrated discharges of groundwater that flow at the ground surface (USGS 2012a). Springs form when the side of a hill, a valley bottom, or other excavation intersects a flowing body of groundwater at or below the local water table, below which the subsurface material is saturated with water (USGS 2012b). An example of a GDE is a wetland adjacent to a spring that often has little-to-no sign of surface inflow (e.g., a stream channel) and remains saturated after extended periods with no precipitation (Brown et al. 2007). The hydrology within the project area is dominated by an extensive complex of GDEs, including meadows, riparian zones, wetlands, seeps, springs, and fens. Approximately 8,070 acres of riparian and wetland area exist within the project area, with 2,929 of those acres on the Silver Lake RD and the remaining 5,141 acres on the Chemult RD. The numerous wetlands within the project area can be divided into 4 classifications (Cummings 2012): • Wetlands associated with basalt lava flows that were deposited about 4–5 million years ago (Ma) • Wetlands associated with the morphology of lava flows that erupted between about 1.5 and 1.0 Ma • Wetlands associated with the valley bottom of Jack Creek valley • Wetlands associated with changes in permeability Fens are common on the west side of the project area in the Chemult RD. Fens are groundwater influenced/supported peatlands with high water tables (USDA Forest Service, 2007, 2012a). The consistently high water table creates anaerobic conditions that slow decomposition and lead to
3-128 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 the development of peats or mucks, which is plant material in various stages of decomposition (USDA Forest Service, 2007, 2012). Fens have hydric soils with an aquic soil moisture regime, and an accumulation of peat in the histic epipedon with a minimum of 40 cm of organic horizons within the upper 80 cm of the soil profile (Weixelman and Cooper, 2009). Fens are often associated with springs, are characterized by water with a neutral or slightly alkaline pH, and are able to support a diverse plant community (EPA, 2011). Fens within the project area are characterized in Aldous and Gurrieri (2012). The fens generally occur on the edges of eroded pumice terraces on valley edges. The pumice has been eroded down to the bedrock surface and is thickest at the head of the fens and pinches out towards the toe. In meadow bottoms sparse herbaceous vegetation is present and does not appear to receive a continuous supply of water from fens. This vegetation is likely supported in the summer by high soil moisture that results from spring snowmelt and precipitation. There is also an unusual concentration of “fen inclusions,” also on the westside of the project area. These “fen inclusions” occur in areas where groundwater discharge is sufficient for formation of peat soils, but are smaller in size and have less plant species diversity than traditional fens. See the “Botany” report for a more detailed characterization of fens within the project area. Surveys of over 60 springs and fens within the project area were conducted in 2010 and 2011. On the Chemult RD, the surveys identified 32 fens (the majority associated with springs) and 19 springs not associated with fens. On the Silver Lake RD, the surveys identified 1 fen and 15 springs. Seven developed ponds were found on the Chemult RD, and 3 were found on the Silver Lake RD. Following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009), the ponds were excluded from data analysis. Some of these ponds were found at or adjacent to springs and/or fens; at these locations the surveys were restricted to the springs and/or fens. It is important to note that the network of springs and fens within the project area is extensive and complex, particularly on the Chemult RD. As noted in the “Methods” section of this report, there was a strong attempt to survey all fens and springs within the project area, but it is likely that an unknown number of small fens and springs were not surveyed.
At each location, the degree of soil alteration, if any, was quantified (Table 3-18). Approximately 75% of all springs and fens had less than 10% bare ground cover (Table 3-18). Soil compaction occurred at 19% of the fens and at 36% of the springs. Channel erosion was found at only 9% of the fens and 4% of the springs (Table 3-18). Pedestaling was evident at 59% of the fens, and 18% of the springs (Table 3-18).
Table 3-15. Degree of soil alteration at fens and springs within the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project area. Measurements were collected during assessment of vegetation, soil, and hydrologic conditions at over 60 fens, springs, and developed ponds during 2010 and 2011 by the project interdisciplinary team, following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009). The surveys at developed ponds were excluded from data analysis. Measurement Fens (%) Springs (%) Compaction 19 36 Channel erosion 9 4 Pedestaling 59 18 Bare soil <10% 75 73 Bare soil 10%–20% 16 6 Bare soil >20% 9 21
The surveys also assessed impacts to hydrologic resources, such as water quality and wetland vegetation, at each location (Table 3-19). None of the locations exhibited
3-129 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
excessive fluctuations in the height of the groundwater table or had water quality that was not sufficient to support hydric vegetation, and excessive erosion was found at only 3% of the fens and 4% of the springs (Table 3-19). As described in the “Data Collection/Methodology” section of this report, the project interdisciplinary team (which included a Botanist, Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, and Range Conservationist) decided what constituted “excessive” conditions relative to the project area based upon professional judgment and Forest Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 1989, 1990). It is important to note that the assessment of negative hydrologic impacts at fens and springs was based upon conditions across the entire fen or spring area. This differs from the assessment of soil alteration (Table 3-18), which was based upon presence or absence of disturbance. For example, channel erosion was present at 9% of the surveyed fens (Table 3-18); however, only 3% of the fens had “excessive” erosion (Table 3-19).
Table 3-16. Assessment of hydrologic impacts to springs and fens within the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project area. Measurements were collected during assessment of vegetation, soil, and hydrology at over 60 locations during 2010 and 2011 by the project interdisciplinary team, following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009). Negative Hydrologic Impacts Fens (%) Springs (%) Excessive fluctuation of water levelsa 0 0
Contribution from upland watershed to site degradation 0 4 Water quality not sufficient to support hydric or other natural 0 0 vegetation Accumulation of chemicals that are affecting plant 0 0 productivity/production Soil saturation (e.g., ponding, flood frequency and duration) not 3 11 sufficient to compose and maintain hydric soils
Excessive erosion or deposition at the site 3 4 No presence of wetland vegetation 0 0 Vegetation species present do not indicate maintenance of hydric 0 0 soil characteristics Vegetation cover is not adequate to prevent erosion from flows 13 4 (e.g., storm events, snowmelt, flooding)
Note: Measurements were collected during assessment of vegetation, soil, and hydrology at over 60 locations during 2010 and 2011 by the project IDT, following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009). a“Excessive” fluctuations in the groundwater table are site specific. Groundwater dynamics were monitored at many locations throughout the project area (Aldous and Gurrieri 2012) and were used for calibration of what constituted “excessive” fluctuations in the water table at springs and fens within the project area.
During the spring and fen surveys, eight fens were determined to be in poor condition; all but 1 of these fens were located outside of ungrazed fenced riparian areas. Eleven of the surveyed fens were within ungrazed fenced riparian areas; ten of these were determined to be in good condition. The majority of fens that were observed to be in poor condition were located in the southeast corner of the Chemult pasture near the entry/exit gate for the pasture.
The public had previously expressed concern about grazing in Round Meadow. To determine current conditions at Round Meadow, the project interdisciplinary team conducted spring and riparian surveys at 4 locations. At all four locations, bare ground cover was less than 10%, one
3-130 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 area showed signs of channel erosion, and another area exhibited pedestaling. The public also expressed concern about grazing at Rock Springs. Based upon the results of the spring survey, Rock Springs was determined to be in poor condition. Here, soil disturbance was greater than 20%, and channel erosion, soil compaction, and pedestaling were documented.
3.6.1.1.1 Groundwater Dynamics Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) quantified groundwater dynamics as part of their investigation on environmental flows and levels (EF/L) for GDEs at 3 fens within the project area (Johnson, Wilshire, and Dry) where water is provided to livestock by piping water to watering troughs outside of the fen exclosures. The current FS working definition of EF/L is “Environmental flows and levels describe the quantity, quality, timing and range of variability of water flows and levels required to sustain or restore freshwater or estuarine ecosystems and the functions and services they provide. EF/Ls include instream flows, geomorphic and flood flows, groundwater levels, and lake and wetland levels established for environmental purposes” (Aldous and Gurrieri, 2012). Specific to this project, the EF/L for the fens describe the amount of allowable drawdown of the groundwater table within the fen that still maintains integrity of resident wetland plant community and peat saturation so that the peat layer does not oxidize and continues to accrete.
Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) found that over a 32 hour period of constant withdrawl of groundwater (at a rate of 0.7 gpm, which is approximately 1/3 of the pumping rate used to fill the livestock watering trough), fluctuations in the height of the groundwater table were at most 0.9 cm and within the range of measurement error. Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) suggested that a sustained groundwater table drawdown in excess of 30 cm would lead to the loss of some wetland indicator plant species, and that a sustained drawdown in excess of 70 cm would lead to complete loss of wetland indicator species. They concluded that the pumping rate caused a negligible drawdown of the groundwater table as it accounted for ~3% of the drawdown necessary to initiate the loss of wetland indicator plant species. In addition, Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) estimated the water budget at these locations (i.e. the movement of water into and out of a system). They found that groundwater outflow and evapotranspiration accounted for over 90% of the water leaving the system, while pumping groundwater to feed off-site livestock watering troughs accounted for a minor component (less than 10%) of water leaving the system (5% for Johnson, 0.5% for Wilshire, and 7% for Dry). The results of Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) further support the conclusion that continued groundwater withdrawl to feed livestock watering troughs on the height of the groundwater table would be negligible.
In addition to the pump tests at the 3 fens, Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) constructed transects to investigate the variability of vegetation and groundwater table dynamics across the fens. Along each transect they installed 14-25 groundwater wells, depending on the size of the fen. In the middle of the fens the height of the groundwater table was relatively stable and remained near the ground surface. In contrast, the height of the groundwater table was more dynamic near the edges of the fens, in which the groundwater table was high during spring snowmelt, then declined over the course of the summer (by over 100 cm at some locations). Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) also measured peat depth throughout the fens. They found that the greatest peat accumulation occurred in areas with a high groundwater table. Their results also indicated that peat accumulation was inversely related to the degree of groundwater table fluctuation. Lower peat depths were found in areas with high groundwater table fluctuations, particularly on the edges of the fens. The results of Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) agree with the results of other studies, which found thinner peat soils on the margins of fens (Craft and Richardson, 1993;
3-131 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Weixelman and Cooper, 2009). This variability in groundwater dynamics and peat accumulation illustrate the spatially and temporally complex and dynamic hydrologic system within the project area.
3.6.1.2 Streamflow Streamflow can be divided into 2 components: baseflow and stormflow. Baseflow is the water in the stream channel that originates from the inflow of groundwater. In contrast, stormflow is water that enters the stream channel from overland flow during precipitation and snowmelt events, as well as from direct precipitation onto the stream surface. In dry climates, the majority of the water in the stream channel is composed of baseflow, with an increasing proportion of stormflow during snowmelt or extended periods of precipitation. Deep pumice deposits from the eruption of Mount Mazama created a landscape in the project area where stream channels are disconnected from tributaries and/or spring sources. Therefore, water within the project area does not leave in appreciable amounts as surface flow. Peak streamflow is driven by snowmelt and historically occurs between March and June, with the highest monthly streamflow during May. Spring snowmelt ultimately controls groundwater recharge and storage, and thus stream baseflow, since spring snowmelt is the main input of water to soil. Summer precipitation is low and provides a relatively small contribution to streamflow and soil water storage. Stormflow (overland flow) generally occurs only during snowmelt or large precipitation events. The project area contains 7 miles of perennial streams (year-round water flow), 287 miles of intermittent streams (seasonal water flow), and 15 miles of ephemeral streams (short-term, precipitation- or snowmelt-induced water flow). Drainage density is a useful numerical measure of runoff potential, or the potential for water to be exported from a watershed via streamflow. Drainage density is defined as the total length of all streams in a watershed divided by the total area of the watershed. On a highly permeable landscape, drainage densities are sometimes less than 1 kilometer per square kilometer (km/km2), indicating a small potential for runoff. In areas with high runoff potential, drainage densities are often over 500 km/km2. The drainage density for the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area is 0.075 km/km2, indicating a very low potential for export of water by streams. All of the perennial flow within the project area occurs in Jack Creek. The geology along Jack Creek is characterized in Cummings (2012). The headwaters of Jack Creek are on the flank of Walker Rim northeast of Chemult. From there, Jack Creek flows south to the Williamson River. Year-round surface flow is present in upper reaches of the valley but occurs infrequently in lower reaches. Jack Creek streamflow generally goes subsurface near its intersection with NFS road 8821 in late summer. Pools often persist in the downstream reaches through much of the year, with surface flow appearing and subsiding through the North Sheep Pasture. Jack Creek can be divided into three sections based upon geology: 1. Headwaters (including Johnson Meadow) to Davis Flat (Section 1) 2. Davis Flat to NFS road 83 (Section 2) 3. NFS road 83 to its confluence with the Williamson River. (Section 3) In the headwaters (Section 1), two subdivisions are recognized. In the upper reaches of the valley, horizontal geologic units overlap geologic units of Walker Mountain and associated units. Broad, low relief valleys lie between lava flow capped ridges. The Wilshire site is in this setting. The Dry Meadow site may also be in such a setting, but at the headwaters of the Sellers Marsh system. The lower reaches of this section start where younger basalt lava flows partially blocked the drainage and formed intracanyon flows that moved down valley to near Davis Flat. These
3-132 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 flows arrested erosion of valleys in the upper reaches. The vents for the basalt lava flows appear to lie to the east and west of the Johnson Meadow site. Jack Creek is cutting into the lava flows from the western center. Some of the lava flows entered the Jack Creek valley and flowed south as intracanyon flows to near FS Road 88. Since these flows were erupted, Jack Creek has cut head-ward on the east side of these flows in the area now occupied by Davis Flat. From Davis Flat to FS Road 83 (Section 2), Jack Creek is segmented into broad meadows such as Davis Flat and O’Connor Meadow where pumice deposits overlie bedrock and are separated by areas where younger lava flows erupted from vents to the east intersected Jack Creek valley. The pumice deposits are locally overlain by fans of glassy silt washed from neighboring highlands, particularly east of the valley. From FS Road 83 to the confluence of Jack Creek with the Williamson River (Section 3), lava flows blocking the valley are more common and at least one intracanyon flow occupies the valley as far south as near Rakes Meadow. Near Silver Lake Highway the creek cuts through an older lava flow (3.63 Ma) that erupted from a center southeast of Rakes Meadow. Jack Creek then flows south to join the broad valley of the Williamson River south of Silver Lake Highway.
3.6.1.3 Channel Morphology and Water Quality Channel morphology and water quality are hydrologic factors for perennial streams and are closely tied to fisheries habitat; they are often presented with terminologies associated with the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) standards. Because Jack Creek is the only perennial stream within the project area and provides habitat for fish species analyzed for this project, data associated with these elements are presented under the “Fisheries” section and will not be repeated here. Some headcuts are present within the project area; some restoration of headcuts has been completed and still other areas have restoration activities ongoing. Restoration activities occurring within the project area are not expected to affected by the proposed grazing strategy in these areas; livestock grazing is often excluded from these active restoration sites until the site has met desired recovery conditions. Grazing in areas where some headcuts are located would be at a duration and intensity where potential impacts would be within Forest Plan standards and guidelines.
3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects The bounds of analysis for determination of direct effects of the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project proposed actions to hydrologic resources are the project area and the time period allowed for grazing each year (3-5 months, depending on alternative). The bound of analysis for determination of short-term indirect effects is the project area and the time period allowed for grazing (3-5 months, depending on alternative) plus an additional 2 weeks beyond the grazing time period. For the measurement indicators pertaining to Jack Creek, the bound for spatial analysis is extended to include approximately 2 miles of Jack Creek downstream of the project area. This spatial area and time period was selected because potential impacts to water quality could extend downstream of the project area and/or beyond the grazing time period, but would be expected to dissipate within the additional stream distance and the additional time period specified. For determination of long-term indirect effects, the time period is extended to the duration of the grazing permit (10 years). Alternative 2 (current management) serves as a baseline for comparison of effects between the alternatives.
3-133 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.6.2.1 Measurement Indicators Measurement indicators are selected so that the potential effects of each alternative to hydrologic resources can be compared and contrasted. The selection of indicators was based on professional judgment and a thorough literature review on the impacts of grazing to hydrologic resources. The potential impacts of the alternatives on hydrologic resources are disclosed quantitatively in Table 3-20.
Table 3-17. Comparison of measurement indicators for hydrologic resources by alternative (Alt.)
Measurement Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Acres of riparian area subject to grazing 0 3,276 4,643 1,362 4,656 (e.g., wetlands, fens, springs, seeps, meadows, ground-water dependent ecosystems) Number of currently ungrazed fenced riparian 0 0 9 0 13 areas subject to grazing Miles of perennial stream grazed under NFS 0 1 7 0 7 management Miles of perennial stream grazed under private 3 3 0 3 0 management
3.6.2.2 General Potential Impacts of Grazing on Hydrologic Resources Grazing has the potential to impact hydrologic resources such as the health of GDEs (ie: wetlands, springs and fens), streamflow, channel morphology, and water quality. See the “Fisheries” section for discussions of general potential impacts on channel morphology and water quality.
3.6.2.2.1 Ground-water Dependent Ecosystems and Groundwater Dynamics Grazing can negatively impact riparian and wetland areas by increasing soil compaction through trampling; removing vegetation; and sloughing and deteriorating stream banks (Belsky et al. 1999). Overgrazing by livestock is considered one of the most widespread causes of deterioration of riparian and wetland areas (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Because GDEs depend on a surface or near-surface groundwater table (Eamus et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007), they can be negatively impacted by a decline in the height of the groundwater table (often referred to as “drawdown”), which may occur when groundwater is withdrawn from the system (e.g., during agricultural irrigation or supply of off-site water developments for livestock). If groundwater input to a fen is reduced (e.g., by withdrawal to supply off-site water developments for livestock), the fen will receive fewer nutrients and may turn into a bog, which is characterized by acidic water that supports a less diverse plant and animal population (USEPA 2011). Once the groundwater table is lowered, potential peat subsistence and subsequent decomposition can alter hydrologic patterns and result in changes to plant species composition (Cooper 1990). Bedford and Godwin (2003) suggest that a fluctuation of the groundwater table by a few centimeters throughout the year can negatively impact a fen. Fens and springs are GDEs that are prevalent within the project area. Livestock grazing can negatively impact fens through fecal contamination, soil compaction, and removal of vegetation; these impacts can lead to erosion, a decline in water quality, and changes in the hydrology of fen systems.
3-134 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.6.2.2.2 Streamflow Livestock grazing can impact both stream baseflow and stormflow because grazing causes increased soil compaction (Greenwood and McKenzie 2001; Tate et al. 2004), loss of vegetation (Kauffman and Krueger 1984), and reduced soil water infiltration (Warren et al. 1986; Kauffman et al. 2004). As soils become compacted and vegetation is removed, the ability of water to infiltrate the soil decreases, which can increase the amount of water traveling to the stream as overland flow (stormflow). This increase in overland flow can also increase the amount and velocity of peak streamflow during snowmelt or precipitation events (Belsky et al. 1999). Further, the reduction in soil water infiltration due to compaction and loss of vegetation can lead to a decline in the height of the groundwater table and thus a decline in the amount of groundwater entering the stream channel (baseflow) (Belsky et al. 1999; Wondzell and Swanson 1999; Agouridis et al. 2005). This reduction in groundwater inputs to the stream channel has the potential to change weakly defined perennial streams (year-round water flow) to intermittent (seasonal water flow) or ephemeral (short-term, precipitation- or snowmelt-induced water flow) streams (Li et al. 1994; Belsky et al. 1999), particularly in dry climates. A decrease in the height of the groundwater table may also lead to disconnecting the stream channel from its floodplain (Schilling et al. 2004). The floodplain acts as a large sponge during flood events, and disconnection can further increase the amount and velocity of water in a stream channel during snowmelt and precipitation events.
3.6.2.3 Alternative 1—No Grazing The removal of grazing under Alternative 1 would provide for the greatest improvements to hydrologic resources. Soil compaction resulting from trampling of soil by cattle would no longer occur, and vegetation cover would increase once livestock grazing ceased. Existing soil compaction would decrease over time due to root growth and expansion and frequent freeze- thaw cycles. The increase in vegetation cover and reduction in soil compaction would have the potential to increase soil water infiltration and storage and decrease overland flow. Existing water structures would not be maintained, and there would be the possibility of increased streamflow in Jack Creek. The increase in streamflow would have the potential to add perennial streamflow to sections of Jack Creek that currently flow intermittently, however this would be unlikely due to the porous geology of the project area.
The health of GDEs such as springs and fens within the project area would see the greatest improvements under Alternative 1. Livestock grazing would no longer occur within riparian and meadow areas (Table 17), where most if not all of the GDEs are located within the project area. Riparian vegetation cover would increase, and cattle would no longer compact sensitive wet soils characteristic of GDEs. Off-site livestock water developments would no longer be used, and the potential for a livestock grazing-related decline in the groundwater table would be eliminated. Conditions in Round Meadow, which was rated as being in “good” condition based upon degree of soil disturbance (< 10%) and presence of native peat forming plant species but did show signs of channel erosion and pedestaling in some areas, would be maintained or improved. Conditions at Rock Springs, which is rated as being in “poor” condition due to soil disturbance greater than 20%, would improve over time as vegetation cover increased and soil compaction decreased.
The 2003 stream survey of the sections of Jack Creek on NSF lands (Ruda and Hogen, 2008) documented that streambank stability was 98-100%, and stream width:depth ratios were generally within INFISH standards (Table 8). As no grazing would occur on this section of creek, bank stability and stream width:depth ratios would be maintained. Pool frequency, size, and longevity would have the potential to increase if stream baseflow increased, but attainment of INFISH standards for pool frequency would be unlikely. However, INFISH pool frequency
3-135 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement objectives may not be appropriate in small, low gradient headwater streams such as Jack Creek. LWD would remain at low levels, but this would not necessarily indicate poor stream health as large wood is not a major component of meadow stream systems. Stream conditions at the headcuts along Jack Creek would slowly improve over time as increased vegetation cover would trap sediment and allow the channel to aggrade. There would also be potential for an increase in willows with removal of grazing.
Water quality within Jack Creek would continue to meet state water quality standards for stream temperature with implementation of Alternative 1, and Jack Creek would remain off the ODEQ 303(d) list of impaired waters. Fecal coliform levels and stream nutrient concentrations may decrease as livestock urine and manure would no longer have the potential to be deposited in or near the stream channel, although the potential for deposition from wildlife would continue.
While the implementation of Alternative 1 would lead to the greatest improvements to hydrologic resources, some negative impacts would still occur. For example, private parcels along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper Jamison, and Lower Jamison would not be waived for grazing management to the NFS under a term/private grazing permit. As grazing would not occur on NFS lands, there would be potential for increased grazing intensity along the 3 mile private section of Jack Creek (Table 17), which could negatively impact water quality and channel morphology in Jack Creek on NFS land downstream from the private lands. Monitoring of key areas would no longer occur and long-term trends in allotment health would remain unknown. Some short-term (1-2 years) ground disturbance would occur during removal of fences between pastures and around currently fenced riparian areas, however the impacts would be minimal. Once fences were removed, vehicular use necessary for allotment management would be eliminated. Vegetation cover would increase on user-created roads, reducing the potential for erosion of road surfaces and sediment input to riparian/wetland areas and streams.
Under implementation of Alternative 1, grazing by wildlife would continue and possibly increase due to the removal of livestock competition. Some impacts from wildlife would likely occur at riparian and wetland areas, such as soil compaction and removal of vegetation, however, damage would be less than would occur if livestock were present.
In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 1 would lead to the greatest improvements in hydrologic resources of all alternatives. In areas where livestock grazing has negatively impacted the land, livestock exclusion has consistently resulted in the most dramatic and rapid rates of ecosystem recovery (Belsky et al., 1999).
3.6.2.4 Alternative 2—Proposed Action (Current Management) Implementation of Alternative 2 (current management) would maintain, but generally not improve the current hydrologic conditions within the project area. The fen and spring surveys documented various degrees of soil alteration within the project area. For example, pedestaling was documented at 59% of the fens and 18% of the springs, and over 20% of the springs had bare ground that exceeded 20% (Table 2). It is important to note that the assessments of soil alteration were based upon the presence/absence of disturbance and do not necessarily indicate widespread disturbance across the survey location. For example, while 59% of the fens had pedestaling, the pedestaling was not necessarily widespread and often did not result in soil disturbance greater than 10% across the fen. Thus while some negative impacts were found, overall good hydrologic conditions were found at many areas. Bare ground was less than 10% at 75% of the fens that were surveyed (Table 2), and channel erosion was found at only 9% of the locations (Table 3). None of the locations exhibited excessive fluctuations of the groundwater
3-136 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 table or lack of wetland vegetation, and soil saturation that was not sufficient to maintain hydric soils was found at only 3% and 11% of the fens and springs, respectively (Table 3). Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely maintain these conditions, but negative impacts such as pedestaling and erosion would continue to occur at some locations. Those fens and springs identified as being in poor condition would likely remain in poor condition due to continued soil compaction and vegetation removal.
Grazing would not be authorized within the existing fenced meadows (Round Meadow, Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider’s Camp, Cannon Well, Sproats Meadow, Johnson’s Meadow, and Wilshire Meadow), and conditions within these areas would be maintained or continue to improve. Comparison of survey results at springs and fens within and outside of ungrazed fenced riparian areas documented better hydrologic conditions within ungrazed fenced riparian areas. For example, eleven of the surveyed fens were within ungrazed fenced riparian areas; ten were determined to be in “good” condition. Similarly, of the 8 fens determined to be in “poor” condition, all but 1 were located outside of ungrazed fenced riparian areas. As Round Meadow would continue to not be grazed, conditions would be maintained or improved. Rock Springs would likely remain in a “poor” condition with continued livestock use.
Six spring developments would be constructed or reconstructed under Alternative 2. The withdrawl of groundwater from these spring developments would have the potential to impact the associated GDEs, which are sensitive to even small fluctuations in the height of the groundwater table. A recent study by Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) at 3 fens within the project area concluded that current levels of groundwater withdrawl were not negatively impacting the fens. Their results indicated that an extraction rate of 0.7 gpm is the “tipping point” at which drawdown of the groundwater table would be large enough to negatively impact fen vegetation that is dependent upon a surface or near-surface groundwater table. The average extraction rate at the locations where the study took place was approximately 1/3 of the 0.7 gpm “tipping point,” and therefore it is not likely that continued groundwater withdrawl to feed off-site water developments would negatively impact fens. Further, many of the wetlands within the project area are larger and wetter than the study locations. The average size of the wetlands within the project area is ~12.7 acres, while the 3 fens at which the study took place are 1.4, 2.9, and 11.3 acres. In theory, the larger and wetter the wetland, the more resistant it is to drawdown of the groundwater table during groundwater extraction (i.e. as the size of the “pool” of water increases, the amount of water that can be extracted before a similar decline in the height of the water in the “pool” also increases).
