LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter addresses those resources and resource uses managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Little Snake Field Office (LSFO). Resource/resource use sections are separated into subsections that describe current conditions and characterization of each resource/resource use. The characterization of the resource/resource use includes the indicators (which assess the resource condition), trends (which express the direction of change between the present and some point in the past), and forecast (which predicts changes in the condition of resources given current management). 3.1 CURRENT RESOURCE CONDITION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3.1.1 Public Land Health 3.1.1.1 Background BLM implemented regulations in 1995 for fundamentals of rangeland health and standards and guidelines for grazing administration in response to public concern about management of livestock grazing on western public lands and to improve rangeland management. The regulations in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations section 4180 (43 CFR 4180) require the State Directors, in consultation with Resource Advisory Councils (RAC), to develop rangeland health standards for lands within their jurisdictions. This process includes conducting local-level assessments and evaluations for ascertaining rangeland health status. Procedures and guidance to implement these regulations was provided in Washington Office (WO) Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2000-153 (Standards Assessment Procedures and Guidance). BLM has agreed to work with the RACs to expand these rangeland health standards so that public land health standards are relevant to all ecosystems, not just rangelands, and that they apply to all actions, not just livestock grazing (Manual Handbook H-1601-1 Land Use Planning). The Secretary of the Interior approved the Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for BLM offices within Colorado on February 3, 1997. The Colorado Standards for Public Land Health, Appendix A, describes conditions needed to sustain public land health, and relate to all uses of the public lands. The Colorado Standards are applied on a landscape scale and relate to the potential of the landscape for the following resources: Standard 1: Upland soils Standard 2: Riparian areas and wetland areas Standard 3: Native species Standard 4: Special status species Standard 5: Water quality. The Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management provides the management tools, methods, strategies, and techniques (e.g., best management practices [BMP]) for maintaining or achieving healthy public lands as defined by the Standards (listed above). 3.1.1.2 Little Snake Field Office Field offices are expected to conduct local assessments based on the Colorado Standards and to follow the developed guidelines. Information specific to each office is used to evaluate if the Standards are achieved. To provide a spatial framework for conducting local assessments, the LSFO has divided the Little Snake Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) into 16 distinct landscapes (Map 3-1), within which LITTLE SNAKE FIELD OFFICE 3-1 CHAPTER 3 LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS the Standards are assessed. The landscape boundaries were delineated based on physical features, geographic boundaries, watershed boundaries, and landscape characteristics. The LSFO staff conducts systematic assessments and evaluations on numerous sites within each landscape to determine if the Standards and fundamentals for rangeland health are being achieved. The sites are selected so that each grazing allotment within that landscape contains a site, and ideally, that each range site within an allotment is represented (Map 3-2). The initial assessments were prioritized in conjunction with grazing permit renewals. These landscape health assessments determine whether areas are meeting the standards. The LSFO does not intend for these studies to be used for the purpose of monitoring or inventory. The studies are only intended to be qualitative assessments and determinations of site conditions. Methodology The field offices are to consider all assessment requirements for the watershed or landscape being assessed and select assessment methods that will provide information needed to fulfill those requirements. When a field office invests its resources in a landscape health assessment, the end product should substantially meet all assessment needs to avoid conducting multiple assessments for multiple needs. There is no specific written protocol used by the LSFO to conduct a landscape health assessment; however, the staff uses a methodology similar to the evaluation processes outlined in BLM Handbook 4180. The methodology is an organized, flexible process that can be characterized as follows: Scoping/interdisciplinary (ID) team assembly Announce the evaluation process Initiate scoping Invite involvement Create or assemble the ID team (e.g., resource specialists, BLM, local parties, permittees) Evaluation process Determine evaluation areas and identify important or impaired sites to be analyzed Prioritize evaluation areas Select indicators Select evaluation methods Conduct evaluation Collect and evaluate data (2 to 7 days of field work) Characterize the landscape—climate, surface water quality and quantity, ground water, watershed function (erosion processes and stream channel characteristics), riparian and wetland areas, soils, geology, vegetation and plant communities, and human influences and uses Characterize the relative abundance and distribution of Species of Concern Complete upland and proper functioning condition (PFC) data forms through interactive group discussion and consensus-based decisions Synthesize and interpret information or results Landscape health assessment (LHA) report Prepare the LHA report, which summarizes the data collected from various sites within the landscape area assessed. The LSFO generally organizes LHA reports in the following fashion: Executive summary Assessment discussion List of the standards Map of watershed/landscape area Map of geology Map of riparian areas Catalog of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles within landscape Catalog of soil types 3-2 LITTLE SNAKE FIELD OFFICE LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS CHAPTER 3 Listing of range sites Listing of grazing allotments and permittees Summary of sites that meet/do not meet the standards Field data collection forms Photographs. Results of LSFO Landscape Health Assessment Reports Of the 16 landscapes within the RMPPA, 15 have been through, or are currently going through, the LHA process. The current status of the completed LSFO LHA reports and whether they meet or do not meet the standards is shown in Table 3-1 below. The table also summarizes the condition of the landscape relative to the factors used in evaluating whether the standards are met and identifies associated concerns. Table 3-1. Summary of Landscape Health Assessments Standard Assessment1 LANDSCAPE AXIAL Status Completed 2008—38 sites (all analyzed) All but one site met this standard. On this site, cheatgrass was the only contributor to soil Standard 1 M stability. The site was susceptible to accelerated erosion if cheatgrass cover was removed. With few exceptions, all riparian systems on public lands are at PFC or functioning at risk Standard 2 M with an upward trend. 42% of sites had an excessive abundance of non-native species such as bull thistle, Standard 3 NM hounds tongue, and whitetop or exhibited poor native plant diversity, density, and production. No threatened or endangered species of plants or animals occur within the watershed. Habitat conditions for 8 species which could occur in the watershed are acceptable. The Standard 4 M majority of Axial Basin has appropriate and acceptable habitat for greater sage-grouse, a BLM sensitive species. The Water Quality Standard for public land health is presently being met for the Axial Standard 5 M Basin landscape. LANDSCAPE DOUGLAS DRAW Status Completed 2005—21 sites (all analyzed) All but one site met the upland soil standard. Two sites lacked native plant diversity; and Standard 1 M three had high levels of invasive species which could lead to low soil stability in dry years. Riparian resources are limited in Douglas Draw; however the resources which do exist Standard 2 M appear to meet standards. Poor perennial grass diversity or abundance, poor sagebrush vigor, and excessive annual Standard 3 NM weeds were indicators that led 20% (4 of 20) sites visited to fail this standard. No threatened or endangered species of plants or animals occur within the watershed. Habitat conditions for 3 species which could occur in the watershed are acceptable. Standard 4 M Sheephead basin has appropriate and acceptable habitat for greater sage-grouse, a BLM sensitive species. The Water Quality Standard for public land health is presently being met for the Douglas Standard 5 M Draw Watershed. LANDSCAPE COLD SPRING MOUNTAIN Status Completed in 2000—27 sites (all analyzed) LITTLE SNAKE FIELD OFFICE 3-3 CHAPTER 3 LITTLE SNAKE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS Standard Assessment1 Generally meets standard—except for toe slope or bench soils in canyon bottoms along Standard 1 M Vermillion, Canyon, and Talamantes Creeks. Physical indicators were generally intermediate or plus; vegetation indicators were generally intermediate. Vermillion, Canyon, and Talamantes Creeks were mostly functioning at risk (FAR) and slightly to moderately incised with high