dawes creek ea 09 17 10 -...

United States Department of Agriculture

Environmental AssessmentDawes CreekAllotment

Forest Service Intermountain Region

Mountain Home Ranger DistrictBoise National

September 2010

Environmental Assessment Dawes Creek “On-Off” Allotment

Mountain Home Ranger District Boise National Forest

Responsible Official: Stephaney Church, District Ranger

Mountain Home Ranger DistrictBoise National Forest 2180 American Legion BoulevardMountain Home, ID 83647 Phone: 208-587-7961 Fax: 208-587-9217

District Ranger Mountain Home Ranger District

2180 American Legion Boulevard

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents Chapter 1 -- Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background .................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Need for Action ............................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policies ......................................................... 4

1.7 Tribal Consultation .......................................................................................................... 6

1.8 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 6

1.9 Resource Concerns to be Analyzed ............................................................................... 6

1.10 Document Structure ........................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2 -- Alternatives ...........................................................................................................10

2.1 Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................10

2.2 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................11

Chapter 3 -- Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ....................................13

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................13

3.2 Grazing Opportunity and Allotment Management ..........................................................13

3.3 Soils Resources .............................................................................................................15

3.4 Vegetation Resources ...................................................................................................20

3.5 Rare Plant Species ........................................................................................................23

3.6 Watershed Resources ...................................................................................................29

3.7 Fisheries ........................................................................................................................33

3.8 Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................35

3.9 Consistency with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policies...............................................40

Chapter 4 -- Consultation and Coordination ..............................................................................43

4.1 Forest Service IDT Members .........................................................................................43

4.2 Tribes Consulted ............................................................................................................43

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………44

Appendix: Response to Comments .................................................................................................46

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location Map of the Dawes Creek Allotment

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Project Alternatives in Terms of Objectives and Effects

Table 2. Existing Conditions Detrimental Soil Disturbance and Total Soil Resource Commitment

Table 3. Existing Conditions SINMAP Landslide Prone Stability Hazard Ratings

Table 4. Existing Conditions Effective Ground Cover

Table 5. Rare Plant Species Habitat and Locations (Listed, Proposed Listed, Candidate or R4 Sensitive)

Table 6. Determinations for Rare Plant Species (Listed, Proposed Listed, Candidate or R4 Sensitive)

Table 7. Current Functionality of Relevant WCIs in the Lower Willow and Big Fiddler-Soap Subwatersheds

Table 8. Wildlife Species Considered, Species Status and Associated Source Habitat Suite and Family

Table 9. Determinations for Listed Wildlife Species with Habitat Present

Table 10. Determinations and Rationale for Sensitive Wildlife Species with Habitat Present

1

Chapter 1 -- Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 INTRODUCTION The Dawes Creek Allotment encompasses approximately 3,577 acres, including approximately 2,450

acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and approximately 1,127 acres that are privately owned or controlled by the permittee. The allotment is located in Elmore County, approximately nine miles west of Prairie, ID. The legal description is Section 36 of T3N R5E; Section 1 of T2N R5E; Sections 31-34 of T3N R6E and Sections 3-6 of T2N R5E, Boise Meridian (BM).

Cattle graze the NFS portion of this allotment under permit from the USDA Forest Service. The current Term Grazing Permit for the Dawes Creek Allotment allows a total of 55 cow/calf pairs and three horses, with 26 pairs and one horse as the “on” portion, for a grazing season of June 1 through October 31. The allotment is managed under a deferred grazing rotation. Structural improvements on this allotment include four water developments and approximately three miles of fence on NFS land within the Dawes Creek Allotment.

Figure 1 – Location Map of the Dawes Creek Allotment

Environmental Assessment Dawes Creek Allotment

2

1.2 BACKGROUND A grazing allotment is a designated area of land available for domestic livestock grazing. An individual

allotment can be comprised of lands under several jurisdictions, including the U.S. Forest Service, private, state, or other federal agencies. When NFS land comprises only a portion of the total estimated grazing capacity of an allotment, the Forest Service administers that allotment with a “Term Grazing Permit with On-and-Off Provisions” (“on-off” permit). Allotments with this type of permit are characterized as “on-off” allotments. “On-off” allotments are often designated when small areas of NFS rangeland are isolated from other large blocks of NFS land. The isolated parcels of NFS rangeland (the “on” lands) cannot be effectively managed by themselves and must be included with lands of one or more other ownerships (the “off” lands) to make a logical grazing unit. The objective of this type of permit is to promote the efficient grazing use of lands under different ownerships, while at the same time achieving desired conditions on NFS lands.

Under this type of permit, the Forest Service administers livestock grazing only on NFS lands within the allotment. The grazing capacity of the NFS lands is determined by the Forest Service. The grazing capacity of the non-NFS lands is determined by the permittee, subject to concurrence by the authorized Forest Service officer. The Forest Service term grazing permit specifies the season of use, livestock numbers for both “on” and “off” lands, the grazing area of the combined “on” and “off” lands, and the standards for grazing management on “on” lands only. “Off” lands cannot be grazed outside the season of use designated in the permit. However, the Forest Service has no direct control of the intensity of grazing on the “off” lands during the season of use, nor does it monitor the effects of grazing on the “off” lands.

A “Term Grazing Permit with On-and-Off Provisions” is generally issued for ten years. However, the grazing permittee must own or control the “off” lands and the term of the permit is subject to proof of lease renewal where the permittee’s lease term on the non-NFS land is less than ten years. The Forest Service does not control management of improvements on “off” land but may cancel a permit if NFS lands or resources are adversely affected by the permittee’s failure to develop or maintain improvements on “off” lands. The grazing permittee need not own livestock authorized for “off” lands but must own the livestock for “on” lands. “Off” livestock are run in conjunction with “on” livestock.

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action for the Dawes Creek Cattle and Horse “On-Off” Allotment is “no action.” This

alternative proposes no changes to current management on the allotment. For this reason, the proposed action is the baseline for analysis and serves as the no action alternative relative to any other alternatives.