Some short-term negative impacts may occur during maintenance and construction/ reconstruction of spring developments, such as soil compaction and damage to vegetation, but impacts would be minimal and localized. Once spring development fences were operational, the hydrologic conditions within the fenced areas would improve. Some soil disturbance would also occur with the maintenance and construction of allotment boundary fences, however these impacts would also be minimal and localized, and conditions would improve over time after the work was completed.
Grazing would not occur along the 3 mile section of Jack Creek on NFS lands. Streambank stability and stream width:depth ratios would continue to meet INFISH standards. Current streamflow trends would be maintained, and stream water temperature would remain within acceptable levels specified by INFISH and ODEQ. Inputs of cattle urine and feces to the stream channel would continue to occur, but would not increase from current levels. Sediment inputs to the stream from overland flow and streambank erosion would continue at current levels, and stream turbidity would not change in appreciable amounts.
3-137 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
As with Alternative 1, private parcels along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper Jamison, and Lower Jamison would not be waived for grazing management to the NFS under a term/private grazing permit, and grazing intensity and duration along the 3 mile private section of Jack Creek would be at the private landowner’s discretion (Table 17). Depending on the grazing duration and intensity, there could be negative impacts to water quality and channel morphology in Jack Creek on NFS lands downstream from the private lands.
The Forest Service completed a survey of the unauthorized use occurring on the Antelope allotment from 2005 to 2015 (10 years). During the 10 year period, there was 7 occurrences of unauthorized use. 5 of these occurrences resulted in a letter of non-compliance or permit action. The other 2 resulted in non-formal warning letters. Of these 7 occurrences, 4 were a result of livestock grazing on the unauthorized portion of Jack Creek, either inside the frog fence or in the North Sheep area. This means 57% of all unauthorized use was the result of livestock on unauthorized portions of Jack Creek. The number of livestock involved in the unauthorized use varied between 4 cow/calf pairs to 20 cow/calf pairs. Effects from these small numbers are typically light (5-10% utilization). Effects to water resources according to this documented unauthorized use would be negligible for these systems.
In summary, implementation of Alternative 2 would maintain, but generally not improve, the current hydrologic conditions within the project boundary. Hydrologic conditions within those areas ranked in fair to good condition would be maintained, and Jack Creek would remain off of the ODEQ 303(d) list of impaired waters. Areas currently in poor condition (e.g. where soil disturbance is greater than 20%) would remain in that state.
3.6.2.5 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is the modified proposed action. The total number of cattle permitted in the allotment would increase from 419 to 494 cow/calf pair per month as grazing on private land would be waived to the FS. The amount of riparian area subject to grazing would increase from 3,276 acres under Alternative 2 to 4,643 acres under Alternative 3 (Table 17), which would increase the amount of land susceptible to negative grazing impacts such as soil compaction and removal of vegetation. However, the Chemult Pasture, where nearly all GDEs are located, would also be grazed for only 2 months under a deferred rotation grazing system, compared to 3 months of continuous grazing under Alternative 2. This reduction in grazing duration and use of a rotational grazing system would reduce the grazing intensity and increase the time plants have to recover from being grazed the prior year. In general, deferred rotation grazing systems have less of a negative impact to hydrologic resources than continuous season-long grazing (Leonard et al., 1997) as livestock is rotated through different pastures for shorter time periods and not allowed to concentrate in one pasture for an entire grazing season.
The number of currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas subject to grazing (e.g. Round Meadow, Jack Creek, Squirrel Camp, Cannon Well, Dry Meadow, and Rider’s Camp) (Table 17), which generally support GDEs, would increase from 0 under Alternative 2 to 9 under Alternative 3. These areas were determined to be in good condition during the spring and fen surveys, and reintroduction of grazing into these areas would have the potential to cause negative impacts such as soil compaction and removal of vegetation. Grazing duration would be limited to 15-30 days and utilization would be limited to 30-40%. Under this grazing intensity and duration, these areas would likely remain in healthy condition. Reintroduction of grazing may lead to some negative impacts at Round Meadow. Round Meadow was determined to be in “good” condition during the spring and surveys, and it is not likely that widespread negative impacts
3-138 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 would occur with the reintroduction of grazing under the duration (1 month) that would occur within Round Meadow under implementation of Alternative 3. Further, fences would be constructed around the springs and fens within Round Meadow, and these GDEs would be protected from grazing. Grazing duration at Rock Springs would also be reduced under Alternative 3, but it would likely remain in “poor” condition.
Under Alternative 3, 9 spring developments would be constructed/reconstructed over approximately 6 years; the springs would remain unprotected until fences were operational. Some short term negative impacts, such as soil compaction and vegetation disturbance, may occur during construction/reconstruction, but impacts would be minimal and localized. Once fences were operational, the hydrologic conditions within the fenced areas would improve as these areas would not be grazed. Vegetation growth would increase, and soil compaction would become lower over time due to root growth and expansion and frequent freeze-thaw cycles. Water quality at the springs would increase as sediment inputs from cattle trampling would be reduced and/or eliminated.
As discussed under Alternative 2, there would be potential for negative impacts to the GDEs associated with the spring developments due to drawdown of the groundwater table. However, Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) documented that groundwater withdrawl at 3 fens within the project area did not negatively impact the fens. While the number of spring developments would increase from 6 under Alternative 2 to 9 under Alternative 3 (Table 17), the new spring developments would be located in a similar hydrologic setting. Based upon the results of Aldous and Gurrieri (2012), it is unlikely that the groundwater pumping rates would cause water table drawdown large enough to negatively impact fen vegetation or lead to peat oxidation.
Reintroduction of grazing in the NFS section of Jack Creek that is currently within an ungrazed fenced riparian area would likely cause some negative impacts, such as soil compaction, and damage to streamside vegetation. Due to the fine texture of stream substrate, streambank stability may decrease in localized areas where cattle congregate on streambanks. However, widespread impacts are not likely under the proposed deferred rotational grazing system, intensity, and duration. There is some potential for continued migration of the stream headcuts, however this is unlikely due to upcoming restoration efforts combined with low grazing duration and intensity. As willows are low in number under current conditions, willows would likely not increase with reintroduction of grazing along this section of Jack Creek. Water quality would likely be maintained and continue to meet ODEQ water quality standards, and stream channel morphology would likely continue to meet INFISH RMOs. The addition of the North Sheep Pasture would increase the length of Jack Creek that is grazed, however Jack Creek flows intermittently through the North Sheep Pasture, and negative impacts to water quality and/or channel morphology within perennial reaches of Jack Creek would not be likely due to incorporation of the North Sheep Pasture.
One of the differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 is that grazing management of the private parcels along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper Jamison, and Lower Jamison would be waived to the NFS under a term/private grazing permit through implementation of Alternative 3. Grazing would occur in a manner that was consistent with Fremont LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1989) and Winema LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1990) Standards and Guidelines. Grazing intensity on private land would decrease from current levels, and vegetation cover would likely increase. Stream baseflow would be expected to be maintained under the implementation of Alternative 3 and may even increase due to increased soil water infiltration that would occur with decreased soil compaction and increased vegetation cover along the 3 mile private section of Jack Creek. As the private section of Jack Creek was not included in the 2003
3-139 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement stream survey of Jack Creek (Ruda and Hogen, 2008), stream channel conditions along this section is unknown. But, as grazing intensity and duration would decrease under NFS management, it is likely that improvements to bank stability and vegetation cover would occur.
Alternative 3 would increase the grazing duration on the pastures on the Silver Lake RD by 2 weeks, which may increase soil compaction. These pastures are much drier than those pastures located further west, and impacts from increasing grazing duration by 2 weeks would likely be minimal as dry soils are more resistant to soil compaction than wet soils.
Appendix D contains the Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Plan & Adaptive Management Plan. Monitoring of water levels in Jack Creek, alteration and utilization, streambank cover, streambank stability, stream width to depth ratio, etc. and employment of adaptive management strategies outlined in Appendix D ensure sites and associated water resources maintain desired condition or sites not in desired condition have an upward trend or acceptable static trend.
In summary, implementation of Alternative 3, the modified proposed action, in conjunction with implementation of the Monitoring Plan & Adaptive Management, would maintain and likely improve hydrologic resources within the project area relative to Alternative 2. This would be due to reduced grazing intensity and duration, implementation of a deferred rotation grazing system, and improved grazing management on private lands. However, the benefits to hydrologic resources would not be as great as those that would occur under implementation of Alternative 1, the no-action alternative.
3.6.2.6 Alternative 4 The main difference between Alternative 4 and Alternative 2 is that grazing would no longer be permitted on the Chemult Pasture. Therefore, the impact of Alternative 4 to hydrologic resources within the Chemult Pasture would be the same as under Alternative 1, the no-action alternative. The removal of grazing on the Chemult Pasture would lead to decreased soil compaction and overland flow, and increased vegetation cover. As the majority of GDEs such as fens and springs are located within the Chemult Pasture, implementation of Alternative 4 would lead to the same improvements to these sensitive GDEs discussed under Alternative 1.
Grazing would still occur in riparian areas on the Silver Lake RD. Soils on the Silver Lake RD are drier and less susceptible to compaction compared to soils on the Chumult RD, and it is likely that conditions would continue to meet Forest Standards and Guidelines with continuation of grazing on the Silver Lake RD under Alternative 4.
Grazing would not be reintroduced into any of the currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas (Table 17), and hydrologic conditions within these areas would be maintained or continue to improve. The number of spring developments would decrease from 6 under Alternative 2 to 4 under Alternative 4 due to the removal of livestock grazing from the Chemult Pasture, although this change is likely negligible in terms of effects to hydrologic resources.
Jack Creek would not be grazed on NFS land (Table 17), and the impact of implementation of Alternative 4 to Jack Creek on NSF land would be the same as discussed under analysis of Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 2, private parcels along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper Jamison, and Lower Jamison would not be waived to the NFS for grazing management under a term/private grazing permit, and 3 miles of Jack Creek would be grazed under private management (Table 17). Without reauthorization of grazing on NFS lands, grazing intensity
3-140 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 may increase on the private section of Jack Creek, which could negatively impact water quality in Jack Creek on NFS lands downstream from the private land.
Appendix D contains the Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Plan & Adaptive Management Plan. Under Alternative 4, the Monitoring Plan elements would be significantly modified due to the removal of the Chemult Pasture.
In summary, implementation of Alternative 4 would lead to the greatest improvements in hydrologic resources when compared to the other action alternatives, but not as much as under Alternative 1, the no-action alternative. The greatest improvements to hydrologic resources would occur in the Chemult Pasture due to the removal of grazing.
3.6.2.7 Alternative 5 Riparian area subject to grazing would increase from 3,276 acres under Alternative 2 to 4,656 acres under Alternative 5 (Table 17), which would increase the amount of riparian area in which negative hydrologic impacts could potentially occur. The Chemult Pasture would be grazed under a deferred rotation system, as compared to a continuous grazing system under Alternative 2. As discussed under analysis of Alternative 3, deferred rotation grazing systems generally result in less negative impacts to hydrologic resources as compared to continuous grazing systems (Leonard et al., 1997). With implementation of Alternative 5, reductions in soil compaction and increases in vegetation cover would likely occur in areas that have been negatively impacted under current management.
Of all the alternatives, Alternative 5 has the highest number of currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas that would be subject to grazing (Table 17). As discussed under analysis of Alternative 2, reintroduction of grazing into these areas has potential to negatively impact hydrologic resources as soil compaction and vegetation removal may occur. However, grazing duration would be limited to 15-30 days and utilization would be limited to 30-40%. Under this grazing intensity and duration, these areas would likely remain in healthy condition and meet Forest Standards and Guidelines. Grazing would be reintroduced to Round Meadow, which was determined to be in “good” condition during the spring and fen surveys. While some negative impacts would likely occur, such as soil compaction and vegetation removal, grazing would be limited to one month and Round Meadow would likely remain in good condition and continue to meet Forest Standards and Guidelines. The reduction in grazing intensity at Rock Springs would reduce soil compaction and lead to increased vegetation cover, but it is likely that Rock Springs would remain in “poor” condition with continued livestock use.
Compared to Alternative 2, it is likely that implementation of Alternative 5 would improve the overall health of GDEs such as springs and fens within the project area. The majority of the springs and fens are on the Chemult Pasture, and the use of a deferred rotation grazing system would reduce negative impacts to GDEs within this area. As described above, some negative impacts such as soil compaction and vegetation removal would likely occur with reintroduction of grazing in currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas, but widespread damage would be unlikely under the proposed grazing system and utilization standards. There would be 9 spring developments under implementation of Alternative 5, which could potentially impact the associated GDEs through drawdown of the groundwater table. The results of Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) indicated that groundwater withdrawal to feed offsite livestock water developments would not lead to water table drawdown, and it would be unlikely that GDEs at these locations would be negatively impacted.
3-141 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
The addition of the North Sheep Pasture under Alternative 5 would increase the length of Jack Creek that is grazed. Jack Creek flows intermittently through the North Sheep Pasture, and negative impacts to water quality and/or channel morphology within perennial reaches of Jack Creek would not be expected. Grazing management along the 3 mile section of Jack Creek that flows through private land would be waived to the Forest under a term/private grazing permit. This area would be grazed under a deferred rotation grazing system (Table 17), and conditions in Jack Creek both within and downstream of the private area would likely improve. However, some negative impacts to streambank stability would likely occur with livestock grazing. Some ground disturbance may occur during general allotment maintenance, such as fence and stock pond maintenance, water hauling, and limited off-road use, but impacts would be minimal.
Compared to Alternative 3, implementation of Alternative 5 would permit grazing for a longer duration in both the Chemult Pasture and the North Sheep Pasture. The increased grazing duration would increase the potential for negative impacts to hydrologic resources, such as soil compaction and removal of vegetation, relative to that which would occur under Alternative 3. Alternative 5 would also allow for an earlier turnout and a longer grazing duration on the pastures on the Silver Lake RD. This would increase the potential for soil compaction, overland flow, and removal of vegetation. However, these pastures are generally much drier than those on the Chemult RD and therefore not as susceptible to soil compaction relative to areas with wetter soils.
Appendix D contains the Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Plan & Adaptive Management Plan. Monitoring of water levels in Jack Creek, alteration and utilization, streambank cover, streambank stability, stream width to depth ratio, etc. and employment of adaptive management strategies outlined in Appendix D ensure sites and associated water resources maintain desired condition or sites not in desired condition have an upward trend or acceptable static trend.
In summary, Alternative 5, in conjunction with implementation of the Monitoring Plan & Adaptive Management, would have less negative impacts to hydrologic resources across the project area than current management (Alternative 2), but more negative impacts than would occur under Alternatives 1, 3, or 4.
3.6.3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the allotments’ sub- watersheds are listed in Appendix E (specialist report) and include livestock grazing, road construction and maintenance, invasive plant management, and continued land management such as commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels treatments. Potential cumulative effects to streamflow, channel morphology, stream water quality, and health of GDEs such as fens and springs were analyzed and are reported below. The temporal bound of analysis is the time period for this term grazing permit (10 years).
3-142 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.6.3.1 Groundwater-dependent Ecosystems The spatial area for analysis of cumulative effects to the health of GDEs such as fens and springs is the total amount of fen and spring habitat within the project area. On-going and future foreseeable activities include thinning and/or removal of encroaching conifers and hand piling and burning of thinning slash. These activities may cause impacts to GDEs such as soil compaction and reduction in shading that overlap with the effects of grazing under the action alternatives. However, the effects would be minimal, and combined with the actions of any of the alternatives, negative cumulative impacts would not be likely. Thinning and removal of encroaching conifers may improve the health of GDEs by reducing consumption of groundwater that is essential to maintain the health of GDEs.
3.6.3.1.1 Alternatives 1 and 4 As grazing would not occur in the Chemult Pasture, which contains nearly all GDEs within the project area, the health of GDEs such as fens and springs would be maintained or improved and negative cumulative impacts would not be likely. Soil compaction, pedestaling, and vegetation removal from livestock would no longer occur and conditions would improve over time in areas that currently have soil disturbance. However impacts from wildlife grazing would likely continue.
3.6.3.1.2 Alternative 2 Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely maintain current GDE conditions. Those springs and fens in good condition would remain in good condition or continue to improve, while those in poor condition would remain in that state.
3.6.3.1.3 Alternatives 3 and 5 Both of these alternatives would implement a deferred rotation grazing system, which causes less negative impacts to hydrologic resources than the currently used continuous grazing system. It is likely that the health of GDEs would be maintained or improved under implementation of either Alternative 3 or 5, especially in conjunction with the Monitoring Plan & Adaptive Management strategy. Greater improvements would be expected under Alternative 3 due to a shorter grazing duration on the Chemult Pasture, where nearly all GDEs are located.
3.6.3.2 Streamflow The spatial boundary for the analysis of cumulative effects to streamflow is the entire length of Jack Creek within and downstream of the project area. This analysis area has been determined to be appropriate because potential changes in streamflow would impact this stretch of Jack Creek.
3.6.3.2.1 All Action Alternatives All action alternatives, combined with reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as prescribed burning and removal of encroaching conifers, have the potential to increase streamflow within Jack Creek, due to the removal of grazing, reduction in grazing duration, and/or use of deferred- rotation grazing systems. Due to the porous geology of the project area, any potential increases in streamflow would be small and not substantial enough to add perennial streamflow to those sections of Jack Creek that currently flow intermittently, and cumulative impacts to streamflow are not likely.
3-143 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.6.3.3 Channel Morphology and Stream Water Quality The spatial bound for analysis of cumulative effects to channel morphology and stream water quality is the 7 mile segment of Jack Creek within the project area that has perennial streamflow. This analysis area has been determined to be appropriate as any potential cumulative effects, such as increased sedimentation, would not be substantially transported downstream beyond the perennial section, after which streamflow becomes intermittent. Future activities that have the potential to impact stream channel morphology and water quality includes habitat restoration for Oregon spotted frog that would occur adjacent to Jack Creek within the project area, as well as treatment of the Jack Creek headcuts.
3.6.3.3.1 All Alternatives The residual impacts of past actions along the 7 mile section of Jack Creek with perennial flow has resulted in current conditions of stream channel morphology and stream water quality that generally meet standards imposed by both INFISH and ODEQ. Depending on alternative, grazing intensity and duration would remain the same or be reduced, and future conditions within Jack Creek would be maintained or improved under all alternatives. Some future activities, such as the creation of off channel ponds to improve Oregon spotted frog habitat and treatment of Jack Creek headcuts, have the potential to negatively impact stream water quality and/or stream channel morphology due to compaction and increased sediment delivery to the stream. However, potential negative impacts would be minimal and short-term (i.e. not extend beyond 1-2 years), and negative cumulative effects are not expected.
3.7 Fisheries This section analyzes the potential effects to fish and aquatic mollusk species from the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project. The analysis addresses federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species, as well as critical habitats, in the project area (Forest) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544), as amended. In addition, impacts from the proposed management action on Forest Service (FS) aquatic sensitive species, as identified by the Region 6 Regional Forester (USDA 2011), are also assessed, as required in the Forest Service Manual. All aquatic federally listed and candidate species, proposed critical habitats (October 2011), MIS, and Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS) within Klamath and Lake counties in Oregon were reviewed for this analysis. No aquatic federally listed or candidate species, proposed or designated critical habitats, or MIS are present within the project area. Only one aquatic RFSS species, Miller Lake lamprey (Lampetra [Entosphenus] minima), is present within the project area. Additionally, because of limited connectivity of consistent fish habitat within the project area, other threatened, endangered, proposed, or RFSS would not be likely to migrate to the perennial portions of Jack Creek within the project area. A series of natural waterfalls in Kirk Canyon would prevent any fishes from Upper Klamath Lake from accessing the Williamson River above Klamath Marsh or Jack Creek if flow conditions were such to allow fish passage.
3.7.1 Affected Environment
3.7.1.1 Jack Creek Analysis of the existing condition of aquatic species habitat in the project area is restricted to Jack Creek. The Antelope Grazing Allotments project area has over 300 miles of intermittent and ephemeral stream courses; perennial flows occur only in the upper 6–7 miles of Jack Creek. This
3-144 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 perennial water provides the only consistent fish habitat within the project area. Deep pumice deposits from the eruption of Mount Mazama, over 7,000 years ago, have created a landscape where stream channels may be disconnected from tributaries and/or spring sources by the end of summer, often earlier, depending on the amount of winter precipitation and runoff. Stringer meadows and isolated pools that retain some water have no consistent overland connection to the perennial portion of Jack Creek, nor does the perennial section of Jack Creek have more than ephemeral connection to the Williamson River, which is over 15 miles downstream. Jack Creek is best described as a Class II stream, which is a perennial or intermittent stream that is used by moderate numbers of fish for spawning, rearing, or migration; and/or may be a tributary to a Class I stream or other Class II stream (USDA Forest Service 1990). Several surveys have been conducted to evaluate the conditions of Jack Creek for varying measures, including Level II stream surveys, INFISH standards, and water quality.
3.7.1.1.1 Level II Surveys Jack Creek is the only creek within the project area with perennial flow, and analysis of stream channel morphology is therefore restricted to Jack Creek. A Hankin and Reeves Level II stream survey was completed for Jack Creek by the Forest in 2003 (Ruda and Hogen 2008). This survey documented habitat conditions in the perennial portion of Jack Creek from NFS road 8821-000 road crossing to the headwaters downstream of NFS road 9400-000 road crossing on NFS lands. No data are available for the privately owned sections. From the survey, Jack Creek can be characterized as low gradient (<1%–2%), narrow (3–4 feet wetted width), and shallow (residual pool depths 1–2 feet). The dominant substrate is silt-sized pumice. At the time of the survey, the Jack Creek riparian fence had not yet been constructed (USDA Forest Service 2008), and the riparian area adjacent to Jack Creek was grazed. Grazing is noted in several reaches, but impacts are described as “minimal.” Banks in the perennial section of Jack Creek are 98%–99% stable. The Region 6 Stream Inventory Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2002b, 2010b) instructs stream surveyors on the correct procedure for measuring bank stability and provides the following discussion: Bank stability is a measure of actively eroding banks at an elevation above the bankfull stream margin. That is, naked substrate within the bankfull channel is the normal condition due to the dynamic nature of the bankfull channel, and is not necessarily an indication of eroding banks. An eroding bank is characterized by any one, or a combination of the following factors provided they occur at an elevation above the bankfull flow: bare exposed colluvial or alluvial substrates, exposed mineral soil, evidence of tension cracks, or active sloughing. A bank that is composed of only cobbles and gravels may, nonetheless, be stable; the sand, silt and clay components no longer present in a naked bank may be quite resistant to erosion. If there is no sloughed material perched atop the lower banks, do not consider a naked bank unstable. The perennial portion of Jack Creek is described as Rosgen “E” and “C” types. “E” type channels are considered highly stable systems, provided the floodplain and low channel width- to-depth characteristics are maintained (Rosgen 1996). “E” channels are found within broad valleys and meadows. They are highly sinuous with stable, well-vegetated banks. The primary features of “C” type streams are a sinuous, low-gradient channel, with well-developed floodplains, and point bars within the active channel (Rosgen 1996). “C” channel streams are found in broad valleys with terraces. Both “E” and “C” channel types are sensitive to disturbance and can rapidly adjust and convert to other stream types in a relatively short time (Rosgen 1996).
3-145 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.7.1.1.2 INFISH Riparian Management Objectives INFISH riparian management objectives (RMOs) are landscape-scale values describing good habitat for fish. All of the described habitat features may not occur in a specific segment of stream within a watershed, but all generally should occur at the watershed scale for stream systems of moderate to large size (3rd–6th order). Jack Creek is a 1st- to 3rd-order stream, which is also called a headwater stream and constitutes any waterways in the upper reaches of the watershed. Although Jack Creek is a smaller-sized stream than INFISH RMOs are designed to represent, the habitat conditions in Jack Creek have been assessed according to INFISH standards (Table 3-21).
3-146 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Table 3-18 INFISH riparian management objectives (RMOs) within Jack Creek
Habitat Feature INFISH RMOs Jack Creek Measure
Pool Frequency Wetted width 10 feet Average wetted width <5 feet Pools per mile 96 35–63 Large Woody Debris (LWD) LWD pieces per mile >20 pieces; >12 inches; >35 feet <10 pieces per mile
Lower Bank Angle Lower bank angle >75% of banks with <90 degree not measured angle
Width:Depth Ratio Mean width:depth ratio <10 — — reach 6 = 14.6 — reach 7 = 8.1 — reach 9 = 9.4
3.7.1.1.3 Pool Frequency Jack Creek has fewer than 96 pools per mile, but in several reaches, the only perennial water is a pool, and in the perennial sections, nearly half of the habitats are classified as pools. Pool habitats can provide fish with areas of velocity refuge during high flows. If deep enough, pools can provide overwintering habitat, because they may remain open when the shallow sections of the stream freeze. Pool habitats are created by substrate (boulders), logs (large woody debris), and meander scour. Jack Creek has very few sections with boulder substrates or large woody debris to create pools, but these are natural conditions. The pumice substrate appears to scour easily as evidenced by the presence of deeper pools and isolated pools separated by shallow or dry sections of stream channel. Pool habitats in Jack Creek do not meet the INFISH pool frequency criterion; however, this criterion may not be appropriate in a small, low-gradient headwater stream such as Jack Creek.
3.7.1.1.4 Large Woody Debris Current wood levels in Jack Creek are far below INFISH RMOs. These wood levels are not unexpected, because most of Jack Creek is a non-forested system. Jack Creek is a very low- gradient headwater system with no upstream wooded slopes from which large wood can be recruited. The lodgepole pines in this watershed are often clumped in “dog-hair thickets” of very small-diameter trees. Recent thinning efforts have been aimed at removing lodgepole pines that are encroaching into the meadow systems. Jack Creek 2003 Level II photos predominantly show a small stream flowing through grass/sedge meadows. Photos taken at sections in Reach 7 show cobble-sized substrate, a few streamside lodgepole pines, and down trees across the channel. To some degree, these wood components help to create and maintain pool habitat in Jack Creek. However, large wood, as measured by INFISH standards, does not seem to be a major component of fish habitat in this system.
3-147 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.7.1.1.5 Lower Bank Angle (non-forested systems) Bank angle and undercut banks were not measured during the Jack Creek 2003 Level II stream survey, so no data are available to compare to INFISH criteria. Surveyors did not indicate the presence of undercut banks (Ruda and Hogen 2008).
