BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT – IDAHO – BOISE DISTRICT – OWYHEE FIELD OFFICE Jump Creek, Succor Creek, and Cow Creek Watersheds Grazing Permit Renewal Draft Environmental Impact Statement EIS # DOI-BLM-ID-B030-2012-0014-EIS BLM-ID-NEPA Permit Renewal Team Summary This Draft of the Jump Creek, Succor Creek, & Cow Creek Watersheds Grazing Permit Renewal Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter, DEIS) addresses options for future management of 25 livestock grazing allotments in northern Owyhee County, Idaho. These Owyhee Field Office Priority Group 2 allotments are of mixed ownership comprising 80,720 acres of publicly owned land managed by the Owyhee Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 35,953 acres of privately owned land, and 8,589 acres of land managed by the State of Idaho, for a total of 125,262 acres in the DEIS. Although the allotments fall within three watersheds, throughout the remainder of this document they will be referred to as the Chipmunk Group allotments. This DEIS addresses grazing permits in these allotments that are expiring and the applications to renew the permits that the BLM has received from the current permit holders. The DEIS analyzes alternative management prescriptions that range from continuing the current kind and level of livestock numbers (current management), as is more fully defined later in the document (Alternative 1), to reducing livestock numbers to zero, with no grazing occurring for the next 10 years (Alternative 6), and other management options that continue grazing on the allotments with management changes to address resource issues on the allotments as described below and (Alternatives 3-5). To comply with our obligation and responsibility, the BLM implemented a scoping process to solicit internal and external input on the issues, impacts, and potential alternatives that will be addressed in the DEIS. This process provided an opportunity to inform the general public early in the NEPA process and helped the BLM to gauge the concerns of those who have a stake in the management of the public lands in this area. A scoping report was published on the BLM’s ePlanning website last September. This summary will speak briefly about the issues identified in the scoping process; the full report can be accessed on the BLM website (http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/nepa_register/owyhee_grazing_group/grazing_permit_renewal0.html) or a hard copy can be requested by contacting the Idaho State Office of the BLM by email ([email protected]), fax ((208) 373-3805), or mail (1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise ID 83709, attn: Jake Vialpando). Throughout the NEPA process, the following issues were identified by members of the public, other governmental agencies, or the BLM interdisciplinary team. Not all issues apply to every grazing allotment. Evidence suggests that the contact between California bighorn sheep and domestic sheep can transmit disease, cause mortality to bighorn sheep individuals, and reduce long-term herd health. The risk of contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in the analysis area is considerable, and the effects to bighorn sheep are potentially significant. Healthy sage-grouse habitat is directly related to upland vegetation and watershed, in addition to riparian area conditions. Specific areas of the Chipmunk Group allotments contain altered sagebrush habitat that is affecting sage-grouse, as well as other sagebrush habitat-dependent species. Livestock grazing in riparian areas during certain seasons is affecting riparian vegetation health and aquatic habitat. Streams, floodplains, and wetlands are directly related to conditions within the riparian vegetation areas. Altering of riparian areas can affect the health and sustainability of fish and amphibians. 1 Livestock grazing is also affecting upland vegetation by reducing it below levels that adequately protect watershed soil and hydrologic function. This can also adversely affect special status plants by altering the upland vegetation around these plants. Noxious and invasive weeds have the potential to increase or spread as a result of effects that grazing has on upland vegetation. When operators trail their livestock from one area to another, these allotment crossings may adversely affect these same resources discussed above, though to a lesser degree than grazing. Livestock production contributes to local and regional social and economic activities in the area. These contributions may be adversely affected if decisions are made that reduce livestock production on public lands, although management actions that contribute to improved rangeland health could help ensure sufficient long-term forage for grazing these lands. Wildfire fuels could be influenced positively or negatively by the level and intensity of livestock grazing prescriptions. The consideration of this interaction is pertinent when permitting grazing activity. Climate change and livestock grazing activities are inter-related with the levels of invasion by annual grasses and wildfire frequency, both of which are expected to worsen as the result of changing climatic conditions. Livestock grazing competes with foraging and habitat of wild horses. The following is a brief overview of how the document is organized, to assist the reader in reviewing this DEIS. Section 1 – Introduction This section is the introduction to the document. It gives the reader the background, location, and setting of the public land involved in the analysis. This is where the BLM’s Purpose and Need Statement is found. It explains the reason why a Federal action is needed here and now. Other information in Chapter 1 includes land use plan information and the regulations under which the BLM is obligated to manage these public lands. Section 2 – Alternatives This section contains a complete description of the alternative management prescriptions mentioned above. Each addresses the BLM’s purpose and need to varying degrees. The BLM conducted a detailed analysis of six alternatives and considered several other management alternatives that were dismissed prior to a detailed analysis. The rationale for dismissal is found in Chapter 2. An important topic to address here is the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) direction for the BLM to “…identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference (40 CFR 1502.14 (e)).” The BLM does not have a preferred alternative at this time, but as is required, we will identify this in the Final EIS, after we have received and considered comments on this draft document. Section 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This section combines Chapters 3 and 4 in this DEIS. Traditionally, EIS documents have dedicated Chapter 3 to describing the Affected Environment. By definition, this contained a description of current conditions of the resources found within the project area that the proposed action and alternative actions would affect. Chapter 4 was dedicated to describing the environmental consequences of implementing the 2 proposed action and alternative actions. However, because we are addressing 25 allotments in this DEIS, we have combined the affected environment description and the environmental consequences of the alternatives in Section 3, which we believe will make it easier to follow the analysis. In this document, we first describe the affected environment and the current condition of a specific resource (vegetation, for example), and then explain the effects or impacts to vegetation when alternative management actions are implemented. The expected impacts resulting from each of the alternatives are described by resource, and the expected impacts on each allotment are addressed in each alternative. We then address the affected environment of the next resource, (soils, for example), and describe the impacts to that resource from implementing the different management prescriptions. We continue in this manner, describing the condition of, and analyzing effects to, each resource. Section 4 – Consultation and Coordination This section is a brief description of the BLM’s consultation and coordination efforts with other Federal agencies, Tribes, and State and local government entities. Section 5 – List of Preparers This section is a list of the document preparers and their associated experience. Section 6 – Literature Cited This section is the list of literature cited in the DEIS. Section 7 – Appendices This section contains the appendices, which include supporting information such as actual use and utilization data, the permittees’ grazing applications, and the Rangeland Health Determinations. Rangeland Health Determinations (Appendix E) and the Specialists’ Reports (saved in the project record and available at the BLM Owyhee Field Office by request) play important roles in supporting the analysis in this DEIS; readers are encouraged to view these documents in conjunction with the DEIS. The online version of the DEIS will be split into three parts, with Sections 7 and 8 uploaded separately but available in the same location. The BLM in Idaho uses eight Standards for determining rangeland health for livestock grazing management (Appendix A): Standard 1-Watersheds Standard 2-Riparian Areas and Wetlands Standard 3-Stream Channel/Floodplain Standard 4 Native Plant Communities Standard 5-Seedings Standard 6-Exotic Plant Communities Other Than Seedings Standard