Specifically, the proposed action for the Dawes Creek Allotment would continue to authorize a total of 55 cow/calf pairs and three horses, with 26 pairs and one horse as the “on” portion, for a grazing season of June 1 through October 31. The allotment would continue to be managed under a deferred grazing system. There would continue to be some flexibility in allotment administration allowed for weather conditions, range readiness, and livestock needs. If the forage is fully utilized or the Forest Service determines that further grazing would damage resources, the permittee may be required to remove livestock early from the allotment.

Grazing would continue on the allotment consistent with standards, guides, terms, and conditions listed in the Term Grazing Permit, as supplemented by Annual Operating Instructions (AOI), as well as with direction specified in the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. These standards may be modified by the Responsible Official to accelerate attainment of the desired conditions, and include:


3

• Maximum forage utilization of representative areas within each pasture containing NFS land will not exceed the values shown below at the end of the growing season. Those utilization levels are as follows (Forest Plan Standard RAST01, p. III-45):

o Riparian Areas: Maximum 45 percent use or retain a minimum 4-inch stubble height of hydric greenline species whichever occurs first.

o Upland Vegetative Cover Types: Vegetative slow growth, after seed ripe conditions, or late season pastures – 50 percent use.

• Livestock salting is prohibited in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (Forest Plan Standard RAST04, III-45). Place salt no closer than ¼ mile from water and not within 100 feet of designated roads. Move salt from areas where utilization standards have been met (Terms and Conditions of the Term Grazing Permit).

• All water developments must provide access and escape to and from water for all types of wildlife (Forest Plan Standard RAST09, p. III-45).

• Bulls must test negative for Trichomoniasis before entering NFS land (Annual Operating Instructions).

• Only certified noxious weed-free hay, straw, or feed is allowed on NFS land (Forest Plan Standard NPST01, p. III-36).

• On all lands outside of designated travelways, motorized use is prohibited, unless otherwise authorized (Forest Plan Standard REST04, p. III-64).

The proposed action includes continued monitoring of the allotment through grazing permit administration, which includes monitoring unit rotation and forage utilization and inspections of range improvements (water developments, fences, corrals, etc.) as needed.

All existing range improvements, such as fences and water developments, are required to be brought to properly functioning condition each grazing season prior to livestock entering the allotment (or unit within the allotment), as defined in the Term Grazing Permit. There are no additional improvements proposed for this allotment.

As a result of the 2006 North Sheep decision (Western Watersheds Project v. USFS, Case No. CV-05-189-E-BLW, District Court of Idaho), Forest Plan Capability Analyses and Site-Specific Capability Analyses are required for all allotments. This analysis has been completed for the Dawes Creek Allotment (refer to Section 3.2). No issues related to livestock grazing are expected. Under these conditions, by definition, the allotment is meeting or moving toward desired conditions.

1.4 NEED FOR ACTION The need for this action is to authorize the appropriate level of livestock use within the Dawes Creek

Allotment under updated management direction designed to achieve management objectives and move existing resource conditions toward desired conditions.

• Authorizing continued grazing would address the objectives of the range management program in the National Forest System and the goals and objectives in the Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.


4

o The objectives of the range management program in the National Forest System are:

� To manage the range vegetation to protect basic soil and water quality resources, provide for ecological diversity, improve or maintain environmental quality, and meet public need for interrelated resource use [FSM 2202.1(1)].

� To integrate management of range vegetation with other resource programs to achieve multiple use objectives contained in Forest Land and Resource Management plans [FSM 2202.1(2)].

� To provide livestock forage, wildlife food and habitat, outdoor recreation, and other resource values dependent on range vegetation [FSM 2202.1(3)].

� To contribute 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 2202.1(4)].

� To provide expertise on range ecology, botany, and management of grazing animals [FSM 2202.1(4)].

Authorization to graze specific areas is needed through project level NEPA decisions (FSH 2209.13 Chapter 91). If the decision is made to authorize livestock grazing on an allotment, Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) implement the applicable management direction from the NEPA decision.

The proposed action was designed to be consistent with the Forest Plan and the livestock grazing standards and guidelines that it promulgates as a means of eventually achieving the Forest Plan’s goals on the Dawes Creek Allotment.

1.5 DECISION FRAMEWORK This EA will serve to inform a decision which will stipulate:

1. Whether to authorize continued grazing on the allotment;

2. If grazing is allowed to continue, whether management changes would likely be necessary to address the Forest Plan’s goals, objectives, and desired future conditions for the NFS land in the allotment; and

3. Whether the resulting action would likely result in significant impacts necessitating the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the allotment.

1.6 CONSISTENCY WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES This EA has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA, 40 CFR §§1500-1508, 2007), the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR Part 219, 2007), and the Forest Plan.


5

1.6.1 FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The Forest Plan provides for the multiple-use and sustained yield of goods and services from the Forest. Forest plans determine the capability and suitability of the plan area and establish programmatic direction including goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements. Forest Plan management direction for rangeland resources includes the following goals:

• Provide for livestock forage within existing open allotments, in a manner that is consistent with other resource management direction and uses (RAGO01).

• Manage rangelands using controlled livestock grazing, range structural and non-structural improvements, vegetative and ground rehabilitation, fire, and timber management in various combinations to meet desired conditions (RAGO02).

• Manage upland vegetation on suitable rangelands to maintain or restore hydrologic function and soil productivity of watersheds containing allotments (RAGO03).

• Manage herbaceous and shrub vegetation on suitable rangelands to meet resource objectives in an efficient manner (RAGO04).

• Manage livestock grazing within riparian areas to accommodate the maintenance or restoration of aquatic and riparian processes and functions (RAGO05).

• Coordinate livestock grazing to address conflicts with other resource uses in a manner that is consistent with Forest Plan management direction (RAGO06).