3.7.1.1.6 Width:Depth Ratio The width:depth ratio displays how wide a stream is relative to its depth. The Jack Creek Level II Stream Survey Summary Report (Ruda and Hogen 2008) states that for Reach 2 and Reach 4, width:depth ratios were not calculated because of the lack of fast water habitat. These reaches are a series of pools, each separated by dry channels. Width:depth ratios were calculated for the remaining reaches. Rosgen (1996) provides expected width:depth ratios for various stream types. According to his characterizations, “E” channels are expected to have width:depth ratios of less than 12, but “C” channels are expected to have width:depth ratios of greater than 12. A conflict exists between the expected width:depth ratios provided by Rosgen (1996) and those provided by INFISH RMOs. This conflict could possibly be explained by the somewhat unique flow characteristics of Jack Creek—as runoff recedes, flows subside into the pumice. Stream channels retain their capacity to allow relatively high runoff flows to pass, but during the summer, water becomes subsurface. These flow characteristics may have skewed the width:depth ratio measurements at the time of the survey.
3.7.1.1.7 Water Quality Water quality can be defined as the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water. Measurements of stream flow and stream water quality parameters such as pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and nitrate concentrations were collected at least once a month from June through September during 2009, 2010, and 2011 in Jack Creek. The monitoring locations were at the crossing of NFS road 8821 (Water Quality Monitoring Station #5526, downstream location) and at the crossing of NFS road 9418 (Water Quality Monitoring Station #5430, approximately 5 miles upstream from Station #5526). At Station #5526 (downstream location), stream flow became intermittent in July in 2009 and 2010, but not until August in 2011, following a heavy snow year and a cool, wet spring. At Station #5430 (upstream location), perennial flow was observed during all measurements. Dissolved oxygen (DO) data collected from Jack Creek for the summer months (June through September) in 2009, 2010, and 2011 are generally above the minimum DO levels for freshwater fish (5.0–6.0 mg/L [ppm]). However, reported DO levels fell below 4.0 mg/L in July 2010 and August 2011, indicating that low DO is a potential concern for aquatic life in Jack Creek. Field observations confirm the presence of solid waste from cattle, but plant growth does not seem to be affecting water quality. Lamprey have been observed even in small, isolated pools (within the Jack Creek channel) late in the summer, (Gorman and Smith, 2001; Ruda and Hogen 2008). The pools may have scoured enough that they receive groundwater input that helps reduce stagnation. In the perennial portion of the system, flowing water appears to be adequate for maintaining water quality. Additionally, areas that have been excluded from grazing (e.g., the area of Jack Creek that has been within the riparian fence since 2008) have a well-vegetated floodplain. Riparian vegetation, litter layers, and soils filter incoming sediments and pollutants, thereby assisting in the maintenance of high water quality needed for healthy fish populations. INFISH water temperature RMOs call for no measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7 day moving of daily maximum temperature measured as the average of the
3-148 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 maximum daily temperature of the warmest consecutive 7-day period) (USDA Forest Service 1995a). While the daily maximum water temperatures have not been calibrated with air temperature, the data for Jack Creek indicate fairly consistent average daily maximums for the recorded period, and no measurable increase in daily maximum water temperatures is apparent. Summertime water temperature samples collected from 2 locations in Jack Creek indicate that temperatures are within ODEQ water quality standards for redband trout (data on file at the Forest Service Supervisor’s Office, Lakeview, Oregon). ODEQ determined that “if a source can meet the redband trout criterion of 20°C plus the human use allowance, their increase will not impair cool water species, which have more tolerance of warm temperatures than trout” (ODEQ 2008). Therefore, water temperatures in Jack Creek meet standards for cool-water aquatic life, which includes Miller Lake lamprey. More-recent water temperature data also show summer water temperatures in Jack Creek remaining within ODEQ standards for cool-water species. Spot-check water temperature samples collected near Water Quality Monitoring Stations #5526 and 5430 in June through September during 2009, 2010, and 2011 had temperatures ranging between 8 °C and 20 °C.
3.7.1.2 Miller Lake Lamprey Miller Lake lamprey are found throughout the perennial portion of Jack Creek. The Miller Lake lamprey is the world’s smallest predatory lamprey, reaching a length of only 3–6 inches, and is endemic to the Klamath Basin (Bond and Kan 1973; Gill et al. 2003; Lorion et al. 2000). Miller Lake lamprey is also one of the few species to have “recovered” from extinction. At the species’ rediscovery in 1992, concern for the species’ tenuous status and apparently low abundance prompted consideration of emergency listing under the federal ESA. The immediate need to list was avoided by the discovery of relatively numerous populations in Miller Creek, the upper Williamson River drainage, and the upper Sycan River drainage above Sycan Marsh (Lorion et al. 2000). Miller Lake lampreys occupy relatively cool, clear streams (Gunckel and Reid 2004; Kan and Bond 1981; Lorion et al. 2000; Reid pers. comm. 2004). Adults are generally associated with structural cover, including loose rocks and woody debris. Ammocoetes (larvae) live in the substrate and are generally associated with depositional environments. In streams, ammocoetes are frequently found in silty backwater areas, low-energy stream edges, and pool eddies, where leaf litter and other organics (including adult lamprey carcasses) tend to accumulate. At night, ammocoetes may move into the water column to disperse downstream or into more favorable habitat. Recent extensive collections of Pacific lamprey ammocoetes along the coast indicate that ammocoetes do not occupy otherwise suitable sediments if the upper layer is poorly oxygenated (Reid and Goodman, pers. obs., 2004). Miller Lake lampreys feed on fish only as adults. Ammocoetes have no eyes or teeth and are purely filter feeders, burrowing in the sediment and feeding on suspended microorganisms and algae. The ammocoete phase lasts about 5 years, during which time the ammocoetes grow to around 150 millimeters (mm). After transformation, adults enter a predatory phase before spawning that generally lasts for less than a year (from transformation in the summer/fall to spawning in summer of the following year). Adults use the sucking disk to feed on flesh that is gouged and rasped out of a small wound (≤11 mm) (Cochran and Jenkins 1994; Kan and Bond 1981). Adults show little apparent selectivity for prey. In Jack Creek, lampreys feed on speckled dace, the only other fish present in the stream; in the Upper Sycan, lampreys feed on both trout and dace. Unlike other predatory lampreys, but similar to non-feeding brook lampreys, adult Miller Lake lampreys lose body length and mass between the time they transform and actual spawning, indicating that the amount of food they consume does not compensate for energetic needs and gonadal development (Hubbs 1971; Kan and Bond 1981; Lorion et al. 2000).
3-149 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
No immediate threats to the Miller Lake lamprey are currently known (Kostow 2002). However, the species is of considerable conservation concern due to its relatively limited range in 2 small subdrainages of the Klamath Basin and its evolutionary distinctiveness as the smallest known predatory lamprey in the world, maturing at <4 inches. An additional concern considered in the Miller Lake Lamprey Conservation Plan is the species’ “continued absence in the ecologically unique setting of Miller Lake (type locality) (ODFW 2005),” which has been addressed by Miller Lake Science Team actions. A lamprey barrier, installed in 1959 as part of the original eradication, was removed from Miller Creek in September 2005. Miller Lake lamprey were reintroduced into Evening Creek, a tributary to Miller Lake, and into Miller Lake itself in 2010 (ODFW 2010), and survival of the reintroduced lamprey in Evening Creek was documented in 2011 (ODFW 2011).
3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects The bounds of analysis for determining direct and indirect effects on the project’s fisheries resources are the fish-bearing perennial reaches of Jack Creek. This area was selected because the direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions would occur where management is proposed to take place and are not expected to extend outside of the project area. Effects include both short-term (season of use) and long-term (life of the permit, or 10 years) impacts for these areas. Because livestock have few direct effects on aquatic species, direct effects to aquatic habitat were evaluated instead.
3.7.2.1 Measurement Indicators Indicators used to measure effects are selected so that the effects of the project alternatives can be compared and contrasted. The selection of indicators was based on professional judgment and a thorough review of literature on the interaction of the Miller Lake lamprey and cattle and grazing. The possible effects of the alternatives on aquatic habitat are disclosed quantitatively in Table 3-22.
Table 3-19 Comparison of the effects of the alternatives (Alts.) using measurement indicators for aquatic habitat
Measurement Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Miles of fish habitat under permitted grazing 0 1 6 0 6 Miles of fish habitat grazed under private 3 3 0 3 0 management Days permitted grazing would occur in 0 90 75 0 105 riparian areas adjacent to fish habitat Days grazing would occur in riparian areas unknown unknown 0 unknown 0 adjacent to fish habitat under private management
3.7.2.2 General Effects on Aquatic Systems from Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing can affect all components of the aquatic system. Grazing can affect the streamside environment by changing, reducing, or eliminating vegetation bordering the stream. In addition to providing key habitat requirements for many aquatic species, vegetation next to water bodies plays a major role in sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic systems. Values provided include thermal regulation, bank stability, fish cover, woody debris input, storage and release of sediment, flood attenuation, surface-groundwater interactions, and plant-and-animal habitats. Riparian zones provide critical services for all ecosystem types and are especially
3-150 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 important in arid regions, where they supply the primary source of moisture for plants and wildlife (Meehan et al. 1977). Properly functioning riparian zones protect aquatic systems by acting as giant sponges during flood events, raising groundwater tables, and maintaining a source of stream water during dry seasons (Belsky et al. 1999). The most extensive human-caused influence on riparian zones in the western United States has been livestock grazing (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Overgrazing by livestock is considered the most widespread cause of deterioration of riparian systems on public lands (Knopf and Cannon 1982). Properly functioning riparian systems contribute to channel stability and morphology, water quality, and prey food production. Channel morphology can be changed by accrual of sediment, alteration of channel substrate, disruption of the relation of pools to riffles, and widening of the channel. The water column can be affected by increasing water temperatures, nutrients, and suspended sediment, and by changes in the timing and volume of stream flow. Livestock can trample stream banks, causing banks to slough off, creating false banks, and accelerating bank erosion (Platts 1991). Increased turbidity in the stream and severe erosion can be caused by animals walking in the stream channel. Fish spawning periods and associated incubation of eggs within streambeds are very important to the success of a healthy fish population. Spawning fish can be disturbed by livestock during spawning periods. Trampling of spawning sites can also occur if grazing takes place when fish are spawning or while eggs are incubating within streambeds. Lamprey ammocoetes, which have multiple year classes that remain in substrate for several years, can be especially vulnerable to increased sediment loads from stream bottom and stream bank disturbance; ammocoetes are also vulnerable to being stepped on by cattle. Grazing can impact stream channel morphology by changing stream bank stability, sediment inputs and transport, and streamside vegetation (Belsky et al. 1999). For example, stream bank stability can decrease as cattle trample stream banks and cause soil to slough (Kauffman et al. 1983; Trimble and Mendel 1995). As stream banks deteriorate, the stream becomes wider and stream width:depth ratios increase, which can impact stream temperature (see section 3.6.1.1.7, “Water Quality”). Trampling of soil by cattle can also reduce streamside vegetation cover (Kauffman and Krueger 1984) and, thus, the availability of plant roots to protect stream banks from erosive stream flow (Trimble and Mendel 1995). Stream bank erosion may be further exacerbated by increased peak stream flows that may be attributed to grazing (Meehan and Platts 1978). In addition, decreased vegetation cover often leads to greater sediment inputs to the stream from overland flow (Trimble and Medel 1995; Wondzell 2001). Impacts from grazing may also result in stream channel downcutting (Belsky et al. 1999) and disconnection of the stream from its floodplain (Schilling et al. 2004). Grazing has the potential to impact numerous water quality parameters, including stream water temperature, turbidity, nutrient concentrations, and fecal coliform levels (Belsky et al. 1999). Water quality is generally evaluated by measuring DO, nutrient levels, and water temperature. Oxygen enters the water by diffusion from the atmosphere or through plant photosynthesis. DO levels are constantly changing and represent a balance between respiration and decomposition, which deplete oxygen, and photosynthetic activity, which increase oxygen levels. Because it requires light, photosynthesis occurs only during daylight hours. Respiration and decomposition occur 24 hours a day. This difference alone can account for large daily variations in DO concentrations. During the night, when photosynthesis cannot counterbalance the loss of oxygen through respiration and decomposition, the DO concentration may steadily decline. DO is lowest just before dawn when photosynthesis resumes. Seasonal changes also affect DO concentrations. Warmer temperatures during summer speed up the rates of photosynthesis and decomposition. Other seasonal events, such as changes in flow volume and presence of ice cover, also cause natural variations in DO concentrations.
3-151 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Animal waste deposited directly into the water can also affect water quality. The nitrogen and phosphorus contained in the waste produces excessive plant growth, which can affect water quality parameters such as DO. Organic waste may overload a natural system, causing a serious oxygen depletion in the water, and the depleted oxygen level may in turn lead to fish kills. Likewise, water that is rich in nutrients may cause algal blooms whose eventual decomposition uses up the available DO (Alken-Murray Corp. 2011). Grazing cattle, beavers, and other wild animals are likely to deposit their waste into the water and all contribute to impacts to water quality. Livestock grazing is often associated with increased nutrient concentrations in stream water, due to deposits of livestock urine and manure in and near the stream, increased sediment inputs from overland flow and stream bank erosion, and a reduction in the amount of water in the stream (which leads to higher nutrient concentrations) (Belsky et al. 1999). Fecal coliform is a bacteria that is commonly present in animal feces. Cattle can increase fecal coliform levels in streams by defecating in or near the stream channel. Although generally not harmful itself, fecal coliform is often used as an indicator of the presence of harmful bacteria in water from fecal contamination (Tiedemann et al. 1987; Agouridis et al. 2005). Such contamination brings the threat of bacterial infection to people who come in direct contact with contaminated water (Hubbard et al. 2004). Stream shade provided by riparian vegetation reduces the amount of solar radiation that reaches the stream, which lowers water temperature. Other factors influencing water temperature include discharge, channel morphology, air temperature, and interactions with groundwater. A large amount of vegetation would need to be removed to affect water temperature in the stream, and that vegetation would have to be the only source of shade. Riparian vegetation also provides habitat for terrestrial insects, which are important food for salmonids and other fish species (Murphy and Meehan 1991). Riparian vegetation also provides organic material to the stream, which becomes the nutrient base for aquatic insect production. Therefore, riparian vegetation supports both the terrestrial and aquatic components of aquatic species’ diets. In watersheds where soils provide insufficient nutrients to the stream, riparian vegetation assumes a major role in the production of fish food by providing habitat for terrestrial insects that fall directly into the stream. Detritus from incoming terrestrial plants is a principal source of food for aquatic invertebrates that eventually become prey items that support fish communities (Minshall 1967) and many other types of wildlife. Lampreys may be relatively tolerant to water pollution, but high pollution levels are likely not good for them, especially when toxins accumulate in the silt that houses lamprey ammocoetes (Kostow 2002). Ammocoetes reside in the substrate for numerous years, but they are capable of moving to seek improved habitat conditions. Seeps, higher-gradient areas, and areas of improved water quality are available in Jack Creek, so lamprey could move to those areas if water quality becomes locally poor. The effects of low DO concentrations, eutrophication, or turbidity on Pacific lamprey are unknown (Luzier et al. 2011). Although Miller Lake lamprey differ from Pacific lamprey in distribution and adult life history requirements (anadromy), their water quality preferences are probably similar.
3.7.2.3 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 (No Grazing Alternative) would eliminate livestock grazing from 137,189 acres of NFS lands. Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing would be eliminated on the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, and livestock grazing permits would be cancelled (FSH 2209.13–92.31). In accordance with agency regulations (36 CFR 222.4), grazing would cease 2 years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would continue
3-152 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 unchanged during this 2-year interval, and these allotments would not be available for permit reissuance for a minimum of 10 years. Riparian exclosure fences in Jack Creek would be removed. No fence maintenance or fence reconstruction would occur on NFS lands. Existing water structures would not be removed or maintained but would be allowed to deteriorate, possibly providing for a net increase in stream flows in Jack Creek. Because permitted grazing would be extremely limited within NFS lands on Jack Creek, the current permit holder may increase grazing on privately owned lands. In some cases, these privately owned lands contain suitable habitat for Miller Lake lamprey. Impacts in these areas may be greater than they would be if permitted grazing were continued on NFS lands.
3.7.2.4 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing under current management systems for 2 herds at 419 cow/calf pairs per month from May 15 to September 30. The available range in the Chemult Pasture is virtually all riparian meadows and wetlands with little upland forage. Continuous season-long grazing throughout the growing period with little control over cattle distribution may result in the overgrazing of riparian areas (Leonard et al. 1997). Under Alternative 2, no permitted grazing would occur within the following existing fenced meadows: Round Meadow, Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider’s Camp, Cannon Well, Sproats Meadow, Johnson’s Meadow, Wilshire Meadow, and the NFS fenced portion of Jack Creek perennial reach. Only Johnson’s Meadow and the NFS fenced portion of Jack Creek have a hydrologic connection to Miller Lake lamprey habitat in Jack Creek, but Johnson’s Meadow itself does not provide habitat. Historically, cattle grazed the entire length of perennial Jack Creek, with minimal impacts. In 2008, a fence was constructed to further protect sensitive Oregon spotted frog habitat in Jack Creek. Under Alternative 2, no grazing would occur behind the Jack Creek riparian fence, so impacts to Miller Lake lamprey from livestock grazing would be minimal. Although the riparian fence does not prevent all access to Miller Lake lamprey habitats, it does protect the majority of the habitats in Jack Creek from livestock grazing. Continued management under Alternative 2 would prohibit grazing on most of the lamprey habitat; therefore, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 would be expected to remain the same or improve on NFS lands. Because permitted grazing would be extremely limited within NFS lands on Jack Creek, the current permit holder may increase grazing on privately owned lands. In some cases, these privately owned lands contain suitable habitat for Miller Lake lamprey. Impacts in these areas may be greater than they would be if permitted grazing were continued on NFS lands.
3.7.2.5 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing with additional acreage identified from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment. The addition of the North Sheep Pasture increases the length of Jack Creek that is grazed, because Jack Creek flows through the North Sheep Pasture. However, Jack Creek has intermittent flows in this portion of the project area and would only provide seasonal habitat for Miller Lake lamprey. Any ammocoetes that move downstream into this area during high flows will have to move upstream into the perennial sections as flows recede or else be stranded and perish. The effects of adding the North Sheep Pasture to the allotment would therefore be minimal. Under Alternative 3, the Chemult and the North Sheep pastures would be managed together using a deferred-rotation system with alternating seasons of use. The private land along Jack
3-153 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Creek known as Moffit, Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison would be managed under a term private land permit, which would allow the Forest Service to authorize and direct grazing on these private lands. Alternative 3 proposes a deferred-rotation grazing system for one herd of 494 cow/calf pairs per month from May 20 through October 15. Typically, a deferred-grazing rotation, as proposed under Alternative 3, has fewer negative impacts on riparian systems than season-long grazing, as proposed under Alternative 2. However, grazing behind riparian fenced areas may concentrate livestock within the riparian area, which could impact Miller Lake lamprey habitat. Effects of concentrated grazing include loss of riparian vegetation and woody debris input. Stream banks without adequate vegetation can become unstable, leading to high width:depth ratios, increased sedimentation, and diminished water quality. The grazing system proposed within the Jack Creek Unit, which includes the area behind the Jack Creek riparian fence, would allow authorized grazing for 75 cow/calf pairs for 1 month. Adhering to riparian grazing standards and a pasture rotation schedule and limiting the number of livestock and the season of use should maintain lamprey habitat at acceptable standards.
3.7.2.6 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing for one herd of 419 cow/calf pairs per month from May 20 to July 30 without using the Chemult RD portion of the allotment. Because the Chemult RD portion contains the only suitable habitat for Miller Lake lamprey in the allotment, effects to lamprey on NFS lands would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 1. Because permitted grazing would be extremely limited within NFS lands on Jack Creek, the current permit holder may increase grazing on privately owned lands. In some cases, these privately owned lands contain suitable habitat for Miller Lake lamprey. Impacts in these areas may be greater than they would be if permitted grazing were continued on NFS lands.
3.7.2.7 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 proposes to continue permitted livestock grazing with additional acreage identified from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment. Under Alternative 5, the Chemult and the North Sheep pastures would be managed together using a deferred-rotation system with alternating seasons of use. The private land along Jack Creek known as Moffit, Upper Jamison and Lower Jamison would be managed under a term private land grazing permit, which would allow the Forest Service to authorize and direct grazing on these private lands. The addition of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment increases the length of Jack Creek that is grazed, because Jack Creek flows through the North Sheep Pasture. However, Jack Creek has intermittent flows in this portion of the project area and would only provide seasonal habitat for Miller Lake lamprey. Any ammocoetes that move downstream into this area during high flows will have to move upstream into the perennial sections as flows recede or else be stranded and perish. The effects of adding the North Sheep Pasture to the allotment would therefore be minimal. The primary difference between Alternative 5 and the other action alternatives is that Alternative 5 proposes dividing the livestock into 2 separate herds. This division allows the permit holder greater flexibility in distributing livestock so that grazing animals can be spread more uniformly across the project area, potentially reducing impacts caused from high livestock concentration. Alternative 5 proposes an earlier grazing season than Alternatives 2 and 3 propose. Greater impacts to riparian habitats would be expected under earlier season of use. Early season grazing in riparian areas may cause greater impacts to Miller Lake lamprey habitat.
3-154 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Earlier in the year, riparian areas are more likely to be wet; in the case of Jack Creek, standing water is likely to be present. Grazing under these conditions would retard vegetation regrowth because the livestock may consume the plants as they are growing. Reduced plant vigor and the inability of the plants to set seed would reduce the ability of riparian vegetation to protect against stream bank erosion. Hoof action and associated stream bank shear would expose soils. Runoff would introduce sediment and animal waste into the stream, increasing nutrients and reducing water quality. In the grazing strategy proposed under Alternative 5, the 2-herd rotations allow earlier season use in the North Sheep Pasture every third year and early use each year in the privately owned Lower Jamison. Both of these pastures are at the downstream end of the perennial section of Jack Creek and may be dry, or nearly so, by the time livestock arrive, depending on precipitation. The grazing system proposed within the riparian pastures, Jack Creek Unit, Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Jack Creek (NFS) would allow authorized grazing for 75 cow/calf pairs for 1 month throughout the season. Adhering to riparian grazing standards, range readiness criteria, and a pasture rotation schedule, and limiting the number of livestock and the season of use, should maintain lamprey habitat at acceptable standards.
3.7.3 Cumulative Effects The analysis area is defined as the perennial portion of Jack Creek and adjacent riparian vegetation within the project boundary. The time frame for analysis extends back to the late 1800s, when timber harvest and livestock grazing began to impact vegetative communities. This time frame includes all past actions that have altered stream habitat, as well as potential future actions that could alter stream habitat. Interrelated activities are part of the proposed action and depend on the action for their justification. Interdependent activities have no independent utility apart from the action. Grazing was assumed to continue on the permit holder’s private lands under all alternatives. Relative abundance data for Miller Lake lamprey are incomplete, so increases or decreases in the number of individuals comprising the Jack Creek population would be impossible to detect. Thus, the proposed actions would be considered significant if they are likely to result in the disappearance of Miller Lake lamprey from Jack Creek. In order to assess the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a surrogate for the impacts of past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Past projects within the project area of particular influence to the project area are listed in Appendix C. Consideration of current and reasonably foreseeable future actions includes grazing management, known Forest projects, and known Forest uses, as identified in Appendix C. This analysis considers cumulative impacts to fisheries resources within the perennial portion of Jack Creek and adjacent riparian vegetation within the project boundary. This analysis area has been determined to be appropriate due to the intermittent and isolated flow condition of Jack Creek. The population of Miller Lake lamprey residing in Jack Creek have no perennial habitat downstream of the project area, due to intermittent flows. Fishes from beyond the project boundary cannot access fish habitats in Jack Creek, because Jack Creek lacks connectivity with any other stream. Ongoing and future actions within the Jack Creek population of Miller Lake lamprey include habitat restoration work for Oregon spotted frogs; creation of up to 4 off-channel ponds (2014) and planting of willows (decision memo signed September 2011). The scoping letter for the off- channel ponds and planting of willows decision memo also disclosed future potential activities,
3-155 Fisheries Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
including beaver reestablishment (2012), additional pond construction, headcut rehabilitation, and channel reconstruction; separate decisions on these activities will occur. Additionally, the Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan recommends restoration activities throughout Miller Lake lamprey habitat on Jack Creek (Appendix C, Table C.7). Some proposals have potential to benefit lamprey, while others have potential to negatively impact this population. Effects determinations for lamprey will be conducted in the preparation of each future decision to authorize any currently proposed or recommended Oregon spotted frog habitat restoration activities. Impact determinations were based on potential direct and indirect effects to species and habitats. The proposed grazing systems (deferred-rotation versus season-long) have subtle differences regarding Miller Lake lamprey and their habitat. In general, deferred-rotation grazing would be preferred over season-long grazing. However, the season-long grazing described under Alternative 2 would prevent livestock from grazing in the majority of Miller Lake lamprey habitats, due to the riparian fencing. The deferred-rotation strategies described in Alternatives 3 and 5 would allow livestock to graze within these riparian fenced areas throughout the season.
3.7.3.1 Alternatives 1 and 4 Under these alternatives, grazing would continue on privately owned sections at the landowner’s discretion. About one-half of the available fish habitats in Jack Creek would continue to be grazed (Table 3-22). Effects to fish habitat from livestock grazing in riparian areas are discussed above and may impact lamprey and their habitat where grazing occurs, as well as downstream through the perennial flowing sections both on and off NFS lands. Oregon spotted frog habitat restoration activities would cause minimal impacts to lamprey and their habitats. Beaver reintroduction and beaver dam building would cause no effect to lamprey. Beavers do not prey on lamprey, and lamprey are able to negotiate beaver dams either by swimming around or through them. Impoundments behind beaver dams may seasonally compromise water quality by increasing water temperatures, decreasing DO concentrations, and increasing nutrients, but lampreys will be capable of leaving these areas. Impoundments will also trap sediments, providing desired substrate for ammocoetes. Building 4 off-channel ponds as overwintering sites for Oregon spotted frogs is not likely to affect lamprey. While adult lamprey require a stream channel to swim through, pond designs indicate that the ponds will not connect to Jack Creek itself but will be in the floodplain. During high-water events, such as runoff, the ponds would become inundated, providing overland connection between the channel and the ponds, but as water recedes, the ponds would become completely separate from Jack Creek. Downstream migrating ammocoetes are not likely to select pond habitat if the ponds become accessible during high flows because the ponds will not have flowing water required by filter feeders. Willow planting, fence building, stock water development, and other activities occurring on the floodplain would cause minimal effects to lamprey. These activities are limited in duration and localized. In the long term, these activities could provide benefits to lamprey habitat by controlling livestock and improving riparian conditions. Effects Determination—Since no grazing would occur along Miller Lake lamprey habitat on NFS lands along Jack Creek under Alternatives 1 and 4, these alternatives would have “no effect” on Miller Lake lamprey or their habitat.
3-156 Fisheries Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.7.3.2 Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 Alternative 2 limits grazing on NFS lands to about 1 mile along Jack Creek in the headwater section. Lamprey and their habitat would benefit under this alternative because the majority of riparian areas adjacent to Miller Lake lamprey habitat on NFS land would develop to natural potential, providing shade, vegetative vigor, reduced erosion, and improved water quality. This alternative also potentially increases grazing pressure on lamprey habitats in the privately owned sections. If livestock are not controlled and riparian habitats are not appropriately managed, increased grazing could negatively impact lamprey. Alternatives 3 and 5 propose grazing throughout the length of perennial Jack Creek on both NFS lands and privately owned lands. This area encompasses all of the habitats available for Miller Lake lamprey in Jack Creek. Effects to lamprey and their habitats from various proposed grazing strategies and seasons of use are discussed above. Oregon spotted frog habitat restoration activities would cause minimal impacts to lamprey and their habitats. Beaver reintroduction and beaver dam building would cause no effect to lamprey. Beavers do not prey on lamprey, and lamprey are able to negotiate beaver dams either by swimming around or through them. Impoundments behind beaver dams may seasonally compromise water quality by increasing water temperatures, lowering DO concentrations, and increasing nutrients, but lampreys are capable of leaving these areas. Impoundments will also trap sediments, providing desired substrate for ammocoetes. Building 4 off-channel ponds as overwintering sites for Oregon spotted frogs is not likely to affect lamprey, as described above. Willow planting, fence building, stock water development, and other activities occurring on the floodplain would cause minimal effects to lamprey. These activities are limited in duration and localized. In the long term, these activities could provide benefits to lamprey habitat by controlling livestock and improving riparian conditions. The preceding discussion analyzes the magnitude of impacts to Miller Lake lamprey and lamprey habitat from livestock grazing, comparing and contrasting the likely effects of each proposed alternative. An important factor to consider, however, is the historical context of this project. The impacts from this project would be less than the impacts that have historically occurred from livestock grazing along Jack Creek. Beginning as early as the 1870s, thousands of cattle, sheep, and horses have used the project area, and they likely altered the aquatic and riparian resources and hydrologic processes of Jack Creek to an unknown extent. Yet Miller Lake lamprey persist in Jack Creek. The population is isolated from any other Miller Lake lamprey populations; colonization from either upstream or downstream is not possible. Because of these factors, the impact of livestock grazing on Miller Lake lamprey is considered to be not significant. Effects Determination—Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 “may affect individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species”
3-157 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.8 Soils Soil condition is a major component of ecosystem health and is fundamental to range site potential and sustainability. Soil condition directly relates to stability, hydrology, and nutrient cycling functions, which are the determining factors of soil productivity. Both Forest Plans mandate that soil productivity be maintained or improved, and detrimental soil conditions, including compaction, rutting, and erosion, are not to exceed 20% of an activity area (USDA Forest Service 1989, 1990). Livestock grazing activities have the potential to impact the soil resource. These activities were analyzed for their potential effects on soil condition and productivity within the project area. Because the project boundary straddles two soil survey areas, information from the Fremont National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) (Wenzel 1979) and the Winema National Forest TEUI (USDA Forest Service 2001–2008) were merged to assess the affected environment and analyze the environmental effects of the action.
3.8.1 Affected Environment
3.8.1.1 West Pastures Soils on the west side of the project area were derived primarily from pumice and ash deposits from Mt. Mazama. Studies infer that the last major eruption of Mt. Mazama occurred about 6,000 to 7,000 years ago (McDaniel et al. 1997); thus, the landscape is “young” from a geologic standpoint. The terrain is characterized by lava plateaus that trend from nearly level to moderately steep slopes. Elevation ranges from 4,700 feet to over 6,400 feet. The region experiences warm, dry summers and cold, wet winters, with most precipitation falling as snow. The Winema TEUI identifies 22 ecological units in the western portion of the allotment area; however, 7 units individually comprised less than 100 acres, and thus were analyzed with similar soil types (Table 3-23).
Table 3-20 Terrestrial ecological (TE) units in the west side of the project area Landscape TE Unit Soils and Surface Compaction Rutting Hydro Acrese Position Slopes Texturea Resistanceb Hazardc Groupd Upland Soils Level-to- 1003 Pumice SL/LS Moderate Moderate A 18,770 Cf Gentle Lapine 5,700 NSg Slopes 1%–6% 1004 Deepdish SL/LS NIA NIA A 1180 C 0%–1% 100 NS 1016; Pumice SL/LS Moderate Moderate A 36,030 C 1031 Lapine 12,000 NS 2%–12% Gentle-to- 1018 Lapine SL Moderate Moderate A 5,060 C Steep 12%–35% Slopes 1023; Pumice SL/LS Moderate Moderate A 2,550 C 1026 Lapine 950 NS 12%–35% Steep 1013 Lapine SL/LS Moderate Moderate A 710 C Slopes 35%–70%
3-158 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Landscape TE Unit Soils and Surface Compaction Rutting Hydro Acrese Position Slopes Texturea Resistanceb Hazardc Groupd Riparian Soils Moist 2000 Moist SI NIA NIA C/D 2,800 C Meadow Meadow 600 NS Chinchallo 0%–1% Moist 2004 Meadow SL NIA NIA C/D 210C Chocknott 1%–4% Wet 2001 Mesquito SL NIA NIA C/D 90 C Meadow 1%–8% 2005 Wickiup SI Low- Severe C/D 190 C 0%–1% Moderate 150 NS Very Wet 2006 Cosbie- SI & Peat Low Severe C/D 520 C Meadow Stirfry 100 NC Complexh 1%–15% Salix Wetlands 2008 Chemult Peat/SI NIA NIA C/D 140 C 0%–2% 2017 Cosbie SI Low Severe C/D 100 NS 1%–3% aSL: sandy loam; LS: loamy sand; SI: silt. bRating of each soil for its resistance to compaction. “High” resistance indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable to resisting compaction. “Moderate” resistance indicates that the soil has features that are favorable to resisting compaction. “Low” resistance indicates that the soil has one or more features that favor the formation of a compacted layer. Literate search infers that those riparian soils where no information is available (NIA) have moderate to low compaction resistance. cHazard of surface rut formation through the operation of forestland equipment. Soil displacement and puddling (soil deformation and compaction) may occur simultaneously with rutting. dSource: Wenzel 1979. “Hydrologic Groups” indicates the general infiltration and water movement ability of the soil and bedrock materials. This rating has been developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, with the deep, well-drained sands of Group A soils having the highest infiltration and transmission rates, and the lowest runoff potential. Group D soils have the highest runoff potential, and water movement through these soils is restricted. eApproximate acres fC = Chemult Pasture gNS = North Sheep Pasture hVaries from official series. TEUI Units 1000 through 1031 include expansive upland areas dominated by lodgepole pine stands. The conifer ecological types comprise a majority of the allotment area, providing forage for wildlife and cattle early in the season. The dominant soils of the upland units are the Lapine and Lapine-like series. These coarse sandy loam and loamy sand soils form in deep pumice and ash deposits. They have a moderate resistance to compaction. Displacement of surface horizons can occur on the Lapine soils but is not likely to occur in the project area due to predominantly gentle slopes. Likewise, the erosion potential is low, with the exception of those areas with steeper slopes or reduced vegetative cover. Lapine soils occur in various mapping units throughout the west side of the allotment and are segregated by features such as slope, ecological type, landscape position, and volume or size of pumice in the profile. Riparian soils of the 2000-series map units are less common. These soils are subject to prolonged wetness during the growing season, whereby some units always remain moist. The 2000-series map units include the moist and dry meadows, wetlands, fens, and stream corridors. Although comprising a minor component of the project area, the riparian areas contain the bulk of the forage and are typically the most prone to grazing pressure (USDI BLM 2006). Soils in the 2000 units are apt to receive the most resource impacts from grazing in the form of compaction,
3-159 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
rutting (in the form of post-holes or pedestals), and streambank erosion. Overall, approximately 4,000 acres (or 6% of the total project area) of riparian soil types are documented in the Chemult RD portion of the current project boundary. MA 8 (A-D [stream class types]) of the Winema Forest Plan outlines specific management objectives and standards for resource protection of forest riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 1990). Within these wetter environments, MA 8 direction mandates that soil disturbance remains below 10%. In general, MA 8 and the corresponding standards apply to the 2000-series map units. Although the upland soils are much more extensive throughout the allotment, soil analyses focused primarily on the 2000-series units because they are more susceptible to resource impacts, have sensitive species present, are exposed to intense grazing pressures, and have more restrictive standards applied to them. Moist meadows of the 2000 and 2004 units; wet meadows of the 2001 and 2005 units; and the very wet meadows and fens of the 2006 and 2008 units are included in the MA 8 designation (Table 3-23). The riparian soils were stratified by moisture characteristics because drainage conditions are useful for determining grazing management strategies regarding timing, duration, and intensity. All riparian soils in the project area could be impacted by too early turnout, high stocking levels, or prolonged grazing in one area. However, not all “wet soils” respond the same to similar grazing strategies. If not over-utilized, the moist meadow Chinchallo (TEU 2000) and Chocknott (TEU 2004) soils tend to be the most resilient to cattle grazing. These soils are dispersed throughout the west side of the allotment. They typically have a thick turf-like herbaceous layer that cushions the surface soil, preventing it from forming post-holes and compacted layers. Since these soils generally dry in the surface horizons by early July, they can withstand earlier turnout dates and tend to receive higher grazing pressure. High cattle concentrations and long-duration grazing in these moist meadow areas, however, can result in detrimental soil conditions such as compaction, large connected areas of bare ground, decreased infiltration, and high runoff. Land use and management of TEU 2000 and 2004 riparian areas is further complicated by their frequent association and intermingling with wet meadow soils (TEU 2001 and 2005). The 2001 and 2005 units correspond to the Mesquito and Wickiup series. These soils are found primarily at the south end of Parker Meadow, Stimson Meadow, Rock Springs, and along Jack Creek. These poorly drained soils may remain saturated to the surface for prolonged periods, extending into July in some years. Here again, adverse soil impacts can occur in these wet meadows when turnout occurs under wet surface conditions. In some areas, the wet meadows intermix with and grade into very wet meadows and fen units, also referred to as groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs). Most correspond to TEUI 2006, with minor components in 2017 and 2008. GDEs contain very poorly drained peat soils and wetland vegetation. Many of these very wet meadows meet the definition of fens. Weixelman and Cooper (2009) define fen ecosystems as “hydric soils with an aquic soil moisture regime and an accumulation of peat in the histic epipedon.” In other words, fens are composed of at least 40 cm (16 inches) of organic soils (such as peat or muck) that are saturated for a prescribed period of time. Fens form where the long-term rate of organic matter production by plants exceeds the rate of decomposition. Research conducted in the Rocky Mountains postulates that peat layers accumulate very slowly, from 11 to 41 cm (4.3 to 16.2 inches) per thousand years (Cooper 1990, Chimner et al. 2002). Peat-forming wetland plant species and a persistent shallow groundwater table are the other critical components of fen ecosystems.
3-160 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.8.1.1.1 Grazing Related Disturbances—West Pastures Historically, livestock grazing has been considered the primary threat to riparian ecosystems and is often associated with soil compaction, pedestalling, post-holing, trampling, and erosion (Krueger et al. 2002; Poff et al. 2011). Cattle tend to congregate in riparian zones and as such, these zones absorb a disproportionate share of grazing impacts (Hunter et al. 1996). If timing, duration, or intensity is not properly managed, grazing can degrade soil aggregates and vegetation and reduce litter cover. Improper livestock grazing can affect the riparian-stream habitat by reducing riparian vegetation, widening stream channels, causing channel aggradation through increased sediment transport, changing streambank morphology, and lowering surrounding water tables (Platts 1986). Reduced vegetative cover and livestock trampling and trailing affect soil stability and can contribute to loose dust or soil compaction (Edwards and Canter 1999). Ultimately, decreased vegetative cover will diminish soil organic matter and root biomass, resulting in a loss of soil nutrients and productivity. Grazing impacts are widely dispersed and considerably less severe in forested uplands than in riparian areas. Cattle typically graze the upland areas as they traverse between pastures and water sources. Cows may also graze on upland forage early in the season when palatability is higher and the riparian areas are still inaccessible (USDI BLM 2006). Most upland soil resource impacts results from cattle trailing and loafing activity around water sources and salting locations. To assess soil impacts from cattle grazing, field investigations were conducted before, after, and during the 2010 and 2011 grazing seasons. Soils were evaluated for impacts from current management activities, potential impacts from proposed actions, and conformance with the Forest Plan. The extent and degree of compaction, erosion, bare ground, post-holing, and pedestalling were documented, and determinations were made regarding site productivity. Field studies focused on the riparian areas in general and various fens in particular. The forested uplands were evaluated while traversing between riparian areas and travelling on project area roads. Existing soil conditions and productivity varied throughout the allotments. Results of the field reconnaissance indicated most of the wetter areas were meeting Forest Plan standards and riparian objectives (USDA Forest Service, unpublished data [project record]). However, detrimental soil conditions approaching or exceeding the 10% threshold were documented at seven locations—sections of Rider’s Camp (above the fenced riparian area), Rock Springs, Sproats Meadow, and four unnamed fens (Table 3-24). Site evaluations suggest that these seven “riparian areas of concern” were not meeting Forest Plan soil productivity objectives or have greater than 10% detrimental soil conditions. The presence of extensive bare ground, compacted soil, and/or deep post-holes and pedestals substantiated this conclusion. Soil disturbance was particularly evident in areas of prolonged use.
3-161 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-21. Riparian areas of concern, Terrestrial Ecological (TE) Unit, and current conditions—west pastures TE Unit, Soil Series Area of Concerna Conditions 2000, Chinchallo Rider’s Camp, within fenced riparian area Compaction due to early turnout 2004, Chocknott (27 acres) on wet soils, long-duration, and/or high intensity grazing. Sproats Meadow (125 acres) Reduced ground cover and possible decreased infiltration and increased runoff. 2005, Wickiup Rock Springs (25 acres) Compaction and post-holing caused by grazing on wet soils. Reduced ground cover caused by overgrazing and trampling. 2006, Cosbie-Stirfry Rider’s Camp, above fenced riparian areas Post-holes and pedestals; complex (27 acres) compressed peat soils; Rock Springs (west end, 10 acres) Trampled plants caused by grazing on wet soils. Fens off NFS roads: • 88-780 (Little Parker) (16 acres) • 8821-322 (unnamed) (20 acres) • 8829-010 (unnamed) (9 acres), • 9400-460 (unnamed) (5 acres) aAcres represent total size of riparian/wetland area, and not total acres of disturbance Segments of Crooked and Johnson fens also exhibited prolonged use. The trampled soils contained deep post-holes and pedestals resulting from grazing on wet ground. These poorly to very poorly drained soils correspond to TE units 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2008. The presence of a surface groundwater table throughout most, if not all, of the year renders these soils particularly susceptible to impacts from intense cattle grazing. Compaction, when present, was more apparent in the seasonally dry meadows and riparian areas. Compacted soils typically result from early turnout on wet soils, long-duration grazing, and/or high concentrations of cattle. The effects are more pronounced on finer-textured soils with sparse ground cover. Areas displaying compacted soil conditions included the 2000 TE units of Rider’s Camp and Sproats Meadow. A fence was constructed around the perimeter of Rider’s Camp (TE unit 2000), presumably intended to exclude cattle and advance soil and streambank recovery. Within the fenced riparian areas, down-cutting and sloughing were observed, evidence that the site was still in recovery. Soil compaction, post-holing, and pedestalling were documented outside of the fenced riparian areas and in the adjacent fens where cattle were actively grazing. Large burn piles of charred soil were present within the fenced riparian areas. Soil detrimental conditions were estimated at greater than 10%. The areas of Rock Springs and south along Rock Creek were also highly impacted by grazing. Shovel penetration tests for localized compaction were performed at various locations throughout the meadow and creek corridor with similar results: soil compaction was extensive (>20%), with about 1- to 2-inch stubble height. Consequently, runoff potential was also very high. Other riparian areas showing signs of detrimental soil conditions from grazing included Sproats Meadow, Little Parker Meadow (off road 88-780), and three unnamed fens. Sproats displayed poor conditions outside of the existing fenced riparian areas, with evidence of compaction, post-holing, and pedestalling. The unnamed fens and Little Parker Meadow were
3-162 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 highly impacted, likely due to ease of access and lack of resource protection fencing. Detrimental conditions from hummocks and post-holes often exceeded the 10% threshold. Over 60 meadows, fens, and riparian sites were surveyed that neither exceed nor approached the detrimental threshold. Areas with favorable soil conditions were stable or trending upward from historical lows recorded in previous environmental assessments (Swanson 1984). Soil productivity appeared to be improving or remaining at the current level, as evidenced by less than 10% observed detrimental conditions. Included in this category were Round, Squirrel, Johnson (most), Dry, and Wilshire Meadows. Range reports confirm the upward trend in forage condition ratings over the past decades (PBS Engineering and Environmental 2008). Overall, riparian areas that sustained minimal soil impacts were either inaccessible to cattle or relatively large; had experienced prolonged dry periods; contained a thick organic surface layer; and/or provided limited grazing conditions that discouraged cattle loafing for extended periods. In some of the aforementioned meadows, resource protection fences had been erected at some time in the past to shield sensitive fen sites, restore impacted soils, or protect springs. Soils within the fenced riparian areas were in various stages of recovery and functionality. The total extent of detrimental soil conditions of the west side riparian areas is estimated at 300 to 350 acres (GIS analysis, unpublished data). These figures represent the total acreage of riparian areas currently not meeting Forest Plan goals and objectives. The GIS analysis, supported by findings from field investigations, suggests that the extent of detrimental soil conditions of the west side of the project area is below the 10% threshold required in MA 8. Several meadows and fens contain habitat or have recorded sightings of sensitive wildlife and botanical species. To protect species and restore habitat, several fen ecosystems have been fenced and excluded from grazing over the last 10 years. Conditions within the fenced riparian areas have shown considerable soil recovery, whereby evidence of grazing impacts is negligible to non-existent. Conversely, detrimental soil conditions such as post-holing, pedestalling, and trampling have been documented in unprotected fens. The forested upland sites exhibited less than 20% soil resource impact from grazing activities. Most of the upland areas consist of dense stands of lodgepole pine, and in contrast to the riparian areas, were not heavily grazed. Not only do the forested sites contain less forage, but generally they are less accessible to cattle. Dense lodgepole thickets and dead “jack-strawed” trunks tend to concentrate cattle into the flat, open riparian areas. Field observations concluded that grazing impacts in the forested uplands were limited primarily to areas where cattle congregate, such as watering holes, troughs, and salting locations.
3.8.1.2 East Pastures The east side of the allotment continues the trend of pumiceous soils over buried soils derived from basalt, andesite, or tuff. The eastern pastures receive less precipitation than the western pastures, and many of the riparian areas and stock ponds are dry by late summer. Twenty-seven landtype (LT) units were identified on the Fremont National Forest side (Table 3-25). Of those, 22 are over 100 acres in size. Five units that individually comprised less than 100 acres were analyzed with similar soil types, and are thus omitted from the table. Coarse-textured soils of LT units 80 through 90 cover a majority of the analysis area.
3.8.1.2.1 Grazing-related Disturbances—East Pastures Riparian, meadow, and other fine-textured soils are mapped as LT units 13 and 14. Similar to the west pastures, these wet soils comprise a small fraction of the land mass (about 1,400 acres) but experience higher utilization rates due to the presence of seasonal water sources, shade, and
3-163 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
more desirable forage. LT 14 was found to provide habitat for a sensitive botanical species not found elsewhere on the Forest. The drier climate of the eastern allotments allows for earlier turnout. Cattle are rotated between seven pastures to take advantage of early season forage and water sources. Range reports and previous EAs indicate that the eastern pastures were historically in poor condition, primarily from overgrazing. The riparian areas, in particular, were trending downward from high cattle concentrations in these areas. Isolated areas of detrimental compaction, puddling, and lack of ground cover have been observed in a few locations where cows tend to congregate. Areas of high grazing pressure include Rock Springs, Halfway Lake, and several other springs scattered throughout the Tobin Cabin and North Willow Pastures. Detrimental soil conditions exceeding the Fremont Forest Plan standards, however, have not been documented. Table 3-22. Soil and landtypes in the project area
LT Unit Surface Slope Compaction Erosion Hydrologic Total Acres Texturea % Hazardb Potential Groupd (approx) Sheet/Rillc Riparian Units 13 CL 0–5 High Mod/High D 380 14 fSL 0–5 Low-Mod Low/High B 1,020 Miscellaneous Units 7 NR 0–5 NR NR NR 370 8 NR 10–70 NR NR NR 520 10 NR 10–50 Low Low/High A 670 0%–8% slopes 28 vstCL 0–5 Low- High/High D 390 summer; High-winter 83 LS 0–5 High Mod/Mod D 3,690 95 LS 0–6 Moderate Low/Mod B 18,270 99 LS 0–8 Low Low/Mod A 2,690
3-164 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
LT Unit Surface Slope Compaction Erosion Hydrologic Total Acres Texturea % Hazardb Potential Groupd (approx) Sheet/Rillc 0%–15% slopes 30A CL 0–15 Low- High/High C 2,050 summer; High-winter 81 LS 0–15 Low Low/Mod C 2,580 89A LS 0–15 Low Low/Mod B 520 93A LS 0–15 Low Low/Mod A 6,310 94A LS 0–15 Low Low/Mod A 4,800 96A LS 0–15 Low Low/Mod A 2,170 97A LS 0–15 Low Low/Mod A 5,660 >15% slopes 98 LS 0–25 Low Low/High A 2,100 87 LS 5–30 Low Low/High B 750 93B LS 16–40 Low Low/High A 430 94B LS 16–40 Low Low/High A 300 96B LS 16–40 Low Low/High A 2,100 97B LS 16–40 Low Low/High A 3,110 aNR: not rated; CL: clay loam; fSL: fine sandy loam; vstCL: very stony clay loam; LS: loamy sand bRelative ease soils can be compacted when wet or moist. cSheet: Expected losses of surface soil when all vegetative cover is removed. Rill: Expected soil losses by rill erosion when all vegetative cover is removed. dThe general infiltration and water movement ability of the soils and bedrock materials. This rating has been developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, with the deep well drained sands of Group A soils having the highest infiltration and transmission rates, and the lowest runoff potential. Group D soils have the highest runoff potential, and water movement through these soils is restricted.
3.8.1.2.2 Grazing Disturbances Although the discussion thus far has focused on the adverse effects of grazing on the soil resource, not all grazing impacts are negative. Research shows that proper grazing management can have a neutral or positive benefit, depending on the ecosystem, environmental conditions, and grazing season and intensity (CAST 2002). Grazing can decrease the amount of water lost through plant transpiration, thus prolonging the availability of soil water for plant growth. Sequestering carbon and regulating nutrient cycling are a few additional examples of positive impacts from grazing. Within the project area, studies are in progress to understand the extent and magnitude of grazing effects within the riparian zones. Results from this ongoing research may also determine the types of effects in relation to the various ecosystems present. Riparian zones within the project area represent an array of ecosystems and present variable site and soil conditions. Not all meadows, fens, or riparian corridors exhibit the same resiliency or respond similarly to grazing pressures. Likewise, not all the riparian areas receive the same level of utilization; cattle concentrate in some areas while other pastures experienced minimal-to-no use. Over the past 30 or more years, cattle numbers and season of use have dramatically decreased. Range analyses indicate changes in grazing strategies have improved soil and site conditions from historical lows (USDA Forest Service 1995a, 2001–2008). The relatively few riparian areas and springs on the Silver Lake RD portion of the project area continue to experience heavy use
3-165 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
by cattle. However, site investigations and spring assessments concluded Forest Plan standards and objectives were being met.
3.8.1.2.3 Grazing Infrastructure Disturbances Impacts to soil occur when fences are constructed, maintained, reconstructed, or removed. Ground disturbance along fence lines, assuming a 4-foot-wide disturbance strip on each side, is approximately 1.0 acre per mile. Currently, 74 total miles of fence line exist within the project area, and the extent of disturbed soil is about 74 acres. Likewise, livestock watering facilities are assumed to impact about 1.0 acre per structure. The following watering facilities occur within the project area: 70 stock ponds/tanks, 6 developed springs, and 80 undeveloped springs. Watering facilities would continue to impact approximately 156 acres within the allotments. Collectively, soil impacts from structural improvements are expected to have minimal measurable effects. Table 3-26 summarizes the total detrimental impacts by activity. Based upon assumptions previously described, the existing detrimental soil disturbance from all management activities equates approximately 7% of the project area soils. This estimate is well below the Forest Plan requirement of detrimental soil conditions not exceeding 20% of the total acreage within the activity area. Overall, Forest Plan soil productivity objectives are being met. Individually, however, several riparian areas, meadows, and fens currently exhibit conditions exceeding or approaching the detrimental threshold.
Table 3-23 Estimated extent of detrimental soil condition by activity measured in acres Pasture Logginga Roads Fences Livestock Related Total Acres (acres) (acres) (acres) Watering Riparian (Percent of Facilities Areas Project Area) (acres) (acres) Chemult Pastures 5,585 2,160– 74 156 350 9,670 (7%) 2,880 Silver Lake 520 105 Pastures a1990–present
3.8.1.2.4 Grazing-Related Contamination Research indicates that cattle wastes contribute to elevated contaminant levels in the soil profile and pollute surface and groundwater. High loading rates of sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens can result from grazing activities (Hubbard et al, 2004). The Forest Plans and Region 6 Supplement do not provide standards for assessing soil nutrients or contaminant levels. As such, field investigations did not specifically target soil pollutants or contaminants. On-going studies are monitoring ground and surface water conditions. Results of these findings would determine if contaminants in the ecosystem need further evaluation.
3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects occur at the same time and place as the actions that cause soil disturbance, such as soil compaction caused by concentrated hoof action from livestock. Indirect effects occur sometime after or some distance away from the initial disturbance, such as increased runoff and down-slope erosion from previously compacted areas. Direct and indirect effects of each alternative are analyzed on NFS lands and non-NFS lands under term private land grazing permits within the boundary of the allotment for each alternative. These effects were considered
3-166 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 for temporary (season of use), short-term (duration of the permit, or 10 years), and long-term (beyond 10 years) impacts to soils. Effects, or impacts, are described in terms of the type, intensity, and spatial and temporal scales of the impacts. They can be adverse or beneficial and are so stated. The intensity or magnitude of the effects is described as follows: • Negligible—The effects on soil productivity or fertility would be at or below the level of detection. • Minor—The effects on soil productivity or fertility would be small, as would the area affected. If needed to offset adverse effects mitigation would be relatively simple to implement and would likely be successful. • Moderate—The effect on soil productivity or fertility would be readily apparent and result in a change in the soil character over a relatively wide area. Mitigating measures would probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be successful. • Major—The effect on soil productivity or fertility would be readily apparent and long term and would measurably change the character of the soils over a large area. Extensive mitigating measures to offset adverse effects would be needed, and their success could not be guaranteed. The baseline used for the potential effects analysis was the existing conditions described previously. For each alternative, an analysis was conducted to assess the effects of proposed management actions on the soil resource.