The Forest Plan at the programmatic level identified the NFS lands within this allotment as suitable for livestock grazing. The Forest Plan also contains direction for proper management of livestock within the allotment. That direction provides desired conditions for rangeland resources, for which the long-term goals are:

A sustainable level of forage, consistent with other resource management direction, is available for use through the Forest Service grazing permit system. Rangeland forage quality is maintained or improved in areas where vegetation management projects and range management actions occur. Riparian areas continue to be a focal point for providing vegetative diversity, landscape capability, soil productivity, wildlife habitat, proper stream channel function and water quality important to sustaining beneficial uses. Riparian areas are functioning properly and/or have improving trends in vegetative composition, age class structure and vigor. Upland range vegetation is contributing to proper hydrologic function. The composition and densities of shrubs, grasses and forbs are variable and dynamic across the landscape (Forest Plan, p. III-44).

The Dawes Creek Allotment lies in Forest Plan Management Area 1 - Lower South Fork Boise River, as designated by the 2003 Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended in 2010 (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service, 2010a, 2010b) and within management prescription categories (MPCs) 4.1c – Undeveloped Recreation: Maintain Unroaded Character with Allowance for Restoration Activities and 6.1 - Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes (Forest Plan, pp. III-92-105). These MPCs do not include Forest Plan standards or guidelines specific to grazing activities (Forest Plan, pp. III-87-90). However, Management Area 1 direction specific to rangeland resources include the following three objectives (Forest Plan, pp. III-99-105):

• Evaluate and incorporate methods to help prevent weed establishment and spread from livestock grazing activities in the Big Fiddler-Soap, Long Gulch, Black Canyon-Trail, Pierce-


6

Mennecke, Upper Willow Creek, Lower Willow Creek, Wood Creek, Indian Creek, Long Tom Reservoir, Lower Lime Creek and Cayuse-Rough subwatersheds. Consider changes in the timing, intensity, duration or frequency of livestock use; the location of salting; and restoration of water sites. (Objective 0155)

• When constructing new fences or reconstructing existing fences, design or relocate to avoid potential sage grouse mortality near leks (Guideline 0156).

• Whenever possible, modify developed springs and other water sources to restore free-flowing water and wet meadows in sage grouse habitat (Guideline 0157).

The project record contains a checklist documenting each interdisciplinary team (IDT) resource specialist’s consideration of the proposed action’s consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

1.7 TRIBAL CONSULTATION The Forest Service consulted local tribes about this analysis in 2009. A letter of consultation was sent to

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley were consulted in a “Wings and Roots” meeting held between the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley and the Forest Service. Neither tribe expressed concerns with the proposed action or the analysis.

1.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT As required by 36 CFR 215, the 30-day Notice and Comment period for the Dawes Creek Allotment

occurred in 2009. A Legal Notice of Proposed Action was published in the Idaho Statesman, the newspaper of record, on December 18, 2009, and Proposed Action Reports were mailed to thirty-seven interested agencies, groups, and individuals. This Notice and Comment period was combined with public scoping and included the Cat Creek, Dawes Creek, Lockman Gulch and Windy Gap allotments. Therefore, comments were received on all four allotments. The Forest Service’s consideration of comments received that expressed opposition or concern with the proposed action is attached to this EA as the Appendix.

Comment letters were received from the Idaho Department of Lands, Southwest Area Office; Neil and Sandra Helmick; and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Southwest Region. All of the commenters submitted their comments timely, conferring appeal eligibility. A vast majority of the comments received expressed general concerns and recommended that the Forest Service analyze the effects of grazing on particular resource elements, without including a description of a site-specific, cause-effect relationship between an action and an effect that might have demonstrated the need for such an analysis.

The IDT considered each comment received but found no unresolved conflicts requiring resolution through the development of alternatives to the proposed action. With no new issues or alternatives being raised during the scoping process, and to better focus this assessment, the Responsible Official determined that the scope (40 CFR §1508.25) of this project would be limited to the proposed action as described in Section 1.3 of this EA and a no grazing alternative (36 CFR §220.7(b)(2)(i)).

1.9 RESOURCE CONCERNS TO BE ANALYZED The following resource concerns are important in the analysis area, but effects on them have been

effectively mitigated with the proposed action and they will not drive formulation of alternatives to the proposed action. Disclosure of effects on these resources is either required by law, regulation and policy, or included in this analysis to address concerns introduced in scoping:


7

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect wet meadows, seeps, and springs, which are important late brood rearing habitats for sage-grouse, and should be managed to maintain a diverse mixture of forbs and perennial grass cover, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect.

o The Forest Service will describe potential effects to riparian vegetation.

o The Forest Service will describe potential effects to watershed resources and water quality in terms of forest plan watershed condition indicators.

o The Forest Service will determine whether sagebrush-obligate and riparian-dependent bird species habitat is present on the project area and describe potential effects to these bird species with habitats present.

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect sage brush habitats, and should be managed to ensure adequate residual grass cover for nesting sage-grouse and other sage brush obligate birds, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect.

o The Forest Service will describe the potential changes to sagebrush habitats.

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect the production of understory grasses, forbs, or shrubs needed to meet habitat objectives for sagebrush obligate bird species, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect.

o The Forest Service will describe the potential changes to vegetation and competitiveness of native plant species.

o The Forest Service will describe the potential changes to ground cover, sagebrush canopy, aspen condition, riparian condition, and noxious weeds.

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect streambank degradation, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect.

o The Forest Service will describe potential effects to riparian vegetation.

o The Forest Service will describe potential effects to watershed resources, including streambank condition, in terms of forest plan watershed condition indicators.

• Disclosure of the consistency of the proposed action and no-grazing alternative with terms, and conditions listed in the Term Grazing Permit, as supplemented by Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs), as well as with direction specified in the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan, regarding the potential fencing of fragile portions of riparian areas to protect and enhance riparian plant production and prevent streambank degradation.

o Given the limited amount of riparian area on NFS land, and based on the Watershed Specialist’s findings that riparian areas are meeting or moving toward desired conditions (EA Section 3.6.2.1), fencing of riparian areas is not necessary to protect riparian resources on NFS land. This concern will not be discussed further.