3.8.2.1 Measurement Indicators To compare and contrast the effects of each alternative, Table 3-27 presents three measurement indicators: riparian acres open to grazing; riparian acres grazed—acres of concern; and changes in soil surface features (riparian areas). These measurement indicators were selected based on professional judgment and a thorough review of literature on the interaction between soils and grazing.
3-167 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-24 Comparison of measurement indicators for soils by alternative
Measurement Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Indicator Riparian acres open S: 0 S: 1,369 S: 1,362 S: 1,362 S: 1,362 a to grazing C: 0 C: 1,907 C: 2,314 C: 0 C: 2,328 NS: 0 NS: 0 NS: 967 NS: 0 NS: 967 Riparian acres S: 0 – S: 80 = S: 80 = S: 80 = S: 0 – grazed—areas of C: 0 – C: 290 = C: 290 = C: 0 – C: 370 + concern Changes in soil S:– S: = S: + S: + S: – surface features C:– C: = C: – C:– C: variable (riparian areas) NS:– NS: = NS: + NS: = NS: +
Note: + Indicators would increase above current levels under implementation of alternative; – Indicators would decrease from current levels under implementation of alternative; = Indicators would be maintained at current levels under implementation of alternative Note: S = Silver Lake (eastside); C: = Chemult Pasture (westside); NS = North Sheep Pasture aDoes not include riparian acres grazed on private lands. Silver Lake (S) acres are approximate
3.8.2.2 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 (No Grazing Alternative) would eliminate livestock grazing from 137,189 acres of NFS lands. Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing would be eliminated on the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, and livestock grazing permits would be cancelled (FSH 2209.13–92.31). In accordance with agency regulations (36 CFR 222.4), grazing would cease 2 years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would continue unchanged during this 2-year interval, and these allotments would not be available for permit reissuance for a minimum of 10 years. Alternative 1 would remove ground disturbance caused by livestock grazing and associated allotment management (including fence maintenance and reconstruction, water hauling, salting, and permitted off-road motorized vehicle use). Under this alternative, detrimental soil conditions from range management activities would not increase above existing levels, and riparian habitats and soils would begin moving towards their potential productivity (Platts, 1989). Ground disturbance that would occur under this alternative includes removal of almost all fencing around currently fenced riparian meadows and between pastures. While some localized disturbance from fence removal would occur, the adverse effects would be temporary and negligible. Alternative 1 would have the most beneficial effects of all alternatives on soil productivity within NFS lands. Compaction, post-holing, and pedestalling from grazing would not occur. Bank erosion and sloughing from hoof action would not contribute to potential erosion. Cattle would no longer trail along streambanks and down fence lines. With the exception of wildlife grazing in the area, the allotment would return to an ungrazed state. Research concludes that eliminating grazing is the best alternative for realizing the most rapid improvement on deteriorated landscapes (USDI BLM 2006). When allotments or pastures are rested (ungrazed), stream riparian habitats can regain productivity faster than if grazed (Platts and Nelson 1989). Recovery is quick, especially in the first few years after grazing is eliminated. Wyman (USDI BLM 2006) found that excluding livestock improved riparian habitat within 4 to 7 years. High levels of streambank and vegetation recovery was observed following 4 years of rest from grazing. Field evaluations (2010 and 2011 [unpublished data available in the project record]) conducted in the project area supported Wyman’s (USDI BLM 2006) findings. Meadows and fens where “passive restoration” techniques (the elimination of grazing) were implemented 10 to more than
3-168 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
15 years ago exhibit improved soil conditions when compared to their grazed counterparts. These positive changes correlate with a decrease in soil features indicative of grazing. Round Meadow; the fenced areas of Rider’s Camp, Dry Meadow, Johnson fen and Little Round Meadow are but a few examples of riparian areas where recovery occurred after livestock grazing was eliminated through resource protection fencing or from lack of use. Removing grazing activities from the project area would likely result in similar impacts to those realized in the currently ungrazed portions of the project area. Vehicle and Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use associated with allotment management is expected to decrease, but no roads would be closed under this alternative. The riparian areas of concern with greater than 10% detrimental soil disturbance would begin to recover and their productivity would being to improve. Compaction, pedestalling, post- holing, and trampling from grazing on wet soils and in sensitive sites would no longer occur. Upward trends in soil and site productivity would be expected, not only in the areas of greater than 10% detrimental impact, but in all pastures throughout the entire allotment. Eliminating grazing on the allotments would lessen localized impacts within uplands, riparian areas, and individual meadows and would ultimately reduce overall detrimental soil conditions throughout the project area. Long-term beneficial effects to soils are anticipated under this alternative.
3.8.2.3 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would continue the current permitting strategy within the existing allotment boundaries. Livestock grazing would be authorized at the current stocking levels, season, and duration. Under this alternative, the existing boundaries would remain unchanged. No grazing would be authorized within the existing fenced meadows or on NFS lands within the fenced portion of Jack Creek’s perennial reach. The cow/calf pair numbers would remain at 419 and would be permitted for 4.5 months on the grazing allotments. The direct and indirect effects to soils would essentially be the same as described under the existing condition. Livestock impacts would mostly be confined to riparian areas and around water developments. Localized effects from livestock movement and grazing would not be expected to create unsatisfactory soil conditions over extensive areas of the project area. However, minor-to-moderate, localized, short-term impacts, particularly on wetland and riparian soils and in heavily used areas, would continue at current levels.
3.8.2.3.1 West Pastures Under Alternative 2, existing trends are anticipated to continue. On the west side of the Chemult Pasture, current management allows 3 months of continuous or season-long grazing outside of fenced riparian areas. Relative to other grazing strategies, season-long grazing has the greatest adverse impact on soil resources because cows linger for extended periods in the unprotected riparian areas, which puts stress on wet soils, streambanks, and vegetation (Platts and Nelson 1989). Kothmann (2009) notes that unrestricted access to the entire grazing area throughout the season permits livestock to repeatedly graze preferred plants and areas while other plants and areas receive little-to-no use. Selective grazing on preferred areas leads to long- term rangeland degradation. Season-long grazing does not provide deferment to reduce the detrimental effects of selective grazing and rarely works well for the maintenance or recovery of riparian function (USDI BLM 2006). Within the project area, unfenced meadows and fens that are approaching or have exceeded detrimental levels would not be shielded from grazing impacts. Major impacts would likely
3-169 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
persist in these riparian areas. Unprotected springs would also remain accessible to cattle and incur associated impacts. With the exception of the fenced areas of Rider’s Camp, the riparian areas of concern would continue to be impacted by cattle grazing. Detrimental soil conditions would likely approach or exceed Forest Plan standards. In the short term, minor-to-moderate adverse effects could be expected in the degraded riparian areas. Continued grazing in these areas would cause conditions to deteriorate and could result in chronic, long-term, moderate impacts. Conversely, riparian areas within the existing fenced riparian areas are trending upward and would continue to recover toward improved productivity at the current rate (if all factors remain the same). Short- and long-term beneficial effects on soil stability, hydrology, and nutrient cycling would continue within the fenced riparian areas. Negligible localized temporary impacts from fence construction along the north boundary, as well as actions associated with allotment management, would be expected. Effects from road sediment transport and OHV use would continue at current levels. Overall soil productivity in the allotment should be maintained under this alternative. The fenced riparian areas would continue to be restored, whereas the unprotected fens, meadows, and springs would remain at their current condition. A long-term soil monitoring plan of select riparian areas would occur under Alternative 2. Annual monitoring would identify triggers of detrimental threshold limits, provide adaptive management recommendations, and ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards. Meadows included for initial monitoring include the unfenced portions of Little Parker, Rider’s Camp, Rock Springs, Sproats, and the unnamed fens identified in Table 3-24.
3.8.2.3.2 East Pastures Soil disturbance from grazing and associated activities would continue at current levels under this alternative. Minor short-term adverse effects would primarily occur in isolated areas where cows tend to congregate. Effects from early-season grazing, such as compaction and post-holing on wet soils in Halfway and North Willow Pastures, would continue. To ensure compliance with Forest Plan objectives and goals, annual monitoring and adaptive management would occur near Halfway Lake. Other areas, particularly the springs scattered throughout the Tobin Cabin and North Willow pastures, would continue to experience high grazing pressure. Detrimental soil conditions exceeding the Fremont Forest Plan standards, however, have not been documented. Continuing grazing under the existing permit would be expected to meet Forest Plan standards of less than 20% detrimental conditions within a project area. With the exception of the riparian areas of concern, this alternative meets Forest Plan soils, riparian, and grazing management objectives and goals.
3.8.2.3.3 Unauthorized use, east and west pastures Unauthorized use can be assessed. Measurable effects of cow use are apt to be swamped by probable fire effects and transitions to bunchgrass-pine state or shrub steppe-pine states. There are also apt to be positive aquatic effects from likely fires. A fire is apt to reduce the current pressure on meadows. Given Gordie Reeves observations, there may be aquatic gains in both function and complexity. Similarly, incidental un-authorized use effects are countered by rapid regrowth in moist riparian habitats. Re-growth corresponds to soil stability and is a consideration of Proper Function.
3-170 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.8.2.4 Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, the permitted cattle numbers would increase from 419 to 494 cow/calf pairs in the Chemult Pasture; however, AUMs in this pasture would decrease from current management (see Range section). This reduction is a result of increased land from private in-holdings that would be waived to the Forest; inclusion of acreage (and riparian areas) from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment; and a reduced grazing season (from 3 to 2 months). Slightly fewer riparian acres would be grazed on the east side of the allotment than under current management.
3.8.2.4.1 West Pastures Alternative 3 includes grazing on the North Sheep Pasture, which is part of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment. This pasture would add acres and be used as part of a deferred rotation with the Chemult Pasture. This deferred-rotation grazing strategy would allow the North Sheep and the Chemult pastures to be managed together so that one pasture would remain ungrazed during part of the grazing season ( and Table 2-2). Deferred-rotation grazing allows better control of animal distribution. Unlike the season-long system, cows would be herded between pastures and grazing pressure would be reduced on the Chemult Pasture. An additional benefit of deferred rotation is that forage use and timing can be scheduled to meet the ability of the stream habitat to maintain its productivity (Platts and Nelson 1989). The grazing season would be shorter, and changes in timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing would allow for longer periods of ecosystem recovery (USDI BLM 2006). The disadvantage with respect to the soil resource is that livestock would continue to concentrate in riparian areas annually and could result in major impact to riparian vegetation, streambanks, and soils. Grazing would once again resume on six riparian areas that are currently fenced and in various stages of recovery. The six fenced riparian areas open to grazing would be managed under a HI/LF grazing strategy. The proposed number of cow/calf pairs would vary by pasture, and grazing would be permitted for 15 to 30 days from July 15 to September 30, based on forage conditions, weather variations, or resource conditions. Research indicates that HI/LF grazing systems can change the spatial distribution of grazing and cause animals to graze the landscape more uniformly (Kothmann 2009). Wyman (USDI BLM 2006) found that HI/LF grazing decreases the time of exposure to grazing and trampling. The long periods of rest provide for adequate litter and ground cover, but can cause soil compaction if grazed when soils are wet. In some of the HI/LF units, resource protection fences were constructed to protect sensitive species habitat from the direct effects of cattle grazing and restore soil/hydrologic conditions. If the HI/LF grazing strategy is not carefully managed, the riparian areas within these units could experience major impacts as defined above. Five of the riparian pastures proposed for grazing (Jack Creek, Dry Meadow, Cannon Well, Squirrel Camp, and Round Meadow) contain fens that are currently excluded from grazing and are in good condition (spring and botanical assessments, 2010 and 2011 [available in the project record]). Alternative 3 proposes to allow grazing within these fenced riparian areas. Grazing within fens can result in trampling and pedestalling of sensitive peat soils. Annual monitoring and adaptive management would be required to mitigate soil impacts within these fens. Adaptive management would provide the flexibility to make needed adjustments in permitted actions to meet the desired conditions and management objectives. Resource protection fences may need to be constructed around springs and fens within Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, and Round Meadow to further protect soil resources. Managing Jack Creek for Oregon spotted frog habitat
3-171 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
requirements would also provide soil protection. Effectively implemented mitigations would limit impacts on the soil resource to acceptable thresholds required by the Forest Plans. The following potential effects could occur from grazing riparian soils: • Round Meadow Unit—The portion grazed would be TEU 2000, which contains the more resilient moist meadow soil type. The meadow would be grazed by 114 cow/calf pairs for 1 month. Evaluations from the 2010 post-grazing and 2011 pre-season grazing of 67 cow/calf pairs in the meadow for 3 weeks revealed less than 10% detrimental soil conditions within the total meadow area (unpublished data available in the project record). To continue the trend toward improved productivity, soil monitoring and adaptive management would be conducted for the unfenced portion of the meadow. • Squirrel Camp Unit—A portion of this meadow would be excluded from grazing. The grazed portion contains the moist meadow soils found in TEU 2000. To ensure Forest Plan objectives and goals are met, soil monitoring and adaptive management would be conducted. • Dry Meadow, Cannon Well Units—These areas are drier habitats, and adverse effects are not anticipated if opened to grazing. The fen portion of Dry Meadow would be excluded from grazing. • Jack Creek Unit—Spring assessments from 2010 and 2011 (unpublished data available in the project record) indicate a range of conditions and soil types along the mainstem of Jack Creek and its tributaries. Managing Jack Creek for Oregon spotted frog habitat would result in beneficial effects to soils. • Riders Camp Unit—This unit is one of the riparian areas of concern. Opening the fenced riparian area to grazing may exacerbate detrimental soil conditions. Use would need to be limited to 1 of every 3 years to ensure the soil resource is moving toward meeting Forest Plan goals and objectives. Soil monitoring, coupled with adaptive management principles, would identify changes in conditions, determine if management goals and objectives are being met, and recommend adaptive management as needed. Over 18,000 acres of the North Sheep pasture are classified as TEUI 1000-series with upland vegetation/soil types. The remaining 900+ acres are soils and vegetation of the 2000-series types. These are the riparian areas that are highly favored by cattle for the water and desirable forage they provide. TEUI maps of the area indicate riparian soils in the North Sheep Pasture are predominantly moist meadow types that dry out earlier in the season. Grazing-related impacts, such as compaction, post-holing, pedestalling, and rutting, are most likely to occur on these wetter soil types from early season turnout and/or high use. With the proposed 494 cow/calf pairs grazing the pasture for 15 days, localized temporary to short-term adverse effects would be expected, particularly in the riparian areas and around watering holes where cattle concentrate. By incorporating the North Sheep Pasture into the Antelope Grazing Allotments, however, beneficial long-term local impacts in the larger Chemult Pasture could be expected. Using additional grazing lands, coupled with a shortened grazing season, deferred rotation strategy, and utilization of riparian units, would distribute the cattle across a broader landscape. Additionally, opening the six fenced riparian units (Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider’s Camp, Cannon Well, Jack Creek Riparian Unit, and Round Meadow) to grazing would help alleviate soil resource impacts within the riparian areas of concern. The riparian areas of concern would continue to be impacted by cattle grazing. Although soil compaction, post-holing, pedestalling, and trampling would continue to occur, adverse impacts would be less than under current management. To ensure Forest Plan standards are met, soil monitoring would be conducted in these riparian areas, in addition to resource protection fences being constructed at some locations (Appendix D).
3-172 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.8.2.4.2 East Pastures Under this alternative, cattle would spend 2 additional weeks on the Silver Lake Pastures than under the existing permit. Turnout dates would allow for 1 month of grazing on Halfway Pasture; Tobin Cabin Pasture would be grazed for 1.5 months. Early season grazing for an entire month on Halfway Pasture could adversely affect its finer textured soils, particularly in the vicinity of Halfway Lake (SRI unit 14). Range and soil conditions must be ideal to avert detrimental disturbance and diminished site productivity. To minimize potential impacts, soil monitoring would be conducted. Post-season monitoring of soil conditions would be used to determine soil response and identify any needed adaptive management. The proposed boundary between Chemult and Tobin Cabin Pastures encompasses Rock Springs meadow with the Tobin Cabin Pasture. Rock Springs meadow is one of the riparian areas of concern. Reducing the grazing season by almost 2 months would likely benefit the soil resource by decreasing the amount and extent of compaction, improving infiltration, and decreasing runoff. To ensure soil productivity standards are met, soil monitoring would be conducted in the Rock Springs meadow. This alternative requires building additional fencing. Approximately 42 miles of fence construction, reconstruction, and removal are proposed under this alternative. Soil disturbance associated with fence management activities is estimated at 42 acres. Albeit minimal, it would be slightly higher than the other alternatives. Since this alternative would require more herding and driving, effects from road sediment transport and OHV use are expected to be higher than the current levels but still within acceptable regulation limits. Alternative 3 would have fewer adverse effects on the soil resource than the current management on the Chemult RD portion of the project area. Alternative 3 meets Forest Plan soils and grazing management objectives and goals. To ensure compliance with riparian management objectives and goals, monitoring would be required, and the design features would be incorporated.
3.8.2.5 Alternative 4 Under this alternative, the grazing season and duration of grazing would be similar to Alternative 3 on the east side pastures. Unlike Alternative 3, however, grazing on the Chemult Pasture and North Sheep Pasture would not occur and the pasture boundary fence at Rock Springs Meadow would not be relocated under Alternative 4. Likewise, the permitted season of use and stocking rates on NFS lands would decrease accordingly. The total grazing season would be 2.5 months, with cows on the Tobin Cabin pasture for less than half that period of time. The acres of riparian areas grazed in the project area would be slightly less than allowed under the current permit.
3.8.2.5.1 West Pastures Under Alternative 4, grazing and associated grazing-management activities would cease on the Chemult Pasture. Consequently, riparian areas and soils would no longer be impacted by cattle, and Alternative 4 would result in minor-to-moderate long-term beneficial soil impacts on the west side of the allotment similar to effects under Alternative 1. Grazing-related impacts, including compaction, post-holing, and pedestalling, would not occur. Bank erosion and sloughing via hoof action would not contribute to potential erosion. Cattle would no longer trail along stream banks and down fence lines. Adverse impacts of grazing on soil stability, hydrology, and nutrient cycling would diminish as the Chemult Pasture would return to an ungrazed state. Grazing would continue on private in-holdings, the effects of which are unknown.
3-173 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Meadows and fens in the project area where livestock exclusion or elimination of grazing occurred have exhibited improved soil conditions over the last 10 to 15 years. These positive changes correlate with a decrease in soil features indicative of grazing. Round Meadow; the fenced areas of Rider’s Camp, Dry Meadow, Johnson fen, and Little Round Meadow are but a few examples of riparian areas where recovery occurred after livestock grazing was eliminated through resource protection fencing or from lack of use. Removing grazing activities from the project area would likely result in similar impacts to those realized in the currently ungrazed portions of the allotment. The seven riparian areas with greater than 10% detrimental soil conditions would begin to recover and their productivity would being to improve. Compaction, pedestalling, post-holing, and trampling from grazing on wet soils and in sensitive sites would no longer occur. Upward trends in soil and site productivity would be expected, not only in the areas of greater than 10% detrimental impact, but in all west side pastures.
3.8.2.5.2 East Pastures Impacts from grazing on the east pastures would increase from current levels in response to an increase in cattle numbers and use. In terms of the extent and magnitude of disturbance, effects on the soil resource would be similar to those under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 4, cattle would spend an additional 2 weeks on the Silver Lake Pastures than under the existing permit. Turnout dates would allow for 1 month of grazing on Halfway Pasture; Tobin Cabin Pasture would be grazed for 1.5 months. Early season grazing for an entire month on Halfway Pasture could adversely affect its finer textured soils, particularly in the vicinity of Halfway Lake (SRI unit 14). Range and soil conditions must be ideal to avert detrimental disturbance and diminished site productivity. To minimize potential impacts, soil monitoring would be conducted. Post-season monitoring of soil conditions would be used to determine soil response and identify any needed adaptive management. Minimal impact from fence construction and actions associated with allotment management would be expected. Effects from road sediment transport and OHV use would continue at current levels. Alternative 4 would have the least impact of the action alternatives on the soil resource. Implementing this alternative would improve soil cover, fertility, and moisture holding capacity and reduce erosion and compaction, enhance riparian areas, and improve range conditions on the west side of the Chemult Pasture. Under Alternative 4, minor-to-moderate, localized, short-term effects would be expected on the east side pastures. Soil productivity would be maintained, and this alternative would meet Forest Plan soils, riparian, and grazing management objectives and goals.
3.8.2.6 Alternative 5 Grazing under Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 3. The notable difference is that Alternative 5 incorporates three additional fenced riparian areas into the proposed grazing system and creates a rotational grazing system within the Jack Creek unit. Alternative 5 would permit an earlier turnout on Halfway Pasture and a longer grazing season on the Chemult and North Sheep Pastures than Alternative 3. The Chemult Pasture would be separated at NFS road 94 into a “North” and “South” division. Under this alternative, all 9 of the existing fenced riparian areas would be grazed for 10 to 30 days. The larger Jack Creek Unit would be grazed for 3.5 months, and sub-units within the
3-174 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Jack Creek Pasture would be rotationally grazed by 75 cow/calf pair for 1 month within each sub-unit. The riparian units would all utilize a HI/LF system of grazing. The herd would be divided into two herds (referred to as “Herd 1” and “Herd 2”) that would be moved between the larger pastures and meadow units. Several of the fens and meadows that are currently excluded would be open to grazing; new resource protection fences would be constructed in others.
3.8.2.6.1 West Pastures Alternative 5 would use a deferred-rotation strategy on the west pastures, incorporating the North Sheep Pasture with the Chemult Pastures and meadow units. Timing, intensity, duration, and pastures of use would vary between the two herds. AUMs would increase on both the North Sheep and Chemult Pastures in 2 of 3 years. With the inclusion of additional acreage from the North Sheep Pasture and grazing on the private land parcels along Jack Creek, total AUMs on the west pastures would decrease every 2 out of 3 years, and variable localized impacts to the soil resource could be expected. Deferred-rotation grazing would leave at least one pasture ungrazed during part of the grazing season. The advantage of dividing the herd and converting to a deferred-rotation grazing strategy is better control of animal distribution and dispersal of impacts across a larger land mass. Unlike the season-long system, cattle would be moved frequently and would not concentrate in desirable areas for extended periods of time. An additional benefit is that forage use and timing can be programmed to meet the ability of the stream habitat to maintain its productivity (Platts 1989). With more intense herd management, impacts to the soil resource outside of the existing fenced riparian areas are expected to be slightly less than under current management. A disadvantage of the grazing strategy with respect to soils is that Herd 2 would be on the Chemult Pasture for 3 months of every year. Every third year, Herd 1 would graze the North or South Chemult pastures for 2 months of the rotation cycle. Furthermore, every year, livestock would graze the unfenced riparian areas early in the season when soils may be susceptible to impacts. Grazing pressures would resume on protected riparian areas in various stages of recovery. The 9 riparian areas that are currently fenced and Jack Creek sub-units that would be open to grazing would be managed under a HI/LF grazing strategy. The proposed number of cow/calf pairs would vary by pasture. Grazing would be permitted for 10 to 15 days in the smaller meadow units, and 1 to 3.5 months in the larger units. Turnout dates would vary from June15 to September 30 based on forage conditions, weather variations, or resource conditions. Research indicates that HI/LF grazing systems can change the spatial distribution of grazing and cause animals to graze the landscape more uniformly (Kothmann, 2009). Wyman (USDI 2006) found that HI/LF grazing decreases the time of exposure to grazing and trampling. The long periods of rest provide for adequate litter and ground cover, but can cause soil compaction if grazed when soils are wet. In some of the HI/LF units, fenced riparian areas were constructed to restore soil/hydrologic conditions. If the HI/LF grazing strategy is not carefully managed, the riparian areas within these units could experience major impacts as defined above. Many of the proposed fenced riparian area units contain wet or very wet soils. As noted previously, these soils can incur major impacts if not sufficiently dry on the surface horizons. Some of the soils proposed for early season turnout (in this case prior to August 1) remain saturated throughout the grazing season. Five of the riparian pastures proposed for grazing (Jack Creek, Dry Meadow, Cannon Well, Squirrel Camp, and Round Meadow) contain fens that are currently excluded from grazing and are in good condition (spring and botanical assessments, 2010 and 2011 [available in the project record]). Alternative 5 proposes to allow grazing within these fenced riparian areas. Grazing
3-175 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement within fens can result in trampling and pedestalling of sensitive peat soils. Annual monitoring and adaptive management would be required to mitigate soil impacts within these fens. Adaptive management would provide the flexibility to make needed adjustments in permitted actions to meet the desired conditions and management objectives. Effectively implemented mitigations would limit impacts on the soil resource to below Forest Plan thresholds. The following potential effects could occur from grazing riparian soils: • Round Meadow Unit—The fen within this unit is proposed for exclusion from grazing. The portion grazed would be TEU 2000, the more resilient moist meadow soil type. The meadow is proposed for grazing by 114 cow/calf pairs for 1 month. Evaluations from the 2010 post-grazing and 2011 pre-season grazing of 67 cow/calf pairs in the meadow for 3 weeks revealed less than 10% detrimental soil conditions within the total meadow area. To continue the trend towards improved productivity, soil monitoring and adaptive management would be conducted for the unfenced portion of the meadow. • Squirrel Camp Unit—A portion of this meadow is proposed for exclusion from grazing. The grazed portion contains the moist meadow TEU 2000 soils. To ensure Forest Plan objectives and goals are met, soil monitoring and adaptive management would be conducted. • Dry Meadow, Cannon Well Units—A small fenced riparian area is proposed for retention in Dry Meadow to protect sensitive habitat; the meadow areas proposed for grazing are drier habitats. Adverse effects are not anticipated if these areas are opened to grazing. • Rider’s Camp Unit—This unit is one of the riparian areas of concern. Opening the fenced riparian area to grazing may exacerbate adverse effects. Very wet meadows (TEU 2006) are found in the northeast arm. As such, grazing within this fenced riparian area would need to be limited to 1 out of every 3 years to help trend conditions toward Forest Plan goals and objectives. Soil monitoring would be conducted to identify changes in conditions and recommend adaptive management as needed. • Sproats Meadow Unit—Alternative 5 proposes grazing 5 cow/calf pairs for 10 days on this unit. This meadow is one of seven riparian areas where detrimental soil conditions exceeding Forest Plan standards have been documented in the unfenced drier portions TEUs 2000 and 2004 ( • Table 3-23). The northwest section of the meadow contains a resource protection fence around the very wet 2006 fen soils. Field reconnaissance in 2011 revealed the fens were in good condition and would likely remain so if open to grazing (botanical technical reports, available in the project record). Given the limited number of cows and duration on the landscape, impacts are expected to remain within acceptable Forest Plan limits. Soil monitoring would be conducted to determine changes in conditions, if management goals and objectives are being met and promote adaptive management as needed. • Jack Creek Unit—Spring assessments from 2010 and 2011 indicate a range of conditions along the mainstem of Jack Creek and its tributaries. The northeast tributary was rated in “poor” condition. As such, a 15-acre resource protection fence is proposed for construction to protect this segment of the creek. Soil monitoring and adaptive management would be conducted in the grazed portion of the unit to ensure soil conditions remain within Forest Plan limits. • Upper and Lower Jamison—Soils in both meadows are predominantly 2000 and 2008, intermingled with the fen soils of the 2006 units. Soil monitoring would be conducted to ensure that turnout occurs when soils are at their driest to minimize resource impacts.