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect native grass species, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect.

o The Forest Service will describe the potential changes to vegetation and competitiveness of native plant species.


8

o The Forest Service will describe the potential changes to ground cover, sagebrush canopy, aspen condition, riparian condition, and noxious weeds.

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect annual availability of grasses and shrubs for big game use, especially on winter range, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect. This disclosure addresses comment 8 in Appendix B of this document.

o Cattle prefer to graze grass and other herbaceous species and typically do not graze on browse species such as antelope bitterbrush. Therefore, there is minimal competition for browse between cattle and deer, the major browsing species found on the Dawes Creek Allotment. Cattle and elk are both grazers and both utilize grass as a major component of their diet. Cattle tend to graze in the lower, flatter areas of the allotment while elk utilize ridgetops and upper slopes. Therefore, there is minimal competition for forage between cattle and elk on the allotment. In addition, Forest Plan Standards insure that adequate forage is provided for wildlife.

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect introduction and spread of invasive plant species attributable to livestock grazing, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect.

o The Forest Service will describe the potential changes to noxious weed introduction and spread.

• Disclosure of whether the proposed action and no-grazing alternative have the potential to affect bull trout and redband trout populations and habitat, and if so, the context and intensity of the potential effect.

o The Forest Service will identify threatened, endangered, sensitive, and MIS species with the potential to occur within the project area and determine the effects to those likely to be present.

1.10 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE This EA incorporates by reference the project record (40 CFR §1502.21, 2007). The project record

contains specialist reports and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA.

Detailed information that supports the analyses presented in this document, unless specifically noted otherwise, is contained in the project planning record located at the Mountain Home Ranger District Office.

This document consists of the following main chapters:

• Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action: Describes the Proposed Action, purpose and need of the action, decisions to be made, Forest Plan consistency, regulatory requirements and required coordination, public involvement, and identification of resource concerns.

• Chapter 2 – Alternatives: Includes descriptions of the alternatives considered in detail and a comparative summary of the environmental consequences of each alternative analyzed in detail.


9

• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Describes the existing conditions of the resources within affected areas and the environmental impacts of the alternatives on those resources.

• Chapter 4 -- Consultation and Coordination: Provides a list of the primary preparers of this document and the tribes who were consulted.

• A listing of references cited.

• Appendix – Response to Comments: Lists the agencies, groups, and individuals who submitted concerns during scoping, and the Forest Service’s responses to those concerns, follows the main chapters.


10

Chapter 2 -- Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives developed in Chapter 1 and concludes with a comparative summary of the alternatives considered in detail (Section 2.2). This comparison, combined with the more detailed disclosure in Chapter 3, provides the information necessary for the Responsible Official to make an informed choice between alternatives.

2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Based on public input, the IDT identified no unresolved conflicts to analyze in depth that would result in

the need to develop and consider alternatives to the proposed action (36 CFR §220.7(b)(2)(i), 2009). Based on its consideration of public input, the IDT recommended and the responsible official approved the proposed action and one alternative to the proposed action.

2.1.1 ALTERNATIVE A – CONTINUED GRAZING (NO ACTION)

The no action alternative is the continuation of current grazing management, which is the proposed action. The proposed action is described in detail in section 1.3 of this EA.

2.1.2 ALTERNATIVE B – NO GRAZING ALTERNATIVE

The no grazing alternative would require a minimum of two years’ notice to the permittee before being implemented. It would also require the removal of approximately 2.25 miles of fence on NFS land. The four water developments on NFS land on the Dawes Creek Allotment would also be removed.

It is assumed the private landowner would continue to graze their private and other property at the same intensity and duration that it is currently grazed. In order for the private landowner to effectively graze their private and other property and to prevent livestock trespass on NFS land, the landowner on the Dawes Creek Allotment would need to construct approximately nine and one-half miles of fence.


11

2.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 1 - Summary of Project Alternatives in Terms of Objectives and Effects for the Dawes Creek Allotment

Indicator Alternative

Continued Grazing No Grazing

Grazing Opportunity and Allotment Management

Head Months Grazing Forage Available on NFS land per Capacity Analysis

136 0

Head Months Grazing Permitted on NFS Land

136 None after 2 years

Head Months Grazing on Private Land

156 156

Cow/Calf Pairs Authorized on NFS Land

26 c/c pairs, 1 horse None after 2 years

Cow/Calf Pairs on Private Land

29 c/c pairs, 2 horses

Uncertain, but assumed to be no change

Soils

Detrimental Disturbance 4.3% Consistent with Standard

SWST02

0.0%

Total Soil Resource Commitment

2.9% Consistent with Standard

SWST03

<1%

Effective Ground Cover 60-90% Consistent with Guideline

SWGU05

No Change

Vegetation

Overall Vegetative Condition Continue to Desired Conditions

Continue to Desired Conditions

Sagebrush Canopy No Measurable Effect No Effect

Riparian Vegetation Continued Improvement Continued Improvement

Noxious Weeds Minor Increase in Spread No Effect

Effects on TES, Sensitive, and MIS Species

Threatened and Endangered Species

Lynx No Effect No Effect

Bull trout No Effect No Effect

Gray Wolf Not Likely to Jeopardize Proposed Species or Modify Proposed Critical Habitat

Not Likely to Jeopardize Proposed Species or Modify Proposed

Critical Habitat

Slickspot peppergrass Not Likely to Adversely Affect

No Effect

Greater sage-grouse No Impact No Impact

Yellow-billed Cuckoo No Impact No Impact


12

Indicator Alternative


Sensitive Species

Mountain Quail No Impact No Impact

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep No Impact No Impact

Spotted Bat No Impact No Impact

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat No Impact No Impact

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse No Impact No Impact

Bald Eagle No Impact No Impact

Columbia Spotted Frog No Impact No Impact

Slender-leaf moonwort May Impact Individuals but would Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of