3-176 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
• Johnson and Wilshire Meadow Units—These meadows are the moist meadow types (TEU 2000) that typically dry out by early July. Both units contain very wet fen habitat (TEU 2006) that has been identified to be in good condition (botanical technical reports, available in the project record). Opening these fenced riparian areas within these units to grazing would have unknown effects on the soil resource. Field investigations confirmed that cows trail through and graze the wetter sites even with an abundance of forage in drier areas (personal observation, 2010 and 2011). However, given the limited number of cows and duration in the units, impacts are expected to remain within acceptable Forest Plan standards. Soil monitoring would be conducted to determine changes in conditions, if management goals and objectives are being met and to recommend adaptive management as needed. The seven riparian areas of concern would continue to be impacted by cattle grazing. While soil compaction, post-holing, pedestalling, and trampling would continue to occur, adverse impacts would be less than those under current management. By converting to a deferred-rotation grazing system between the west pastures, grazing would be better distributed across the landscape and result in slightly less pressure on these identified riparian areas. With the exception of Rider’s Camp, the opening of nine fenced riparian units for HI/LF grazing would help alleviate soil resource impacts within the other riparian areas of concern. Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 5 incorporates about 19,000 acres of the North Sheep Pasture into the allotment. Under this alternative, 163 cow/calf pairs would rotate between the North Sheep and the Chemult Pastures with alternating seasons of rotation. Unlike Alternative 3, the cows would be on the North Sheep Pasture for 1.5 months at a time, which would result in greater soil impacts. Over 18,000 acres of the North Sheep Pasture are classified as TEUI 1000-series upland types. The remaining 900+ acres are soils of the 2000-series TEUI types. These are the riparian areas that are highly favored by cattle for the water and desirable forage they provide. Adverse effects to the soil resource are likely to be less than under Alternative 3. Although AUMs are similar between Alternatives 3 and 5, under Alternative 5 the North Sheep pasture would be rested 1 out of every 3 years as part of a deferred-rotation system with the Chemult and Tobin Cabin Pastures. Soil productivity objectives and goals would be met, and it is unlikely that Forest Plan Standards would be exceeded under this alternative. The proposed boundary between the Chemult and Tobin Cabin Pastures straddles Rock Springs meadow, which is one of the riparian areas of concern (Table 3-24). Alternative 5 proposes grazing Rock Springs for the same length of time and with the same turnout date as under current management (Alternative 2). Effects to soils in Rock Springs meadow under Alternative 5 would be expected to be the same as those disclosed under Alternative 2.
3.8.2.6.2 East Pastures The first leg of the rotation for both herds would begin on the east side. Each herd would graze either Halfway or North Willow Pastures for 1 month of all 3 years. Herd 1 would then rotate between Tobin Cabin, North Sheep, and the north/south Chemult Pastures. Herd 2 would rotate between the north and south Chemult Pastures. Under Alternative 5, the permitted turnout date is earlier and the grazing duration longer than allowed under the existing grazing permit. Early season grazing for an entire month in Halfway Pasture could adversely affect its finer-textured soils (SRI unit 14), causing compaction, reducing infiltration, and diminishing site productivity. Overall, total AUMs in the east pastures would be less than under current management in 1out of every 3 years. Soil monitoring would be conducted and adaptive management implemented in the Halfway Lake area to ensure Forest Plan objectives and goals are met.
3-177 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
This alternative also requires building the most fence. Soil disturbance associated with fence construction, albeit minimal, would be highest under this alternative. Since this alternative would require more herding and driving, effects from road sediment transport and off- road vehicle use are expected to be higher than the current levels. In summary, Alternative 5 would have fewer adverse effects on the soil resource than the current management, but effects would occur over a larger area with the inclusion of the North Sheep Pasture and fenced riparian areas. However, effects would be greater than under Alternatives 1, 3, or 4. Anticipated impacts would be minor and short-term and limited to local areas. Alternative 5 meets Forest Plan soils and grazing management objectives and goals. To ensure compliance with riparian management objectives and goals, monitoring would be required, and the design features would be incorporated.
3.8.3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that cause soil disturbance within the same activity areas (range allotment pastures). Past, present, and future activities in the project area include, but are not limited to, timber sales, vegetation and fuels treatments, grazing, dispersed recreation, road construction and maintenance, and watershed improvement projects. Wildfires have occurred and continue to occur throughout the watershed. The physical bounds of analysis for cumulative effects to the soils resource are the project area. The temporal bounds of analysis are the 10 years covered under the time limit of a term grazing permit. These bounds have been deemed appropriate since the level of risk to the area’s soils resource is directly tied to management practices proposed in this project. Former management treatments, human activities, and naturally occurring events have resulted in various degrees of soil disturbance within the project area. As a consequence, soil productivity has been impacted to various degrees. Research, GIS analysis, and field investigations conducted in 2010 and 2011 (unpublished data available in the project record) established baseline soil conditions for productivity and current trends. Soils were evaluated for impacts from past management activities and conformance with the Forest Plans. The extent and degree of impacts on the soil resource from past management activities are not known; therefore, current conditions were used as a proxy for past management activities. No evidence of detrimental soil conditions associated with past wildfires, mass movements (landslides), or other natural disturbance events exists within the project area. Fire history data indicate that the Fall Fire (1994) burned vegetation and natural fuels on the Chemult RD (west side pasture). All other wildfires have been small. Prescribed burns have been reintroduced into the riparian system as a tool for creating complexity and reducing vegetative debris. Since 2004, pile burning associated with thinning projects and meadow restoration has occurred on approximately 10,000 acres. Evidence of severely burned soils was limited to isolated areas along the perimeter of a few meadows, primarily concentrated under former fire rings. Road building and timber harvest have the highest potential for adversely affecting soils and producing detrimental conditions. Roads are typically the principal cause of accelerated erosion in forests throughout the western United States (Harr and Nichols 1993). Roads, skid trails, and landings have the greatest impact on soils because of their long-lasting effects of compaction, rutting, displacement, erosion, and subsequent loss of soil productivity. Loss of soil productivity occurs when roads are compacted and established. Erosion occurs when concentrated water creates a gully or other feature where soil particles (sediment) are washed from the road. This sediment could enter a watercourse after leaving a road. Ground-based logging was used during the 1970s and 1980s throughout the project area to harvest ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine. Per local knowledge, most of the sales in the project
3-178 Soils Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 area at that time were in response to the pine beetle outbreak in central Oregon (E. Brown, pers. comm., email dated 2011). Timber harvest occurred primarily in the uplands, where the pumice soils are found. These coarse-grain soils resist compaction. Where compaction from management activities did occur, natural processes have gradually restored soil quality over the past 30 to 40 years. Many abandoned skid trails and roads now support a dense growth of lodgepole pine in the travel bed. The extent of existing detrimental disturbance caused by road building and timber harvest activities was estimated by using study results of contemporary logging practices on adjacent public lands. Using GIS analysis, BLM timber staff estimated that skid trails, landings, and temporary road construction detrimentally disturbed 10%–15% of total area soil (KFRA 2004). This estimate is based on skid trail spacing distances and the average size of log landings. The Deschutes National Forest uses 17% disturbance, adjusted upwards from soil monitoring data. For this analysis, 17% was used to calculate existing amounts of detrimental soil conditions from ground-based harvest treatments within the project area. Vegetation treatment acres from 1990 to the present were used to calculate the effects of timber harvest on the soil resource. Prior to 1990, natural processes, such as root penetration, frost heave, rodent activity, freeze-thaw and wetting-drying cycles, were assumed to have slowly restored soil porosity on previously compacted sites. The extent of detrimentally disturbed soil from timber harvest activities is estimated at 6,105 acres. Roads, unless decommissioned and obliterated, create a permanent disturbance footprint of 3 to 4 acres per mile for a bladed 14-foot-wide road (B. McCartie, personal communication, 2011). With approximately 720 miles of roads in the project area, permanent soil disturbance estimates are 2,160 to 2,880 acres (Table 3-26).
3.8.3.1 All Alternatives Detrimental soil conditions likely resulted from prior activities, but detrimental conditions exceeding the standards enumerated in the Fremont Forest Plan have not been documented. Although the precise extent and degree of disturbance is unknown, the addition of organic matter residues, root penetration, rodent activity, and freeze-thaw cycles have presumably improved soil productivity and advanced recovery over the past several decades. Although activities proposed within and adjacent to the analysis area and analyzed in other NEPA documents would still occur, the current environmental conditions and trends would continue, regardless of the alternative selected for this project. Soil and site productivity in the project area have been slowly trending upward due to improved grazing management (see Range technical report available in the project record). These changes in grazing strategies have allowed the soils and vegetation communities to begin to recover and improve their productivity. If no soil disturbing treatments are implemented and all factors remain the same, the slow upward trend in soil and site productivity could be expected to continue at the present rate. Under all alternatives, the extent and magnitude of grazing pressures on adjoining private lands and in-holdings could potentially impact soils within the project area. With respect to soils, the potential for increased erosion and compaction rates on private lands from high stocking levels and prolonged seasons of use remains. Consequently, NFS lands could be impacted by amplified sediment transport and runoff from adjacent land management activities. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, the potential for increased runoff would be greater on NFS lands along the perennial reaches of Jack Creek, as cattle would be grazed at privately managed timings and concentrations on private lands within this reach.
3-179 Soils Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Under all alternatives, no additional land would be removed from production to build other structural improvements. Therefore, the cumulative amount of detrimentally disturbed soil from structural improvements and all other management facilities would remain well within both allowable Forest Plan limits for maintaining soil productivity within each of the allotment pastures. All proposed alternatives would continue to manage the forage vegetation and soil resource for long-term sustained productivity through attainment of upward or stable vegetation trends. No cumulative impacts to soils are anticipated from actions associated with this alternative.
3-180 Transportation and Access Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.9 Transportation and Access
3.9.1 Affected Environment Although very little documentation exists to show when the roads were built within the allotment boundaries, road building began on both the Fremont and Winema National Forests in the late 1940s, primarily due to increased demands for timber products. After Congress began to appropriate money for road building, many of the mainline roads were constructed by the Bureau of Public Roads, now known as the Federal Highway Administration. Road building continued to expand from 1960 through 1990 in response to timber management needs. In the late 1990s, road construction began decreasing, and the emphasis now is to decrease miles of NFS roads and decommission NFS roads no longer needed. The allotment areas are accessed via open NFS roads, and approximately 957 miles of roads exist within the allotments. Roads within the allotment areas have differing maintenance level (ML) standards: • ML 1 roads are considered closed roads, placed in storage between intermittent uses. Traffic is prohibited on these roads, and they are not shown on MVUMs. • ML 2 roads are roads maintained for use by high-clearance vehicles. • ML 3 roads are open roads maintained for travel in standard passenger cars. These roads are normally low-speed, single-lane roads with turnouts. • ML 4 roads are maintained to provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. These roads are usually two lanes and aggregate surfaced. In addition to road maintenance level descriptions, roads also have designations indicating their open/closed status and the type of motorized vehicle class permitted. These designations are identified in the Fremont-Winema National Forests Environmental Assessment for Motorized Travel Management Decision (Travel Management Decision) (USDA Forest Service 2010a), signed July 8, 2010. The Travel Management Decision determines which roads, trails, and areas will be available for motorized use, as well as the season of use and the class of vehicles allowed. Under the Travel Management Decision, ML 2, ML 3, and ML 4 roads are open and maintained for motor vehicle use by the public. Several miles of un-inventoried non-system roads and user-created routes also exist within the allotments. These roads may be accessible by motorized vehicles of various class sizes. The use of these roads/routes is considered cross-country use. Cross-country use without a permit is not allowed under the current Travel Management Decision.
3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis of the direct and indirect effects of each alternative focuses on the effects on NFS roads within allotment boundaries. The analysis of effects to the transportation system includes both short-term and long-term effects. “Short-term” is defined as the end of one field season and the beginning of the next. “Long-term” is defined as the duration of the permit. These boundaries provide a tangible outline in both space and time, allowing reproducible analysis for each proposed alternative.
3-181 Transportation and Access Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.9.2.1 Measurement Indicators Indicators used to measure effects are selected so that the effects of the project alternatives can be compared and contrasted. The selection of indicators is based on professional judgment. The possible effects of the alternatives on NFS roads are disclosed quantitatively in Table 3-28 according to the measurement indicators.
Table 3-25. Comparison of effects to transportation by alternative using the measurement indicators Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Miles of Maintenance Level 1 roads 343 341 425 165 425 Miles of Maintenance Level 2 roads 443 438 492 237 492 Miles of Maintenance Level 3 roads 29 29 40 24 40 Total National Forest System road 815 808 957 426 957 miles
3.9.2.2 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing would not be authorized within the project area, (FSH 2209.13–92.31) livestock grazing would be eliminated on the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, and livestock grazing permits would be cancelled. Alternative 1 would eliminate livestock grazing from 137,189 acres of NFS lands. In accordance with agency regulations (36 CFR 222.4), grazing would cease 2 years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would continue unchanged during this 2-year interval. Under Alternative 1, the amount of motorized traffic accessing and using the transportation system within the allotment boundary would decrease. Currently, grazing activity occurs in the project area. This activity would not continue under Alternative 1. The reduction of motorized travel within the allotment boundary under Alternative 1 would cause no direct or indirect effects on the transportation system.
3.9.2.3 Alternatives 2–5 Under Alternatives 2 through 5, motor vehicle traffic on roads designated by the Travel Management Decision for administration activities within the allotment boundaries would either stay the same or increase in volume. In either case, this level of use, combined with normal public use, is not expected to have direct or indirect measurable effects on road system maintenance levels. The road system has been designed to withstand an average daily traffic load of up to 400 vehicles. The current level of activity does not exceed this number, nor is the potential increase in traffic expected to exceed this volume of traffic under Alternatives 2 through 5. The use of ML 1 roads under the permit could result in seasonally increased visibility to road entrances by matting down the vegetation and showing signs of continual use, and prolong the establishment of vegetation along and within the roadbed. With continued seasonal use, the long- term effect would be the same, with an increased chance of creating a better-defined road. No indirect effect is expected from public use of ML 1 roads, because public use is restricted by the Travel Management Decision. The short- and long-term effects to ML 1 roads under the action alternatives are expected to be minimal because of the project design features (section 2.3.7). Any such effects would be expected to resolve naturally within 2 field seasons under “no use” conditions.
3-182 Transportation and Access Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
With the project design features in place, the effects to ML 1 roads within the allotment boundary would range from no effect to minimal effect. Many of the effects expected would resolve naturally within 2 field seasons under “no use” conditions. The effect to the transportation system caused by cross-country travel and/or off-road use would not vary by alternative and is difficult to determine. All action alternatives allow for cross- country travel and off-road use. The amount of off-road use that would be required to administer the permit under each action alternative cannot be determined, but off-road use is limited to allotment administration activities, such as infrastructure maintenance and repair, water hauling, salting, and emergency cattle retrieval. Cross-country travel, as defined in the transportation and access design features, would produce the same short- and long-term effects as allowing use of ML 1 roads within the allotment boundary. Cross-country travel during a field season could result in increased visibility to road entrances and prolong the establishment of vegetation along and within the roadbed. With continued seasonal use, the long-term effect would be the same—an increased chance of creating a better-defined road. No indirect effects are expected from public use, because public use of ML 1 roads is restricted by the Travel Management Decision. Short- and long-term effects of off-road travel are expected to be minimal due to the project design features included in the action alternatives (section 2.3.7) and would be expected to resolve naturally within 2 field seasons. With the outlined project design features in place, effects of off-road use are expected to range from no effect to minimal effect. No long-term effects are expected, due to protection measures, and short-term effects would be expected to resolve naturally within 1 to 2 field seasons.
3.9.3 Cumulative Effects The conditions of the transportation system located within the boundaries of the Antelope Grazing Allotments have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (Appendix C). These actions include but are not limited to fire suppression, vegetation restoration, allotment management, timber activity, and road maintenance. Past actions have each affected the current transportation system located within the boundaries of the Antelope Grazing Allotments, and the effects of those past actions are the current condition of the road system. Past activities, current activities of the permit and public use, and reasonably foreseeable future actions will have little-to-no effect on the transportation system within the allotment boundaries under each alternative. Historically, grazing on the allotments has not been reported to impact the transportation system that required restoration activity beyond routine road maintenance.
3-183 Cultural Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.10 Cultural Resources
3.10.1 Affected Environment The Antelope Grazing Allotments project area lies on the somewhat indistinct historic territorial boundary line between the Klamath Tribe and the Yahooskin Band of Northern Paiutes (Spier 1930). Today, descendants of the Klamath and Yahooskin people, along with the Modoc people, are members of the Klamath Tribes, a federally recognized Indian tribe. In 1864, the Klamath Tribes signed the Klamath Lake Treaty, ceding over 13 million acres of their lands to the U.S. government. About 1.1 million acres were retained for the Klamath Indian Reservation. The reservation shrank to 862,622 acres by 1954, when Congress terminated the Klamath Tribes’ federal status under the Federal Termination Act, termination of their federal status resulted in several land exclusions (Zucker et al. 1983:107–108). Private entities bought some of the old reservation land, but the majority of it became the Winema National Forest in 1961 (Zucker et al. 1983:110). The Fremont National Forest was created in 1908 from the Goose Lake and Fremont forest reserves, which were created from public lands in 1907. The Winema and Fremont National Forests combined administratively in 2003 (Tonsfeldt and Gray 2009). The project area does not lie within former reservation lands. Prior to 1864, the Klamath people were semisedentary hunter-gatherers who practiced a subsistence and settlement strategy based on seasonal availability of local plant and animal resources, with a focus on riverine and lacustrine resources, such as the Williamson River and Klamath Marsh (Silvermoon 1985). The Klamath people were divided into 5 tribelets. The group that occupied the Klamath Marsh area were called A’ukckni (Spier 1930). According to Spier (1930), the Klamath informants he spoke with considered “the country north of Klamath marsh [generally where the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project is located]… too open and cold for settlement.” The territory of the Yahooskin Band of Northern Paiutes included the area west of Silver Lake. This area was once occupied by the Northern Paiute subgroup called Dubuteyatikadu (Deer Eaters) (Stern 1966; Silvermoon 1985). The Yahooskin people are sometimes referred to as the Snakes, the Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians, or the Yahooskin Snake Paiutes in official census records of the 1880s to 1920s. Unfortunately, ethnographic work at the turn of the 20th century did not focus on the Yahooskin culture. Details concerning the Yahooskin lifeway are inferred by studying the ethnographies of Northern Paiute tribes from the Harney Valley area (near Burns, Oregon) and Surprise Valley. Like the Klamath people, the Yahooskin practiced hunting and gathering, following an annual subsistence round based on local plant and animal resource availability. However, whereas the Klamath tended to be more sedentary, the Yahooskin tended to be more nomadic. Euro-American settlement and development of the region began in earnest once knowledge of the landscape (gained by early expeditions) was disseminated, legislation such as the Homestead Act of 1862 was passed, and the Oregon Central Military Wagon Road was developed. Sheepherders began settling the Silver Lake valley in the 1870s. Grazing of horses and cattle soon followed (Hatton 1988). However, according to General Land Office records, the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area was not settled until 1893, when George L. Beckwith petitioned the U.S. government for the N1/2 of the NW1/4 and the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 33, Township 28 South, Range 12 East. He was alone there until 1904, when other homesteaders finally arrived, along with the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad and Saginaw and Manistee Lumber Company. Soon after came the Aztec Land and Cattle Co. LTD and the establishment of the Fremont National Forest in 1908.
3-184 Cultural Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
Grazing administration was the primary function of the Fremont National Forest from its conception to the 1940s (Silvermoon 1985; Bach 1981). However, the 1930s brought changes in grazing practices on NFS lands. Competition between stock raisers had grown fierce, and the effects of overgrazing on the landscape had become apparent. In response to these developments, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act on June 28, 1934. The act provided for better administration of the range by defining season of use and carrying capacity that were suitable for local conditions (Beckham 2000; Bach 1981). Although the local economy has always relied heavily on agriculture, the establishment of the railroad in the mid-1920s contributed to the growth of Chemult, Oregon, and opened the project area to intensive logging. The first commercial timber sale on the Fremont National Forest occurred in 1911 (Silvermoon 1985). Western pine logging began later in the project area than in other West Coast areas because the stands in the project area were generally located far from navigable waters. Thus, the logging industry did not develop in the project area until after railroad construction made remote areas accessible (Tonsfeldt 1987). Logging infrastructure within the project area include several historic tie mills around Sproats Meadow. Though railroads contributed to the expansion of logging in the region, railroad logging never occurred within the project area, so railroad logging grades and other logging features are absent. The town of Silver Lake supported a small lumber mill for a time, but the railway never came through, so the town’s growth was restricted (Hatton 1988). Lands acquired from Shevlin-Hixon in 1945, Big Box Lake in 1943, and Weyerhaeuser in 1987 were logged by the companies prior to land exchanges. Prehistoric (pre-1825), historic (post-1825 to the mid-1960s), and multicomponent (combination of prehistoric and historic) cultural resources exist within the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area. Cultural resources, also known as historic properties, are generally more than 50 years old and include prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources also include artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties, as well as properties that have traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1). The first archaeological research within the region was conducted by Luther Cressman in the 1930s (Minor et al. 1979). Recent archaeological investigations at Paisley Cave, located approximately 60 air miles southeast of the project area, have shown that Native Americans lived in the vicinity 14,300 years ago (Barnard 2008). A total of 133 cultural resource sites have been recorded during past pedestrian cultural inventories (or surveys) in the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area. The activity that occurred at a site defines the type of site it is (Table 3-29 and Table 3-30). For example, a place where Native Americans once manufactured tools would be assigned the site type of “lithic scatter.” Cultural resource sites are irreplaceable and nonrenewable, as are the artifacts (portable objects modified by humans), ecofacts (floral and faunal remains that result from human activity), and features (structural remains and concentrations of artifacts and/or ecofacts) that they contain. Of the 133 sites recorded within the project area, 73 are prehistoric sites, 60 are historic sites, and 3 are multicomponent sites.
3-185 Cultural Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-26 Prehistoric site types within the Antelope project area (Tonsfeldt and Gray 2009)
Site Type Description Rock Feature Where rocks have been piled in a particular area and manner for a specific reason, including religious pursuits, trail marking, cooking hearths, dwellings, walls, and fences. Lithic Scatter Where stone tool manufacturing occurred Peeled (or Cambium) Trees Pines that exhibit a scar from having their cambium layer removed by humans for food
Table 3-27 Historic site types within the Antelope project area (Tonsfeldt and Gray 2009) Site Type Description Can Dump Pile of mixed historic debris (e.g., metal cans, bottles)
Timber Mill Facility where timber was sawed into boards Water Troughs A long, narrow, generally shallow receptacle for holding water for animals
Fire Lookout Administrative structure, usually a tower constructed on a high-elevation topographic point, where someone keeps watch over a large area for fires Telephone Line Strung wire and associated insulators used to carry telegraph or telephone signals
Signs Administrative signs established to mark stock driveways (established routes for moving livestock) or Forest Service land management boundaries Cow Camp Where camping on cattle or sheep drives occurred
Cabin or Shack Generally a small, wood living quarters; usually in a wooded area
Corral A fenced enclosure or pen related to the cattle and sheep industry, used to confine livestock Bridge Structure that spans water with no supports Historic Camp Where dispersed, usually noncommercial recreational camping occurred
Homestead Euro-American residence consisting of associated structures, can dumps, and fencing Wagon Road Historic route established for wagon travel Guard Station Administrative structure associated with a flagpole, built within the forested landscape, where Forest Service employees temporarily resided while conducting their duties
Historic Wood Debris Remnants of saw-cut wood boards
Arborglyph Carvings in aspen bark
A two-phased analysis was developed to consider possible grazing impacts on cultural resources located within the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area. Phase I of the analysis involved GIS mapping and collaboration with a Rangeland Management Specialist. During Phase I, cattle concentration areas were identified for the entire project area, including North Sheep Pasture. Cattle concentration areas include monitoring areas, vegetation monitoring plots (Condition and Trend plots), springs, ponds, mineral lick stations, stock driveways, livestock loading and unloading sites, bedding areas, and gates. Cattle concentration areas were then overlain with
3-186 Cultural Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 known cultural resource site locations. Of the 133 known cultural resource sites, 55 were found to be associated with the cattle concentration areas. Phase II of the analysis was a field review of the 55 sites within cattle concentration areas. This review was conducted to assess and document current site conditions and potential grazing impacts. Of the 55 sites associated with cattle concentration areas, 51 were relocated during the site condition assessment; 4 could not be relocated. Assessments were visual, surface-only examinations. No subsurface techniques were employed in accordance with the 2005 Memorandum of Agreement with the Klamath Tribes. Observations were recorded in detail on Range Impact Inspection Forms so that assessments could serve as the baseline for measuring impacts during future monitoring efforts and for determining appropriate management direction. Descriptive narration was supported by visual media (i.e., photography). Results of the condition assessments were documented in a report prepared for the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (Durant 2012). Of the 51 relocated sites, 44 were found to have no impacts associated with cattle grazing, while 7 (or 13.7%) had impacts. The 7 that were found to have impacts were sites 6, 32, 34, 42, 52, 81, and 126. Site 6, located in the Chemult Pasture, is a lithic scatter. The condition assessment found that the site has been impacted by cattle manure, and the potential for trailing exists at the current location. Manure has impacted an estimated 5% of the surface area of the site, which lies next to a riparian exclosure fence. Site 32, located in the Chemult Pasture next to a riparian exclosure, is a cabin with associated can dump. The cabin remains were found buried under jack-straw blowdown, which has protected the site from cattle impacts. However, light trailing, manure, and hoofprints were found within the site boundary. Site 34, located in the Chemult Pasture, is a timber mill site. Approximately three-quarters of the site area is within a riparian exclosure. However, a cattle trail follows along the outside of the fenceline, leading from a native-surface road to a water tank that has been established along the outside of the southeastern fenceline. Much of the trail lies within the roadbed located along the southwestern portion of the pasture. The trail is approximately 3 inches deep. Site 42, located in the Chemult Pasture, is a guard station. The condition assessment found moderate trailing within the site boundary. Approximately three-quarters of Site 42 lies within a riparian exclosure. What remains of the site has been highly disturbed by recreation, in addition to the impacts from cattle. A water trough has been established northwest of the site, and 3 or 4 cattle trails weave in and out from the trough area, leading across the dispersed camp site to the meadow located southeast of the site. The trails are 3–5 inches deep. Site 52, located in the Chemult Pasture, is a historic camp next to an undeveloped spring. Much of the site is covered by jack-straw blowdown, except for a small area along the eastern side of the site near the meadow edge. Light trampling was found in this area. From the trampled area, a trail heads into the distance, crossing the site toward the northwest. The trail is 3 inches deep. Site 81, located in the North Willow Pasture, is a lightly scattered lithic scatter. The site lies around a spring that was once enclosed within a riparian exclosure. The exclosure is now historic and collapsed. Moderate trampling was found around the spring and outside the exclosure. Postholing hoofprints were approximately 1 to 2.5 inches deep. Site 126, located in the Antelope Flat 1 pasture, is a very lightly scattered lithic scatter. Shallow postholing, manure, and one cow trail were noted during the condition assessment. The trail was approximately 1.5 inches deep.