Viability

Beneficial Impact to the Species or Habitat After 2 Years

Byrum Moss

Small (least) phacelia

Bugleg/wholeleaf goldenweed

Management Indicator Species

White-headed woodpecker No Impact No Impact

Black-backed Woodpecker No Impact No Impact

Pileated woodpecker No Impact No Impact

Other Species of Concern

Rocky Mountain Elk No direct or indirect effects No direct or indirect effects

Mule Deer No direct or indirect effects No direct or indirect effects

Sagebrush-Obligate and Riparian-Dependent Species Habitat

No Effect No Effect

Wetlands and Floodplains No Effect No Effect

Riparian Areas Negligible Improvement Negligible Improvement

Water Quality Negligible Improvement Negligible Improvement

Cultural Resources No Adverse Effect No Adverse Effect


13

Chapter 3 -- Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Incorporated by reference into this section of the EA are specialists’ reports for range, soils, vegetation, watershed, fisheries, wildlife and cultural resources; biological evaluations for wildlife and botanical resources; and biological assessments for fish and wildlife; all of which are included in the project record.

Forest Service resource specialists considered effects in the allotment under the continued grazing and no grazing alternatives as described in sections 1.3 and 2.1.2 of this EA. The proposed action proposes no changes to the existing management of the allotment. This alternative proposes to continue livestock grazing in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guides, Management Area Goals and Objectives and with terms and conditions defined in the Term Grazing Permit. The no grazing alternative would end grazing on NFS lands within the allotment after two years and require removal of several range improvements once grazing is phased out on NFS lands. This alternative assumes the private landowner would continue to graze their private property at the same intensity and duration for which it is currently grazed. It also assumes that private boundaries would be fenced to ensure that livestock grazing does not occur on NFS lands once it has been phased out.

Chapter 3 is organized first by achievement of objectives, as described in the Purpose and Need. It then discloses the potential environmental effects in light of the resource concerns addressed during processes or analyses routinely conducted by the IDT, and the resource concerns that were identified in scoping. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the potential effects of the continued grazing alternative and the potential effects of the no grazing alternative which provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of effects.

3.2 GRAZING OPPORTUNITY AND ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT The District Rangeland Management Specialist’s report is hereby incorporated by reference in the

Project Record (40 CFR §1502.21). The District Rangeland Management Specialist’s report contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references and technical documentation that were relied upon by the specialist to reach the conclusions disclosed in the EA.

3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Dawes Creek Allotment encompasses approximately 3,577 acres, 2,450 acres of which NFS land. The remaining 1,127 acres are privately owned or controlled by the permittee. The Forest Service currently permits a total of 55 cow/calf pairs and three horses, with 26 pairs and one horse as the “on” portion, for a grazing season of June 1 through October 31. The allotment is managed under a deferred grazing system.

3.2.1.1 RESOURCE CONDITION INDICATORS

The Rangeland Management Specialist considered the suitability, capability and capacity of the allotment, and the head months of grazing that would be allowed without exceeding capacity to evaluate effects to grazing opportunity and allotment management under each alternative. Suitability and capability indicators are measured in acres of suitable and acres of capable rangeland. Capacity is measured in head months (HMs) of forage.


14

3.2.1.2 METHODS USED IN ANALYSIS

Methods for determining suitability, capability, and capacity of the allotment are described in detail in Appendix I of the Rangeland Management Specialist’s Report in the Project Record.

3.2.1.3 EXISTING STATE OF RESOURCE CONDITION INDICATORS

A site-specific range capability and suitability analysis was completed for the NFS lands and a tentative grazing capacity was calculated for the Dawes Creek Allotment. Analysis of data collected on the allotment, incorporating the Forest Plan requirements, identified a total of 340 acres of capable rangeland on NFS lands within the Dawes Creek Allotment (Project Record, Range Specialist’s Report, page 11).

The District Rangeland Management Specialist completed a tentative capacity analysis for the Dawes Creek Allotment. This analysis indicates that there is an estimated total of 124 HMs of available forage on NFS land, which is approximately 12 HMs less than currently permitted for the allotment (Project Record, Range Specialist Report, page 11). She also determined that the firmed up or allocated capacity for the Dawes Creek Allotment is consistent with the currently permitted numbers and season of use (136 HMs). She found that current levels of grazing use are sustainable and will continue to allow resource conditions to move toward desired conditions. (Project Record, Range Specialist’s Report, page 11).

3.2.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.2.2.1 CONTINUED GRAZING ALTERNATIVE (NO ACTION)

There is sufficient forage on NFS lands on the Dawes Creek Allotment to sustain the continuation of current levels of grazing, as defined by the proposed action. Under this alternative, grazing on the Dawes Creek Allotment could continue at permitted head months without exceeding the estimated allotment capacity. The Forest Service would continue to permit 55 cow/calf pairs and three horses, with 26 pairs and one horse as the “on” portion, for a grazing season of June 1 through October 31 on the Dawes Creek Allotment.

There would continue to be some flexibility in allotment administration allowed for weather conditions, range readiness, and livestock needs on the allotment. If the forage is fully utilized or the Forest Service determines that further grazing would damage resources, the permittee may be required to remove livestock early.

The continued grazing alternative would also include continued monitoring of the allotment through grazing permit administration, monitoring unit rotation and forage utilization, and inspections of range improvements (water developments, fences, corrals, etc.) as needed.

3.2.2.2 NO GRAZING ALTERNATIVE

The no grazing alternative would eliminate livestock grazing on NFS portions of the allotment after two years. Grazing opportunities for the permittee within the current allotment area of the Dawes Creek Allotment would be reduced by 48 percent (136 HMs of forage).

The private land currently associated with the allotment could be managed as a grazing unit. The permittee would have to remove approximately 2.25 miles of fence on NFS land. The four water developments on NFS land on the Dawes Creek Allotment would also be removed. It is assumed the private landowners would continue to graze their private and other property at the same intensity and duration for which it is currently grazed. In order for the private landowner to effectively graze their private


15

and other property and to prevent livestock trespass on NFS land, the landowner on the Dawes Creek Allotment would need to construct approximately nine and one-half miles of fence.

3.3 SOILS RESOURCES

The Soils Resource Specialist’s Report is hereby incorporated by reference in the Project Record (40 CFR §1502.21). The Soils Resource Specialist’s Report contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, references, and technical documentation that were relied upon to reach the conclusions disclosed in the EA.


National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Dawes Creek Allotment are located on Idaho batholith granitics and Snake River basalt flows. The higher elevation lands consist of Granitic Fluvial Lands and Canyons; the terraces above the South Fork Boise River are Basalt Canyon Lands and Plains. Combined, these landforms account for 90 percent of the NFS lands within the allotment. Landtypes define the landform development processes and reflect inherent hazards/capabilities (Wendt et al. 1975). The landtypes and dominant soils and their inherent properties for the Dawes Creek allotment can be found in Appendix A of the Soils Resource Report (Project Record).

Lands with granitic soils occupy the higher elevation hillslopes and ridgetops and have moderate to moderately high inherent surface erosion. The soil family is predominantly Typic Haploxerolls having a gravelly loamy sand to gravelly sandy loam surface soil texture. The effective ground cover (EGC) that protects the surface soil from erosion ranges from 30 to 50 percent. These soils have moderate forage production.

The basalt lands are characterized by flat terraces and plains with finer-textured soils and provide the primary forage production areas for the allotment. These lands have low to moderate inherent surface erosion hazard. The soils are either Typic or Pachic Argixerolls with granular loam to clay loam surface soil textures. The EGC ranges from 45 to 80 percent and the soils have moderate to high forage production.


The Soils Resource analysis considered the effects of continued livestock grazing on detrimental soil disturbance (DD), total soil resource commitment (TSRC), effective ground cover (EGC), and potential for landslides (LSP) within the allotment. Detrimental soil disturbance evaluates compliance with Forest Plan Standard SWST02 (Forest Plan GL-10). The indicator for evaluating compliance with SWST03 is the estimated percent TSRC (Forest Plan GL-37). Effective ground cover is measured as the percent of live vegetation, litter, and rock (greater than three-quarter inch) and is used to evaluate consistency with SWGU05 (Forest Plan GL-12). The initial SINMAP analysis delineates moderate and high hazard areas needing additional analysis to evaluate consistency with SWGU03 (Forest Plan GL-21).


The analysis evaluated changes in DD, TSRC, EGC, and LSP for the “activity area” on the Dawes Creek allotment to estimate the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the continued grazing alternative and the no grazing alternative on the soils resource (Forest Plan GL-1). The effects analysis for Alternative B (No Grazing) contrasted the impacts of the Proposed Action with the current condition and expected future condition if the Proposed Action were not implemented.


16

For this analysis the National Forest System (NFS) lands in the project area define the “activity area” for evaluating changes in the indicators. The rationale for delineating the “activity area” is described in the Soils Resource Specialist’s Report (Project Record, Soils Resources Report, page 5).


Past and current livestock grazing and associated improvements are the primary activities that have and are influencing soil quality within the activity area. Other current and ongoing activities include maintenance of existing roads that provide limited access for low levels of dispersed camping and recreation, with minimal influence to soil quality (Project Record, Proposed Action Report, page 21).

The estimates for Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DD) in Table 2 are based on existing activities or disturbances that result in detrimental erosion or compaction (Forest Plan, Volume 2, GL-10). Fundamentally, impacts to soils that affect productivity move back and forth along a scale that ranges from no disturbance, to disturbance with no impact, to impacts having detrimental disturbance, to total soil resource commitment. In general, ground disturbing activities that do not degrade soil quality to the point of Total Soil Resource Commitment (TSRC) are qualitatively summarized by extent and intensity to estimate detrimental soil disturbance.

Table 2 - Existing Conditions for Detrimental Soil Disturbance and Total Soil Resource Commitment

Allotment Dawes Creek

Allotment Acres (NFS lands) 2,450

Detrimental Disturbancea (DD) (values in acre equivalent)

Fence Line Trailing 3.6

Salting Areas 64.0

Water Developments 32.0

Riparian/Valley Bottom Impacts 6.0

Existing DD (acres) 105.6

Existing DD (percent) 4.3%

Total Soil Resource Commitmentb (TSRC) (values in acre equivalent)

Fence Line Trailing 1.5

Salting Areas 8.0

Water Developments 4.0

Other TSRC (borrow sites, etc.) 8.1

Classified Roads 35.0

Unclassified Roads 4.3

Other/Livestock Trails 10.8

Existing TSRC (acres) 71.8

Existing TSRC (percent) 2.9% a: DD “Activity Area” is defined as the acres of NFS lands within the allotment. b: TSRC “Activity Area” consists of the NFS lands within the allotment.

Localized, disconnected areas of soil compaction, detrimental soil puddling, and hummocks occurs each grazing season in depositional valley bottoms and riparian areas in the low gradient segments of Chicken Creek and two other unnamed streams, which is where livestock and wildlife obtain water. These impacts temporary or short term impacts as each site is very small (< 1 acre) and with scattered locations the level of use is not always repetitive from year to year, allowing for some level of natural amelioration that restores or maintains desired soil conditions. As livestock range across the landscape, minor disturbance can occur over broader areas. It is difficult to quantify this dispersed disturbance, and more difficult to


17

categorize the level of impact as the disturbed ground is not 100 percent DD (Project Record, Soils Specialist Report, page 7).

In addition to the variable, isolated areas, smaller site-specific areas of DD develop as livestock radiate out and disperse from range allotment improvements (salting areas, water developments, and shipping areas). An estimate for acres of detrimental soil displacement and compaction attributable to these disturbances is calculated based on a review of randomly selected sites and extrapolated across the allotment based on the number of these features.