3-187 Cultural Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects The following analysis of direct and indirect effects to cultural resources in the Antelope Grazing Allotments project area is based on the 51 site condition assessments conducted in winter and spring 2012 (Durant 2012). The 51 sites were selected by GIS analysis, which indicated the sites’ association with cattle concentration areas. The time frame of this analysis is the life of the permit, or 10 years. The spatial limit of this analysis is the project area. The alternatives were compared to assess how much their proposed grazing activities would affect the selected cultural resource sites. Alternative 2 (current management) served as a baseline for comparing all the other alternatives.
3.10.2.1 Measurement Indicators The measurement indicators used in this analysis are duration and intensity (Table 3-31). Duration represents the grazing season—early or late. The early, or wet, season occurs from spring (in May, after the snow melts) to midsummer (July). The late, or dry, season occurs from midsummer (August) to late fall (October). Direct impacts to cultural resources can occur in the early or late grazing seasons. Impacts caused by erosion occurs during both seasons. However, erosion during spring runoff and rains is slowed a little by spring vegetation regeneration, whereas erosion from fall rains is increased when vegetation is removed by grazing. Erosion from ground disturbance (e.g., trailing and postholing, hoof shearing, and trampling) in the early season is greater due to increased soil moisture. Artifact exposure increases in the late season due to vegetation die-off. However, project design features, including soil moisture thresholds that are designed to prevent cattle turnout in overly wet conditions are included for all action alternatives. The size of a pasture combined with the number of cow/calf pair, or intensity, can influence potential impact amounts. Intensity, in this analysis, is defined by how many acres each cow/calf pair has available to occupy. The smaller the space combined with a greater number of cows could result in a higher degree of impacts. In general, the degree of impacts decreases as the amount of space increases and the number of cattle decreases. Of course, site location is key. If a site is located in a relatively small pasture crowded with cattle but lies on a rocky ledge with no palatable vegetation, the probability is higher that the site will not be impacted. If that same site was instead located next to a spring, the probability of negative impacts increases due to the availability of water and palatable vegetation.
Table 3-28 Comparison of cultural resource measurement indicators by alternative (Alt.)
Measurement Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Duration (grazing season) No grazing early and late early and late early early and late Intensity (acres per cow/calf 0 352 343 195 343
3.10.2.2 Potential Direct and Indirect Effects The potential effects on cultural resources from livestock grazing have been discussed in a number of documents (Flenniken and Haggarty 1979; Horne and McFarland 1993; Logsdon 1976; Osborn et al. 1987; Roney 1977; Shea and Klenck 1993). The effects of livestock grazing depend on various factors, including livestock behavior, such as congregation (particularly at water sources and salting locations), trailing, and trampling; livestock management; fence construction; and water source development or reconstruction. For this
3-188 Cultural Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 analysis, efforts were focused on the measurement of 3 primary classes of effects: direct effects on artifacts and features; artifact displacement; and the presence or absence of on-site vegetation. Direct effects on artifacts and features include rubbing, trailing, crushing, and trampling. Livestock can affect prehistoric features such as cairns, rock alignments, pictographs, and petroglyphs by rubbing against them. Livestock can topple rock cairns by rubbing against the rocks or kicking them. Ground-surface historic artifacts (cans, bottles, railroad grades, and other campsite items) can be crushed and broken by trailing, trampling, and congregating livestock. Standing wooden structures can be impacted and sometimes toppled by livestock rubbing or pushing on them as they congregate for cover from sun, wind, or rain. Trailing measurements are based on observable depth. Light trailing means the cattle trail is slightly compressed into the surface of the ground and may still retain grass cover. Such trails are not cut into the soil matrix and are not actively eroding or deteriorating. Moderate trailing means the cattle trail exhibits wear and erosion that has cut into the soil matrix. The paths are well defined and cross the landform below the surface level. The trail remains above the level of the cultural horizon, and few or no artifacts are visible in the pathway. Severe trailing is present when the cattle trail is actively eroding into the site surface, thereby exposing cultural material or damaging the integrity of cultural features. Trailing can also lead to artifact displacement, an indicator of impacts to soil matrix and associated context of artifacts. Buried historic sites are often quite shallow and susceptible to trampling, especially during the spring and early summer when soils are moist. The effects on the spatial relationship between artifacts are more difficult to identify during visual site inspection, but they cause greater effects on the quality of the site when they occur. These spatial relationships occur both vertically and horizontally (Osborne et al. 1987). In vertical relationships, the artifacts are situated in the stratigraphy of the soil matrix. Unfortunately, many factors cause the artifacts to get mixed up within the matrix, including periodic erosion events, animal burrowing, freeze/thaw effects, the growth of trees (pushing artifacts down in the roots), and the falling of trees (pulling artifacts up in the root-balls). Over many centuries, the cumulative effects of these actions can be extreme. Sites with intact buried components are extremely important to preserve and study so that the prehistoric record of the region can be understood. The identification of intact buried deposits generally requires limited test excavation and analysis of soils and artifacts. Test excavation is currently not a favored technique with the Klamath Tribes. The Forest Service has consulted with the Klamath Tribes on impacts to cultural resources and will follow the agreements and procedures stipulated in the 1999 (as amended in 2005) Memorandum of Agreement between the Klamath Tribes and the Forest Service. Where intact buried sites are identified, the potential for livestock to affect the deposits can generally be recognized through an understanding of the potential effect grazing cattle have on the soil (Trimble and Mendel 1995). Other potential impacts from grazing include the removal of vegetation or vegetation regeneration. The absence of vegetation can increase visibility of surface artifacts, exposing the artifacts to increased erosion, displacement, and illegal surface collecting. Vegetation regeneration can decrease erosion and opportunities for illegal surface collecting. However, regenerating vegetation attracts grazing livestock, and upheaval caused by root growth can cause artifact displacement. Increases in vegetation can also lead to increased fuel loads, potentially feeding wildfires that can impact sites by consuming or altering artifacts such as glass, metal, wood, or lithics. Heavy fuel loads can increase fire intensity, generating higher temperatures during a wildfire. Low-intensity fires (those with temperatures lower than 212 °F at a depth of 1– 2 cm) have less adverse effects on many cultural resources than high-intensity fires (those with temperatures lower than 662–842 °F at 1–2 cm and greater than 212 °F at 5 cm) (Fowler 2008). Obsidian hydration rinds are compromised at 400–650 °F (Green et al. 1997 [cited in
3-189 Cultural Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Skinner 2002]). Cherts are physically altered at 350–550 °F, and basalt fractures around 400 °F. Fire also causes potlidding and discoloration to ground stone (Deal 2002).
3.10.2.3 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives
3.10.2.3.1 Existing Infrastructure All of the action alternatives include proposed improvement/maintenance of grazing infrastructure (e.g., spring developments, fence maintenance, and pond cleaning). And Alternative 1 proposes fence removal. Fence removal and reconstruction and pond sealing and cleaning are expected to occur in the existing footprint of a livestock management structure; any new ground disturbance would be minimal. In addition, as mandated by regulation, possible effects to cultural resources were considered and addressed with mitigations or project design features before the existing structures were developed. Therefore, existing fence removal/reconstruction and pond cleaning/sealing have no potential to affect cultural resources.
3.10.2.3.2 New Infrastructure Only new fence construction and new construction and reconstruction of nonhistoric water developments were considered in this analysis due to the potential for new ground disturbance. Cultural surveys would be conducted prior to new fence construction to ensure that fencelines avoid or exclude sites and do not channel animals through sites. The type of new fence does not vary between alternatives; only the length of the fenceline varies, and ground disturbance associated with installing new fenceline is the same no matter its length. The following fencelines are proposed in the action alternatives: • 20 miles under Alternatives 3 and 5 • 4.5 miles under Alternative 4 The proposed new fence consists of 3 strands of barbed wire stretched between steel T-posts driven vertically (approximately 12–18 inches) into the ground and/or wooden support posts driven vertically (approximately 12–24 inches) into the ground. The fence would be strengthened using railroad tie bracing posts (H-braces). Digging would be required to secure the bracing posts to a depth of 30 inches. Construction of the new fence would take the path of least resistance and would require clearing vegetation to create an 8-foot-wide corridor (4 feet on each side of the fence). Ground disturbance associated with the corridor clearance depends on the vegetation type the fence would traverse. Brushing/slashing would be accomplished by hand if the fence traverses shrub environments. If the fence traverses heavy forest, blading or harvesting equipment may be needed to clear the corridor. Once the fence is constructed, the right-of-way corridor would be maintained using hand-clearing methods.
3.10.2.4 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing would not be authorized within the project area, (FSH 2209.13–92.31) livestock grazing would be eliminated on the Antelope Grazing Allotment and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, and livestock grazing permits would be cancelled. Alternative 1 would eliminate livestock grazing from 137,189 acres of NFS lands. In accordance with agency regulations (36 CFR 222.4), grazing would cease 2 years after notice of cancellation. Allotment management would continue unchanged during this 2-year interval. After the initial 2 years, no direct effects would be expected from implementing Alternative 1 since potential direct effects from livestock grazing (e.g., trampling, trailing, crushing, rubbing) would be eliminated.
3-190 Cultural Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
All known cultural resource sites within the project area would continue to be managed according to stipulations outlined in current regulation. Grass regeneration would be an indirect effect of Alternative 1. Vegetation reduces erosion and restores site visual context. As noted above, reducing erosion decreases artifact displacement and exposure to possible illegal surface collecting. These benefits would occur within the first no- grazing season and would increase over time.
3.10.2.5 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 reauthorizes the current grazing permit, which allows for multiple herds at 419 cow/calf pairs per month from May 15 to September 30. Each cow/calf pair would have 352 acres of pasture. At this threshold, 7 sites out of 51 relocated sites (13.7%) within cattle concentration areas were found to have been impacted by cattle. All the impacted sites except Site 126 are located near water sources. Although Site 126 does not currently lie next to a water source, it did in the past. Site 126 once lay along the shoreline of an ancient lake bed. Humans, like cattle, are drawn to life-sustaining water, so cultural sites are often associated with water features. The most common impacts noted during the condition assessment were light-to-moderate trailing, light trampling (postholing), and the presence of manure. Alternative 2 includes 3 spring development reconstructions and 3 new spring developments. The soils around springs are perennially wet, which increases the probability of postholing impacts. The potential for impacts to unknown cultural resources, especially buried cultural resources, is higher around springs. Areas proposed for ground-disturbing activities would need to be surveyed for cultural resources and monitored during implementation, according to stipulations outlined in current regulation. With the incorporation of resource-protective design criteria, however, Alternative 2 is not expected to cause negative direct or indirect effects on cultural resources.
3.10.2.6 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would authorize one herd of 494 cow/calf pairs per month from May 20 to October 15. Each cow/calf pair would have 343 acres to graze, 9 acres less than proposed under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would have a slightly higher probability of impacts to cultural resources than Alternative 2 because cattle would be slightly more confined. The potential for conflicts between grazing and cultural resources increases once livestock are reintroduced into the North Sheep Pasture. Site condition assessments should be conducted within the first season of use, and any sites detected should be monitored in the third season to document any effects from grazing and recommend appropriate mitigations. Under Alternative 3, grazing would be authorized within existing fenced meadows of Round Meadow, Jack Creek, Dry Meadow, Rider’s Camp, Squirrel Camp, and Cannon Well. The potential exists for conflicts between grazing and cultural resources located within these exclosures. Potential impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those described in Alternative 2. Site condition assessments within the exclosures should be conducted within the first season of use, and any sites detected should be monitored in the third season to document any effects from grazing and recommend appropriate mitigations. Alternative 3 includes reconstructing 5 developed springs and developing 4 new spring sites. As noted in Alternative 2, the potential is high for unearthing previously undisturbed and unknown cultural resources during these ground-disturbing activities. Prior to implementing these activities, a cultural survey would need to be conducted according to stipulations outlined in current regulation. Construction should also be monitored during implementation. However, with
3-191 Cultural Resources Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
the incorporation of resource-protective design criteria, Alternative 3 is not expected to cause negative direct or indirect effects on cultural resources.
3.10.2.7 Alternative 4 Under this alternative, the Chemult and North Sheep pastures on the Chemult RD would not be included in the Antelope Allotment. These pastures would be removed from the overall Antelope Allotment. Direct and indirect effects to cultural resources in these pastures would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Grazing would be allowed only on the Silver Lake RD side of the allotment. Alternative 4 would authorize 410 cow/calf pairs. Each cow/calf pair would have 195 acres for grazing but would only be allowed to graze in the early season, from May 20 to July 30. Potential impacts due to high soil moisture content (e.g., postholing) could be similar to those described under Alternative 2, but impacts associated with late-season grazing would be much smaller than under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. The cattle would be more crowded in Alternative 4, due to the reduced acreage. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative 4 could have the highest probability of potential impacts, due to the lack of grazing space. Alternative 4 also includes reconstructing 2 spring developments and developing 2 new springs. As noted in Alternative 2, the number of new spring developments does not increase or decrease the potential for disturbing cultural resources. These developments are associated with water and thus have a high probability of disturbing cultural sites (both known and buried). Areas proposed for ground-disturbing activities would need to be surveyed for cultural resources prior to implementation and monitored during implementation, according to stipulations outlined in current regulation. However, with the incorporation of resource-protective design criteria, Alternative 4 is not expected to cause negative direct or indirect effects on cultural resources.
3.10.2.8 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 proposes grazing 2 herds for a total of 494 cow/calf pairs per month, with grazing from May 15 to October 15. The Antelope Allotment size would increase with the addition of acreage from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment. Each cow/calf pair would have 343 acres of grazing space, the same as under Alternative 3. Despite the increased acreage, grazing space would still be 9 acres less than under Alternative 2. Like Alternative 3, a slightly higher probability of impacts to cultural resources exists than Alternative 2 because cattle would be slightly more confined. Like Alternative 3, Alternative 5 has the potential to affect sites in the North Sheep Pasture. Once livestock are introduced there, palatable vegetation within the site boundaries could attract livestock grazing. Drawing livestock into site areas increases the potential for livestock to trample and trail through sites, impacting individual artifacts. However, since cattle have not previously been allowed to graze in this pasture, impacts of cattle grazing within these areas are yet unknown. Potential effects would be similar to those described in Alternative 3. Alternative 5 also includes reconstructing 5 spring developments and constructing 4 new spring developments. Effects would be the same as those described in Alternative 2. However, with the incorporation of resource-protective design criteria, Alternative 5 is not expected to cause negative direct or indirect effects on cultural resources.
3-192 Cultural Resources Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.10.3 Cumulative Effects This cumulative effects analysis considered effects to the entire Antelope Grazing Allotments project area, including the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment, Antelope Allotment, and Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment (169,599 acres) on the Chemult and Silver Lake RDs over the next 10 years. The project area would not remain static over time. Like all features on the landscape, cultural resource sites and artifacts are susceptible to the ravages of time and weather. Known and unknown cultural sites could receive direct effects from natural events such as vegetation growth, blowdown, and wildfire. As vegetation grows, deadfall accumulates, which increases fuel loading over time. The greater the fuel load, the greater the fire intensity and soil temperatures, which can alter or destroy cultural resources. Fire events consume perishable artifacts such as wood. Increased vegetation leads to increased forage that could attract grazing wildlife, which could cause negative impacts such as trampling and artifact displacement. Increased vegetation can also lead to upheaval from root growth. Blowdown events could impact or displace rock features found in sites. Activities such as wood gathering, hunting, cross-country travel, and other recreational pursuits have the potential for direct and indirect effects. Illegal artifact collecting, if conducted, would affect site inventory and integrity. However, sites can be protected from ground disturbances caused by human activities. The Forest Service would continue to protect cultural resources as mandated. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, private landowners may fence off private lands within Jack Creek. If they do so, grazing would be the primary land use on those private parcels. The Forest would have no administrative power over those parcels.
3-193 Climate Change Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.11 Climate Change As the topics of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions have become more prominent in the media and political discussions, debate has escalated about whether these factors should be considered, and to what extent, in the planning and analysis of Forest Service projects and activities. When specifically addressing the action of authorizing livestock grazing, interest groups reviewing these analyses have just begun to submit comments regarding greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of livestock, as well as comments on the effects of livestock grazing in the context of climate change. Current guidance frames climate change analysis by discussing two fundamental challenges: how Forest Service management may influence climate change (mainly through incremental changes to global pools of greenhouse gases) and how climate change may affect forests and grasslands.
3.11.1.1 Affected Environment The project area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Elevation ranges from 4,700 to more than 6,400 feet. Average annual precipitation in the Chemult and North Sheep pastures is approximately 33 inches. Tobin Cabin Pasture receives approximately 30 inches, while Antelope Flat 1–4, North Willow, and Halfway pastures receive 15–19 inches. The majority of precipitation falls as snow from November through May, and summer precipitation is generally low. The Deschutes, Klamath, and Oregon closed river basins comprise the project area. Available data for temperature and precipitation trends between 2000 and 2010 for locations within these basins show overall decreases in mean temperature and increases in precipitation (Table 3-32) (OWSC 2011). Oregon industries with potential to impact climate change occurring within these basins include forestry and agriculture.
Table 3-29. Trends of annual precipitation and mean temperature for the project area
Location Elevation (feet) Range of Record Trend Precipitation (inches) Crater Lake NPS HQ 6,475 2000–2010 +24.58 inches Bend 3,660 2000–2010 +3.56 inches Fremont 5NW 4,609 2000–2010 +2.67 inches Klamath Falls 2SSW 4,098 2000–2010 –1.78 inches Paisley 4,360 2000–2010 –4.43 inches Mean Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) Bend 3,660 2000–2010 –0.56 °F Paisley 4,360 2000–2010 –0.6 °F Klamath Falls 2SSW 4,098 2000–2010 –0.85 °F Fremont 5NW 4,609 2000–2010 –1.02 °F Crater Lake NPS HQ 6,475 2000–2010 –2.38 °F
3-194 Climate Change Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
3.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action would affect 169,599 acres of NFS lands by determining the appropriate level of grazing for rangelands within the project area. This scope and the associated degree of change would be minor compared to the total amount of rangeland being grazed. A project of this size would create such minimal contributions of greenhouse gases that its impact on global climate change would be infinitesimal. Therefore, at the global scale, the proposed action’s direct and indirect contributions to greenhouse gases and climate change would be negligible. In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the proposed action’s contribution to cumulative effects of greenhouse gases and climate change would also be negligible.
3.11.2.1 General Discussions of Climate Change on Land Management The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has summarized the contributions to climate change by global human activity sectors in its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). The top 3 anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from 1970 to 2004) are fossil fuel combustion (56.6% of global total), deforestation (17.3%), and agriculture/waste/energy (14.3%). IPCC subdivides the deforestation category into land use conversions and large-scale deforestation. Deforestation is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and grassland into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC 2000). The proposed action does not fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested land will not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands are being retained and thinned to maintain a vigorous forested condition that can continue to support trees and sequester carbon over the long term. The proposed action is also consistent with IPCC recommendations for land use to help mitigate climate change. The 2007 IPCC report summarizes sector-specific key mitigation "technologies." For the rangeland sector, the report recommends “[i]mproved… grazing land management for increased soil carbon storage…” as one of the “key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available.” The proposed action is consistent with this direction because mitigations applied under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 could be categorized as both facilitated adaptation and mitigation, as described in the October 2, 2008, Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change. Like Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 through 5 would reduce grazing impacts and would therefore improve vegetative conditions in riparian areas that are currently in less-than-satisfactory condition; this improvement would be expected to increase the efficacy of the riparian areas as carbon sinks. Alternative 4 would provide for this improvement in riparian areas in the Chemult RD portion of the project area more quickly than Alternatives 2, 3, or 5. During public scoping, several commenters expressed concern about the impacts of climate change on available water for ecological systems within the project area. A great deal of uncertainty still remains when analyzing effects of climate change. It is important to remember to relate impacts in the appropriate contexts and intensities associated with the project and proposed action. In response to the concerns raised during public scoping, the IDT considered trends in general terms to determine what changes to climate could potentially cause on the landscape for the resources analyzed. Ultimately, projections regarding climate change contain some uncertainty. “[U]ncertainty about climate projections are much greater at the local and regional scales important to land managers, because uncertainties amplify as data and model outputs are
3-195 Climate Change Chapter 3 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
downscaled.… [C]hanges in annual precipitation,…have higher uncertainties associated with them.… Ecological response to climate related changes is highly likely to be more difficult than climate to model accurately at local scales.… Uncertainty does not imply a complete lack of understanding of the future or a basis for a No Action decision. Managing in the face of uncertainty will best involve a suite of approaches, including planning analyses that incorporate modeling with uncertainty, and short-term and long-term strategies that focus on enhancing ecosystem resistance and resilience, as well as actions taken that help ecosystems and resources move in synchrony with the ongoing changes that result as climates and environments vary.… Flexibility to address the inherent uncertainty about local effects of climate change could be achieved through enhancing the resiliency of forests.… Efforts to mitigate existing stressors would address current management needs, and potentially reduce the future interactions of these stressors with climate change” (Joyce et al. 2009). Although an ecosystem’s sensitivity to grazing pressure and threshold for degradation changes with bioclimatic setting, resulting in lower sustainability in very dry and very humid ecosystems (Asner et al. 2004), the future bioclimatic setting within the project area is highly uncertain. As future average temperatures increase, snowpack will very likely be reduced, and snowmelt, runoff, and peak flows will occur earlier in the year (Hauser et al. 2009). In addition, grazing lands play an important role in carbon cycling, carbon sequestration, and climate change. The carbon cycle is the mechanism that controls carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Many factors influence this complex process, with soils performing a large function in the cycle. The capture and storage of CO2 in the soil is known as carbon sequestration. Productive, sustainable grazing lands provide high-quality vegetation and soils, which lead to high rates of carbon sequestration and low levels of CO2 emissions. Krueger et al. (2002) argue that grazing lands, due to their diversity of climates and soils, contribute to carbon sequestration and help mitigate the greenhouse effect and other aspects of global climate change. They assert that: Increased soil C[carbon] due to sequestration would have a positive effect on soil quality and enhance plant production. Grazing lands may be used in the future to influence the global C cycle and to take up more CO2 from the atmosphere. With careful, appropriate management of these soils and vegetation, biomass productivity on grazing lands can be enhanced, and a significant contribution to offsetting U.S. emissions of CO2 can be made (Krueger et al. 2002).
3-196 List of Preparers Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4
Chapter 4–List of Preparers Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 provide a list of preparers and reviewers.
Table 4-1. List of preparers and their contributions Contributor Title Contribution Amanda Warner Thorpe Forest Civil Engineer Transportation/Motorized Access (moved) Support Amy Markus Forest Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Analysis Angie LoSasso (moved) Winter Rim Zone Range Management Range/Non-Forested Vegetation Specialist Support Barbara Drake Forest Natural Resource Staff Office Document Review Barbara Machado (moved) Silver Lake District Ranger Line Officer; Document Review Bill Wall (detailer) Forest Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Support Cindy Foster (moved) Interagency Soil Scientist Soils Analysis Constance Cummins Forest Supervisor Responsible Official (moved) Dave Hogen (moved) Forest Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Support Dave Sabo (moved) Chemult District Ranger Line Officer Desi Zamudio Contractor Soils Analysis Revision Dick Ford (retired) Forest Watershed Program Manager Hydrology Support Erica Tarbox Civil Engineer Transportation/Motorized Access Analysis Fred Way (moved) Forest Supervisor Responsible Official Glen Westlund (retired) Forest Environmental Coordinator Document Review Jessica Dhaemers Winter Rim Zone Range Management Range/Non-Forested Vegetation Specialist Analysis Jody Perozzi SE Zone Environmental Coordinator Document Review Joe Monroe GIS Specialist GIS Support Joe Robson SE Zone Range Management Specialist Range/Non-Forested Vegetation Analysis Joe Washington Forest Botanist Botany Revisions, FEIS John Kaiser Forest Archaeologist Cultural Support Katie Blazer (retired) Forest Environmental Coordinator Document Review Kawa Ng WO Economist Social & Economic Analysis Lis Grinspoon Region 6 Social Scientist Social & Economic Analysis Lorene Guffey (moved) Silver Lake District Ranger Line Officer Lucas Phillips Forest Range & Invasive Program IDT Leader; Document Review Manager Martina Keil (moved) SE Zone Range Management Specialist Document Review Michelle Durant Eastside Archaeologist Cultural Analysis Mick Mueller (detailer) Silver Lake District Ranger Line Officer; Document Review Mike Lawrence (retired) Acting Chemult District Ranger Line Officer; Document Review Mike Nevill (retired) Forest Range Program Manager Range/Non-Forested Vegetation Analysis
4-1 Climate Change Chapter 4 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Contributor Title Contribution Panchita Paulete (moved) Winter Rim Zone NEPA Planner IDT Leader; Writer/Editor; Socio- economics, Environmental Justice, Climate Change Phillip Gaines Forest Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Analysis: Document Review Rick Newton (moved) Deputy Forest Supervisor Responsible Official Sarah Malaby (retired) Forest Botanist Botany, Invasive Plants, Insects, Terrestrial Mollusks Analysis Tia Adams Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Analysis- BA Tracy Beck (detailer) Acting Forest Supervisor Responsible Official Terry Smith Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Analysis Vince Pacific (moved) Eastside Hydrologist Hydrology Analysis
Table 4-2. Regional ERC reviewers
Contributor Title Brad Cownover Regional Landscape Architect & Planner Frank Davis Regional Planner (detailer) Jeff Walker Regional Heritage Program Lead Jill Dufour Regional Environmental Coordinator Lis Grinspoon Regional Social Scientist Mark Skinner Regional Botany Program Manager Maura Laverty Okanagan-Wenatchee NF Range & Noxious Weeds Program Manager Rick Collins Regional Transportation Engineer Scott Woltering Regional TES Aquatic Biologist Trish Carroll Regional Program Manager for Water Rights/Uses, Lakes, and Groundwater Val Black Attorney
4-2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
References Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): A technical conservation assessment. Bozeman, MT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. Accessed on: January 7, 2009. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf.