Existing condition for TSRC is 3 percent (Table 2). The existing roads, trails, and other long term impacts (borrow sites, dispersed recreation, etc.) account for long term impairment of soil quality. Impacts from livestock grazing and range improvements contribute about 30 percent of the existing TSRC.

The outputs for the GIS-based Stability Index Mapping (SINMAP) model for the allotment are provided in Table 3. Areas with high and moderate stability hazards are steeper slopes with low forage production and are not frequented by livestock. Past livestock grazing activities have not increased the occurrence of landslide features; there is a very low probability for continued livestock grazing to influence soil-hydrologic processes and increase the potential for landslides. The level of analysis needed to address the potential for livestock grazing to influence landslide prone areas is sufficient to conclude both alternatives meet the intent of Forest Plan Guideline SWGU03. No further discussions or analysis of land stability hazards and landslide prone areas - specifically direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – are warranted.

Table 3 - Existing Conditions SINMAP Landslide Prone Stability Hazard Ratings

Slope Stability Hazard High Moderate Low Stable

Allotment (acres) Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Dawes Creek (2,450 acres) 531 22 193 8 373 15 1,353 55

Effective ground cover (EGC) is a key indicator for identifying productive rangeland soils. Ground cover

maintained at or near potential levels will contribute to desired conditions for soil productivity and overall watershed health. Ground cover consists of live or dead plant cover at or near the soil surface, including plant litter and rock (Forest Plan GL-12). Retention of litter on the ground surface is also essential for nutrient cycling. On rangelands, nutrients are recycled primarily from decomposition of plant litter.

Ground cover data for the Dawes Creek allotment are displayed in Table 4. “Current” values were collected during allotment inspections and field reviews in 2009 and 2010 from sites where livestock grazing has likely had the greatest impacts in recent years. Comparing the current data to the RAA data and the desired ranges from the Soil Hydrologic Reconnaissance (SHR) (Wendt 1973) interpretation tables provides an estimate for status and trend of EGC. EGC is within or exceeds the desired ranges for the soil/vegetation types for the allotment.

Table 4 - Existing Conditions Effective Ground Cover

Dawes Creek Allotment

Site ID Landtype

Effective Ground Cover (percent) Trend and Status SHR Range

1980 RAA Data

Current

K1-1 136-1 30-60 20 80 ↑ / meets DC

K1-2 136-1 30-60 10 90 ↑ / meets DC

K1-3 136-1 30-60 18 80 ↑ / meets DC

P1-1 136-1 30-60 74 70 - / meets DC


18

P1-2 136-1 30-60 71 60 ↓ / meets DC

P1-3 105-4 40-60 70 70 - / meets DC

S2-1 105-4 40-60 67 70 - / meets DC

S7-1 136-1 30-60 85 90 - / meets DC

S7-2 136-1 30-60 90 80 ↓ / meets DC

Miller 120e-6 30-60 57 61 - / meets DC

Chicken 105-4 40-60 70 68 - / meets DC



The current conditions for DD in Table 2 represent the direct and indirect effects of the livestock grazing activities on soil quality. These values reflect the current livestock grazing strategy for the allotment that has been implemented over the past several years. The estimated effects are below the constraints defined under Forest Plan Standard SWST02. DD is primarily the result of displacement and compaction in localized areas where animals trail along fence lines, loaf, or obtain salt or water. These livestock related disturbances are considered short term as the shrubs, forbs, and grasses are allowed to seasonally recover or re-seed and provide root stability and establish a vegetative cover that buffers the soil. This is expected as the timing, rotation, and distribution of the low numbers of cattle permitted for this allotment provides rest for lands having greater utilization. Review of areas with limited use indicates compaction from cattle grazing is mostly in the “disturbed” category (not to detrimental levels) and a temporary effect ameliorated by root action, frost heave/freeze-thaw, and shrink-swell from drying and wetting. This is characteristic of the finer textured, more developed soils and consistent with findings of Alexander and Gilman (1994). Overall, detrimental disturbance is minimal and seasonally occurring for the Dawes Creek allotment because of low stocking levels and limiting utilization to 50 percent use of current year’s palatable forage.

The direct and indirect effects of the continued grazing alternative result in 1 percent TSRC (sum of livestock related impacts in Table 2). This low value is attributed to the low stocking rate and current livestock grazing strategy for the allotment, and is consistent with Forest Plan Standard SWST03. Grazing activities that contribute to TSRC include heavy soil compaction in the immediate area where livestock trailing occurs (i.e. fence lines and other interior trailing), salting areas, and water developments.

The direct and indirect effects of continued grazing on EGC are represented by the values for Existing Conditions in Table 4. Ground cover conditions reflect the inherent landtype potential and current livestock grazing use patterns within the allotment. The past and present low utilization levels are providing for acceptable levels of soil cover from live plants and litter. With ground cover ranging between 60 and 90 percent, these values are at or above the desired ranges for representative soil types-vegetation communities and meet the intent of Forest Plan Guideline SWGU05. Conditions for effective ground cover (EGC) would continue the current trend unless other disturbances (i.e. wildfire or prescribed fire) measurably change the vegetation composition.


The no grazing alternative would cease all livestock operations associated with the allotment and require a minimum of two years’ notice to the permittee. Livestock grazing would be allowed during that time period and direct effects on DD for Alternative B would mirror those estimated for Alternative A in the short term, and essentially decrease to zero over the long term when livestock grazing ceases. TSRC


19

impacts from livestock related activities (trailing, salting, and water developments) would gradually diminish to DD, and eventually ameliorate to “disturbed” condition that support soil development processes.

Because this alternative would eliminate livestock grazing there would be no livestock grazing-specific Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines applicable to soils resources. Because desired conditions for soil productivity are currently being maintained across the allotment, more rapid recovery of isolated impacts will incrementally advance the achievement of goals and objectives for soil productivity. Overall, Alternative B would improve soil quality.