Agouridis, C. T., S. R. Workman, R. C. Warner, and G. D. Jennings. 2005. Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: A review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41: 591–606.
Aldous, A., and J. Gurrieri. 2012. Environmental flows and levels for groundwater- dependent fens of the Antelope Grazing Allotment. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest
Alken-Murray Corporation. 2011. Interpreting water analysis test results. Accessed on: October 26, 2011. Available at: http://www.alken-murray.com/TESTS01.htm.
Allen-Diaz, B., R. Barrett, W. Frost, L. Huntsinger, and K. Tate. 1999. Sierra Nevada ecosystems in the presence of livestock: A report to the Pacific Southwest Station and Region. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service.
Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 81 pp.
Amsberry, K., and R. Meinke. 2003. Responses of Botrychium pumicola to habitat manipulation in forested sites in south-central Oregon. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Deschutes and Fremont-Winema National Forests, and Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Native Plant Conservation Program.
Asner, G. P., A. J. Elmore, L. P. Olander, R. E. Martin, and A. T. Harris. 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 29:261–299.
Bach, M. 1981. History of the Fremont National Forest. W. Tonsfeldt, ed. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest.
Barnard, J. 2008. DNA secrets: Cave’s latrines yield new evidence about prehistoric North America. The Associated Press. December 4, 2008.
Beckham, S. D. 2000. The Gerber Block: Historical developments on the public rangelands in Klamath County, Oregon. Klamath Falls, OR: USDI, Bureau of Land Management.
R-1 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Bedford, B. L., and K. S. Godwin. 2003. Fens of the United States: Distribution, characteristics, and scientific connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands 23:608–629.
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-43.
Bergamini, A., and D. Pauli. 2001. Effects of increased nutrient supply on bryophytes in montane calcareous fens. Journal of Bryology 23:331–339.
Bergamini, A, M. Peintinger, B. Schmid, and E. Urmi. 2001. Effects of management and altitude on bryophyte species diversity and composition in montane calcareous fens. Flora (2001)196:180–193.
Bond, C. E., and T. T. Kan. 1973. Lampetra (Entosphenus) minima n. sp., a dwarfed parasitic lamprey from Oregon. Copeia (3):568–574.
Brown, J., A. Wyers, A. Aldous, and L. Bach. 2007. Groundwater and biodiversity conservation: A methods guide for integrating groundwater needs of ecosystems and species into conservation plans in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy.
Brunson, M. W., and B. S. Steel. 1996. Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs about federal rangeland management. Journal of Range Management: 49:69–75.
Carr, M., K. Amsberry, and R. Meinke. 2009. Astragalus peckii disturbance ecology study: 2008 Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests, and Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Agriculture.
Chelgren, N. D., C. A. Pearl, M. J. Adams, and J. Bowerman. 2008. Demography and movement in a relocated population of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa): Influence of season and gender. Copeia 2008:742–751.
Chimner, R. A., D. J. Cooper, and W. J. Parton. 2002. Modeling carbon accumulation in rocky mountain fens. Wetlands 22(1):100–110.
Christy, J., and R. Huff. 2007a. Species fact sheet for Helodium blandowii. USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-bryophytes.shtml
Christy, J., and R. Huff. 2007b. Species fact sheet for Tomenhypnum nitens. USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-bryophytes.shtml
Christy, J., R. Huff, R. Holmes, and D. Stone. 2007a. Species fact sheet for Pseudocalliergon trifarium. USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora- bryophytes.shtml
R-2 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
Christy, J., R. Huff, R. Holmes, and D. Stone. 2007b. Species fact sheet for Splachnum ampullaceum. USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora- bryophytes.html.
City-data.com. 2011. Silver Lake-Fort Rock, Oregon. Available at: http://www.city- data.com/city/Silver-Lake-Fort-Rock-Oregon.html. Accessed on: 2011.
Cochran, P. A., and R. E. Jenkins. 1994. Small fishes as hosts for parasitic lampreys. Copeia 1994:499–504.
Cooper, D. J. 1990. Ecology of wetlands in Big Meadows, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Washington, DC: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 90(15).
Cooper, D. J., R. A. Chimner, and E.C. Wolf. 2005. Livestock use and the sustainability of southern Sierra Nevada fens. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Inyo National Forest. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory. 18pp.
Corkran, C. C., and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia: A field identification guide. In: Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume III: Amphibians and reptiles, ed. E.M. Larsen, 175 pp. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Craft, C. B., and C. J. Richardson. 1993. Peat accretion and N, P, and organic C accumulation in nutrient-enriched and unenriched everglades peatlands. Ecological Applications 3:446–458.
Cross, S. P., and A. Kerwin. 1995. Final report survey of bats and their habitats in the Winema National Forest and Lakeview District BLM (Klamath Resource Area) in 1994. Lakeview, OR: USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest. Available at: Supervisor’s Office, Lakeview, OR.
Cross, S. P., and D. Waldien. 1994. Inventory and monitoring bats on the Medford District of the BLM in 1993. Final Report. Ashland, OR: Southern Oregon State College.
Csuti, B. A., A. J. Kimerling, A. J. O’Neil, T. A. Shaughnessy, M. M. Gaines, and J. C. Hak. 2001. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 492 pp.
Cummings, M. L. 2012. Ground- and surface-water hydrogeology of the unconfined pumice aquifer, Antelope Unit, Chemult Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National Forest. Portland, OR: Portland State University.
R-3 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Cushman, K. A., and C. A. Pearl. 2007. A conservation assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington.
Deal, K. 2002. Fire effects to lithic artifacts. Presentation at the Cultural Resources Protection and Fire Planning Meeting, Tucson, AZ, January 13-17, 2002.
Dixon, R. D. 1995. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home range, habitat use, and behavior of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Wildlife Nongame Report No. 93-3-01.
Duncan, N. 2005. Conservation assessment for Deroceras hesperium, evening field slug. USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management.
Durant, M. A. 2012. Antelope Grazing Allotments condition assessments and inventory. Chemult, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest.
Dyer, A. R. 2002. Burning and grazing management in a California grassland: Effect on bunchgrass seed viability. Restoration Ecology 10:107–111.
Eamus, D., R. Froend, R. Loomes, G. Hose, and B. Murray. 2006. A functional methodology for determining the groundwater regime needed to maintain the health of groundwater-dependent vegetation. Australian Journal of Botany 54:97–114.
Edwards, A. J., and L. W. Canter. 1999. Impact indices for grazing actions. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, Environmental and Ground Water Institute.
Ehrhart, R. C., and P. L. Hansen. 1997. Effective cattle management in riparian zones: A field survey and literature review. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 3, DOI.
Farrar, D. 2004. A genetic analysis of Botrychium pumicola populations using starch-gel enzyme electrophoresis. Klamath Falls, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Winema National Forest.
Ferriel, J., and K. Grenier. 2010. Fungi effects analysis guidelines potential impacts to fungi table. USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-fungi.shtml
Flenniken, J. J., and J. C. Haggarty. 1979. Trampling as an agent in the formation of edge damage: An experiment in lithic technology. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13:208–214.
Fowler, C. 2008. The effects of prescribed burning on cultural resources. Forest Encyclopedia Network. p 832. Available at: http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p832. Last modified: November 14, 2008.
R-4 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
Frenzel, R. W. 2000. Nest-sites, nesting success, and turnover rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon in 2000. Portland, OR: The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 63 pp.
Frenzel, R. W. 2002. Nest-sites, nesting success, and turnover rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon in 2002. Portland, OR: The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 56 pp.
Frenzel, R. W. 2003. Nest-sites, nesting success, and turnover rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon in 2003. Portland, OR: The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 49 pp.
Gervais, J. 2011. Jack Creek Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) site management plan. Chemult, OR: USDA Forest Service, Freemont-Winema National Forest, Chemult Ranger District. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents2/smp- ha-rana-pretiosa-jack-creek-2011-11.pdf
Gill, H. S., C. B. Renaud, F. Chapleau, R. L. Mayden, and I. C. Potter. 2003. Phylogeny of living parasitic lampreys (Petromyzontiformes) based on morphological data. Copeia 2003:687–703.
Goodman, L. 2006. Grazing permit reauthorization and National Historic Preservation Act compliance process. Letter to Forest Supervisors dated May 19, 2006.
Gorman, T., and T. Smith. 2001. Fish passage at road crossings assessment: FY2001 culvert inventory summary. Klamath Falls, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Winema National Forest.
Greenwood, K. L., and B. M. McKenzie. 2001. Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: A review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41:1231–1250.
Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540–551.
Gunckel S., and S. Reid. 2004. Baseline survey of Miller Lake lamprey (Entosphenus minimus) ammocoete distribution in the Miller Lake subdrainage. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Gurrieri, J., A. Aldous, and T. Carroll. 2011. Assessment of water extraction from fens for livestock grazing, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Oregon. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest.
Hadley, K. 2008. Rapid assessment condition model for lodgepole pine-pumice. Landfire Database. Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service.
Harr, R. D., and R. A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: A northwest Washington example. Fisheries 18:18–22.
R-5 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Hatton, R. R. 1988. Oregon’s big country: A portrait of southeastern Oregon. Bend, OR: Maverick Publications.
Hauser, R., S. Archer, P. Backlund, J. Hatfield, A. Janetos, D. Lettenmaier, M. G. Ryan, D. Schimel, and M. Walsh. 2009. The effects of climate change on U.S. ecosystems: Agriculture, land resources, water resources, biodiversity. Washington, DC: US Global Change Research Program. Available at: http://www.usda.gov/img/content/EffectsofClimateChangeonUSEcosystem.pdf.
Hayes, M. P. 1994. The spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in western Oregon. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Diversity Program.
Hayes, M. P. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Deschutes basin and selected other systems in Oregon and northeastern California with a range wide synopsis of the species’ status. Prepared for: The Nature Conservancy. Portland, OR: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hayes, M. P. 1998. The Jack Creek population of Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), Chemult Ranger District, Winema National Forest (Klamath County, Oregon). Prepared for: The Nature Conservancy. Klamath Falls, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Winema National Forest.
Holechek, J., R. D. Pieper, and C. H. Herbel. 1989. Range management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 501 pp.
Holechek, J.L., T.T. Baker, J.C. Boren, and D. Galt. 2006. Grazing Impacts on Rangeland Vegetation: What We Have Learned. Rangelands. February 2006.
Hopkins, W. 2000. Guidelines for forage resource evaluation within the Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest. R6-NF-ECOL-TP-05-00.
Horne, S., and J. McFarland. 1993. Impacts of livestock grazing on cultural resources. Goleta, CA: USDA, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest.
Hubbard, R. K., G. L. Newton, and G. M. Hill. 2004. Water quality and the grazing animal. Journal of Animal Science 82:255–263.
Hubbs, C. L. 1971. Lampetra (Entosphenus) lethophaga, new species, the nonparasitic derivative of the Pacific lamprey. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 16:125–164.
Hunter, H. M., A. G. Eyles, and G. E. Rayment. Downstream effects of land use. National conference on downstream effects of land use. Brisbane, Australia: Department of Natural Resources.
R-6 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2000. Special report on land use, land use change and forestry: Summary for policy makers. Geneva, Switzerland: IPPC. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007, synthesis report, section 2: Causes of change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPPC. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html
Johnson-Groh, C., C. Riedel, L. Schoessler, and K. Skogen. 2002. Distribution and abundance of Botrychium gametophytes and juvenile sporophytes. American Fern Journal 92(2):80–92.
Joyce, L. A., G. M. Blate, S. G. McNulty, C. I. Millar, S. Moser, R. P. Neilson, and D. L. Peterson. 2009. Managing for multiple resources under climate change: National Forests. Environmental Management 44:1022–1032. Boulder, CO: National Science Foundation, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Kan, T. T., and C. E. Bond. 1981. Notes on the biology of the Miller Lake lamprey (Lampetra Entosphenus) minima. Northwest Science 55:70–74.
Kauffman, J. B., and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: A review. Journal of Range Management 37:430–438.
Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 36:683–685.
Kauffman, J. B., A. S. Thorpe, and E. N. J. Brookshire. 2004. Livestock exclusion and belowground ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:1671–1679.
Knopf, F. L., and R. W. Cannon. 1982. Structural resilience of a willow riparian community to changes in grazing practices. In: Wildlife-livestock relationships symposium: Proc. 10., eds. J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke, 198-207. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Experimental Station.
Kostow, K. 2002. Oregon lampreys: Natural history, status and analysis of management issues. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Information Report 2002-01.
Kothmann, M. Grazing methods: A viewpoint. Society for Range Management: 31(5):5– 10.
Krueger, W. C., M. A. Sanderson, J. B. Cooper, M. Miller-Goodman, C. E. Kelley, R. D. Pieper, P. L. Shaver, and M. J. Trlica. Environmental impacts of livestock on U.S. grazing lands. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Issue Paper 22.
R-7 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Lacey, J.R. and H.W. Van Poollen. 1981. Comparison of herbage production on moderately grazed and ungrazed western ranges. Journal of Range Management. 34(3): 211-213.
Laycock, W. A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands: A viewpoint. Journal of Range Management 44(5):427–433.
Leonard, S., G. Kinch, V. Elsbernd, M. Borman, and S. Swanson. 1997. Riparian area management: Grazing management for riparian-wetland areas. Denver, CO: National Applied Resource Sciences Center. Technical Reference 1737-14.
Leonard, W. P., H. A. Brown, L. L. C. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle, WA: Seattle Audubon Society, The Trailside Series.
Li, H. W., G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Persons, C. K. Tait, J. L. Li, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:627–640.
Licht, L. E. 1969. Comparative breeding behavior of the red-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) and the western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa pretiosa) in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 47(6):1287–1299.
Logsdon, R. L. 1976. Flake damage and dispersion produced by cattle: A report of field experimentation. Paper presented at: 28th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Seattle, WA.
Lorion, C. M., D. F. Markle, S. B. Reid, M. F. Docker. 2000. Rediscription of the presumed-extinct Miller Lake lamprey, Lampetra minima. Copeia 2000:1019–1028.
Luzier, C. W., H. A. Schaller, J. K. Brostrom, C. Cook-Tabor, D. H. Goodman, R. D. Nelle, K. Ostrand, and B. Streif. 2011. Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) assessment and template for conservation measures. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 282 pp.
Lynch, G. 2011. Astragalus lemmonii field survey report: Fremont-Winema National Forest, Silver Lake District, and Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Resource Area. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests.
Marco, A., C. Quilchano, and A. R. Blaustein. 1999. Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in pond breeding amphibians from the Pacific Northwest, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:2836–2839.
Marshall, D. B., M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A general reference. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 768 pp.
R-8 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
Martin, E., and R. Meinke. 2010. Reproduction, demography, and habitat characterization of Astragalus peckii, a rare central Oregon endemic. Ph.D. dissertation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Maser, C., B. R. Mate, J. F. Franklin, and C. T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast mammals. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report PNW-133. 496 pp.
McDaniel, P. A., J. H. Huddleston, C. L. Ping, S. L. McGeehan. 1997. Aquic conditions in andisols of the northwest USA. In: Aquic conditions and hydric soils: The problem soils, eds. M. J. Vepraskas and S.W. Sprecher. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by division S-10 and S-5 of the Soil Science Society of America and A-2 of the American Society of Agronomy. Seattle, WA, November 14, 1994.
Meehan, W. R., and W. S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33:274–278.
Meehan, W. R., R. J. Swanson, and J. R. Sedell. 1977. Influences of riparian vegetation on aquatic ecosystems with particular reference to salmonid fishes and their food supply. A paper presented at: Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium, in Tuscon, AZ. R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, tech coords. Page: 137–145. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-43.
Meinke, R. 1995. Assessment of the genus mimulus in the Columbia River Basin for the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project (EEMP). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Minor, R., S. D. Beckham, and K. Toepel. 1979. Cultural resource overview of the BLM Lakeview District, South-Central Oregon: archaeology, ethnology, history. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Anthropological Papers.
Minshall, G. W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure of a woodland springbrook community. Ecology 48:139–149.
Murphy, M. L., and W. R. Meehan. 1991. Stream ecosystems. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, ed. W.R. Meehan. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Issue 19 of Special publication.
NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.
Neid, S. 2006. Utricularia minor L. (lesser bladderwort): A technical conservation assessment. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Colorado Natural Heritage Program.
O'Farrell, M. J., and E. H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. Mammalian Species 137:1– 5.
R-9 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Office of the Washington State Climatologist (OWSC). 2011. N.W. temperature, precipitation, & SWE trend analysis. Available at: http://www.climate.washington.edu/trendanalysis/. Accessed on: October 26, 2011.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2008. Temperature water quality standard implementation—A DEQ internal management directive. Salem, OR: ODEQ.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. Conservation plan, Miller Lake lamprey, Lampetra (Entosphenus) minima. Salem, OR: ODFW.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2010. Miller Lake lamprey conservation activities August 2010. Klamath Falls, OR: ODFW, Miller Lake Lamprey Science Team.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2011. Miller Lake lamprey conservation actions August 2011. Klamath Falls, OR: ODFW, Miller Lake Lamprey Science Team.
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (Oregon SHPO). 2004. Programmatic agreement among the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer regarding cultural resources management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service. Salem: OR: Oregon SHPO.
Osborn, A., S. Vetter, R. Hartley, L. Walsh, and J. Brown. 1987. Impacts of domestic livestock grazing on the archaeological resources of Capital Reef National Park, Utah. Harpers Ferry, WV: USDI, National Park Service, Midwest Archaeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology.
PBS Engineering and Environmental. 2008. Antelope Allotment analysis, Fremont- Winema National Forest. Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service, Freemont-Winema National Forest.
Pearl, C. A., M. J. Adams, R. B. Bury, and B. McCreary. 2004. Asymmetrical effects of introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) on native ranid frogs in Oregon. Copeia 2004:11–20.
Pearl, C. A., M. J. Adams, and N. Leuthold. 2009a. Breeding habitat and local population size of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in Oregon, USA. Northwestern Naturalist 90:136-147.
Pearl, C. A., J. Bowerman, M. J. Adams, and N. D. Chelgren. 2009b. Widespread occurrence of the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis on Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). EcoHealth. DOI: 10.1007/s10393-009-0237-x.
R-10 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
Peintinger, M., and A. Bergamini. 2006. Community structure and diversity of bryophytes and vascular plants in abandoned fen meadows. Plant Ecology 185(2006):1–17.
Phillips, S., and R. Wooley. 1994. Conservation strategy for Castilleja chlorotica. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont National Forest. Pp. 1–52.
Pierson, E. D. 1988. Preliminary results: P. t. townsendii in coastal California 1987- 1988. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section.
Platts, W. S. 1986. Riparian stream management. The Western Section Wildlife Society 22:90–93.
Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, ed. W.R. Meehan. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Special Publication Number 19.
Platts, W. S., and R. L. Nelson. 1989. Characteristics of riparian plant communities with respect to livestock grazing. In: Practical approaches to riparian resource management: An educational workshop, eds. R.E. Gresswell et al., 73−81. May 8–11, 1989. Billings, MT: USDI, Bureau of Land Management.
Poff, B., K. A. Koestner, D. G. Neary, and V. Henderson. 2011. Threats to riparian ecoystems in western North America: An analysis of existing literature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47(6):1241–1254.
Popper, K. J. 2004. Yellow rail surveys in southcentral Oregon, 2003 and 2004. Klamath Falls, OR: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Field Office.
Popper, K. J. 2006. Results for yellow rail survey at Klamath Marsh in 2006, with recommendations and protocol for future surveys, and analysis of yellow rail surveys at Sycan Marsh from 1997–2005. Portland, OR: USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitats.
Powers, C. 2011. Conservation strategy for pumice moonwort Botrychium pumicola. Deschutes, Fremont, and Winema National Forests and BLM Prineville District. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest.
Roney, J. 1977. Livestock and lithics: The effects of trampling. Winnemucca, NV: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Fort Collins, CO: Wildland Hydrology.
Ruda, S., and D. Hogen. 2008. Level II stream survey summary report Jack Creek, 2003. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests, Chemult Ranger District.
R-11 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Saab, V. A., and J. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand- replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Research Paper RMRS_RP_11.
Schilling, K. E., Y. K. Zhang, and P. Drobney. 2004. Water table fluctuations near an incised stream, Walnut Creek, Iowa. Journal of Hydrology 286:236–248.
Shea, J. L., and J. D. Klenck. 1993. An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the results of lithic microwear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:175–194.
Shovlain, A. 2005. Oregon spotted frog habitat use and herbage (or biomass) removal from grazing at Jack Creek, Klamath County, Oregon. Master’s thesis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Silvermoon, J. M. 1985. Cultural resource overview, Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Fremont National Forest.
Skinner, C. N. 2002. Fire regimens and fire history: Implications for obsidian hydration dating. Redding, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Spier, L. 1930. Klamath ethnography: University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Volume 30. Salina, CA: Coyote Press.
Stern, M. A., and K. J. Popper. 2003. Yellow rail Rallus limicola. In: Birds of Oregon, eds. D.B. Marshall et al., 190–192. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 752 pp.
Stern, T. 1966. The Klamath tribe: A people and their reservation. In: The American Ethnological Society, Monograph 41. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Swanson, J. 1984. Range environmental analysis. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont National Forest.
Tate, K. W., D. M. Dudley, N. K. McDougald, and M. R. George. 2004. Effect of canopy and grazing on soil bulk density. Journal of Range Management 57:411–417.
Tiedemann, A. R., D. A. Higgins, T. M. Quigley, H. R. Sanderson, and D. B. Marx. 1987. Responses of fecal coliform in streamwater to four grazing strategies. Journal of Range Management 40:322–329.
Tonsfeldt, W. 1987. An industrial frontier: Railroad logging on the Fremont National Forest 1928–1946. Klamath Falls, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Winema National Forest.
R-12 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
Tonsfeldt, W., and D. Gray. 2009. Draft Fremont-Winema National Forests cultural resource inventory plan. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Fremont National Forest and Winema National Forests.
Trimble, S. W., and A. C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent—A critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253.
U.S. Census. 2011. 2010 census interactive population search. Available at: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php. Accessed on: October 19, 2011.
USDA Forest Service. 1984. Environmental assessment and decision notice/finding of no significant impact report, Antelope Allotment. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont National Forest and Klamath Falls, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Winema National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1988. Range plant handbook. New York: Dover Publications Inc.
USDA Forest Service. 1989. Fremont National Forest land and resource management plan. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1990. Winema National Forest land and resource management plan. Klamath Falls, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Winema National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Decision notice and finding of no significant impact for the inland native fish strategy: Interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada. Coeur d’Alene, ID: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.
USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) environmental assessment. Forest Service.
USDA Forest Service. 2001–2008. Ecological unit inventory of the Winema portion, Fremont-Winema National Forests, Oregon. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests. Interim Reports 3–10.
USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Native species plan for the Fremont-Winema National Forests. Lakeview, OR: USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Stream inventory handbook, level I & II. Version 2.2. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 6.
USDA Forest Service. 2007. Technical guide to managing ground water resources. Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service, Minerals and Geology Management; Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants; Engineering. FS-881.
R-13 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Jack Creek fence construction project. Chemult, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests, Chemult Ranger District.
USDA Forest Service. 2009. Site general: field guide. Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service, Rangeland Management Staff. 57 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Motorized travel management plan. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests.
USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Stream inventory handbook, levels I & II. Version 2.10. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
USDA Forest Service. 2011. Final region 6 regional forester special status species list December 1, 2011. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/.
USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: Level II inventory field guide. Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service. General Technical Report WO-86b.
USDA Forest Service. 2012b. National best management practices for water quality management on National Forest System lands. Volume 1: National core BMP technical guide. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. FS-990a.
USDA Forest Service and Klamath Tribes. 2005. Memorandum of Agreement between the Klamath Tribes and the U.S. Forest Service. Lakeview, OR: USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.
USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2006. Riparian area management: Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST- 06/002+1737. 105 pp.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. A conservation assessment for the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Klamath Basin of Oregon. Klamath Falls, OR: USDI FWS, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Fens. USEPA. Accessed on: December 9, 2011. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/fen.cfm.
R-14 Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement References
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012a. USGS ground water glossary. USDI, United States Geological Survey. Accessed on: April 12, 2012. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/gw/glossary.html.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012b. USGS water cycle: Springs. USDI, United States Geological Survey. Accessed on: April 12, 2012. Available at: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesprings.html.
Vermeire, L.T., R.B. Mitchell, S.D. Fuhlendorf, and R.L. Gillen. 2004. Patch burning effects on grazing distribution. Rangeland Ecology and Management 57(3):248–252.
Volland, L. A. 1985. Guidelines for forage resource evaluation within central Oregon pumice zone. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-Ecol-177-1985.
Walsh, R. 1994. Carex capitata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online database]. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
Warren, S. D., T. L. Thurow, W. H. Blackburn, and N. E. Garza. 1986. The influence of livestock trampling under intensive rotation grazing on soil hydrologic characteristics. Journal of Range Management 39:491–495.
Watson, J. W., K. R. McAllister, and D. J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements, and habitat selection of Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology 37(2):292–300.d
Weixelman, D. A., and D. J. Cooper. 2009. Assessing proper functioning condition for fen areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California: A user guide. Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. General Technical Report R5-TP-028.
Wenzel, D. L. 1979. Soil resource inventory, Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont National Forest.
White, H. Q. 2002. Oviposition habitat and population estimates of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) at Beaver Creek, Washington. Master's thesis. Olympia, WA: Evergreen State College.
Wilson, B., R. Brainerd, D. Lytjen, B. Newhouse, and N. Otting. 2008. Field guide to the sedges of the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 Vol.
R-15 References Antelope Grazing Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Wondzell, S. M. 2001. The influence of forest health and protection treatments on erosion and stream sedimentation in forested watersheds of eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 75:128–140.
Wondzell, S. M., and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Floods, channel change, and the hyporheic zone. Water Resources Research 35:555–567.
Wrobleski, D. W., and J. B. Kauffman. 2003. Initial effects of prescribed fire on morphology, abundance, and phenology of forbs in big sagebrush communities in southeastern Oregon. Restoration Ecology 11(1):82–80.
Zucker, J., K. Hummel, and B. Hogfoss. 1983. Oregon Indians: culture, history & current affairs: An atlas and introduction. Portland, OR: Western Imprints, Oregon Historical Society.
R-16