3.3.2.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Based on the literature and data, historic livestock grazing was more intense than under current levels. There are isolated areas where detrimental soil impacts exist, and non-native, undesirable plant species have a higher potential to occupy these sites. These impacts will be slow to recover as native vegetation attempts to re-establish.

Current and historic livestock grazing, some wildlife fire (Foothills Fire 1992), road maintenance, and dispersed camping and recreation along the boundary of the allotment overlooking the South Fork Boise River are the only other past or present management activities or land uses creating ground disturbance impacting soil quality. The minimal road system and unclassified routes (closed to the public) provide limited access across the interior of the allotment. Existing unclassified roads and trails are used by livestock while trailing within or across the allotment and receive minimal use by the general public, mostly during big game hunting season. As these routes are primarily used by livestock, there is a decreased susceptibility for noxious weed establishment.

3.3.2.3.1 CONTINUED GRAZING ALTERNATIVE (NO ACTION)

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DD) and Total Soil Resource Commitment (TSRC): The cumulative effects for the soil disturbance indicators (DD and TSRC) for continued grazing alternative are the same as the Existing Conditions (Table 2).

Effective Ground Cover (EGC): The cumulative effects of continued grazing alternative on EGC are represented by the Existing Conditions values in Table 4. Effective ground cover is mostly at or above the desired conditions for the inherent landtype potential and represent a low level of impact from livestock grazing.

3.3.2.3.2 NO GRAZING ALTERNATIVE

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DD) and Total Soil Resource Commitment (TSRC): Other than roads, trails, and minimal dispersed recreation, livestock grazing is the primary disturbance mechanism having the potential to influence soil quality. The DD cumulative effects for Alternative B are the same as the no grazing direct and indirect effects previously discussed. The roads, trails, and other TSRC impacts (borrow sites, dispersed recreation, etc.) would remain as long term contributors to TSRC (Table 2).

Effective Ground Cover (EGC): Because these measurements occur within the primary forage production areas within the allotment, conditions for effective ground cover (EGC) are not expected to measurably should livestock grazing no longer occur on NFS lands.


20

3.4 VEGETATION RESOURCES The Vegetation Specialist’s Report is hereby incorporated by reference in the Project Record (40 CFR

§1502.21). The Vegetation Specialist’s Report contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the District Rangeland Management Specialist relied upon to reach the conclusions disclosed in the EA.


The Rangeland Management Specialist determined that approximately 81 percent of the lands on the Dawes Creek Allotment is composed of a sagebrush/grass habitat type. Sagebrush stands within the allotment consist of the mountain big sagebrush community type. Rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, chokecherry, pincherry and snowberry are also well-represented in this community type. Brush crown densities ranged from 0 to about 12 percent in the 1980’s (RAA data, Project Record) and from 0-15 percent when sampled in 2010 (Project Record). Principal grass species on the allotment include bluebunch and seeded wheatgrasses, Idaho fescue, needlegrass, wildrye grass, and bulbous bluegrass. Forb species commonly encountered include lupine, several buckwheat species, paintbrush, potentilla, arrowleaf balsamroot, fleabane, and many annuals that were not identified. The Rangeland Management Specialist noted rush skeleton weed on NFS land throughout the allotment (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 5).

Through GIS analysis, the Rangeland Management Specialist found that there are approximately 6.5 miles of perennial streams on NFS lands within the Dawes Creek Allotment (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 8). These perennial streams include very small segments of Dawes Creek, Chicken Creek and Crank as well as larger portions of Willow Creek and the South Fork of the Boise River. GIS analysis also indicates that there are approximately 3 miles of intermittent streams, including portions of Dawes Creek, Chicken Creek, Crank Creek and other unnamed tributaries on NFS lands (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 12). Most of the perennial portions of Dawes Creek, Chicken Creek and Crank Creek as well as a major portion of the South Fork of the Boise River, are relatively inaccessible to livestock due to steepness of slope and dense shrub vegetation along the stream banks (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 17). Willow, alder, dogwood and other riparian shrub species form a dense overstory that is impenetrable to livestock along much of their length. In areas where shrub canopy is less dense, cattle access the stream for water.

Aspen are present on the on the Dawes Creek Allotment, mostly as overstory along most of the intermittent tributaries and as pockets on mid- and upper slopes. Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir habitats are present, but make up only about 12 percent of the habitat (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 9). These types were observed primarily on steeper slopes of greater than 40 percent in the headwaters of drainages or dropping off the bench into the South Fork of The Boise River. These steep slopes make it difficult for livestock to access these types and because forage production in these areas is significantly less than in the more open habitat types, cattle rarely utilize heavily timbered areas.


The indicators used to determine if vegetative conditions are meeting or moving toward desired conditions include sagebrush canopy, ground cover, aspen stand condition and riparian condition. Noxious weeds are also evaluated. Because timber types make up such a minor portion of the NFS lands on the allotment, they were not considered further (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 17).


21


The Rangeland Management Specialist determined that sagebrush canopies across NFS lands on the Dawes Creek Allotment are not meeting Forest Plan desired conditions (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 18). Sagebrush stands of medium density are lacking within the allotment. This is primarily due to removal of the canopy during the 1992 Foothills Fire. Laycock (1994) determined that sagebrush stands will naturally trend to dense overstory, even with the removal of livestock grazing. Therefore, while livestock grazing could remove fine fuels that would carry fire through areas with little or light sagebrush canopy, it would not prevent sagebrush from growing to become dense stands and increasing canopy cover.

Ground cover on NFS lands is sufficient to provide for good overall condition within the project area and meets or exceeds levels recommended for healthy and functional ecosystems (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 13). The Rangeland Management Specialist concluded that upland vegetation on NFS lands within the Dawes Creek Allotment is meeting or moving toward desired condition.

The majority of the aspen stands observed by the Rangeland Management Specialist indicate that aspen were heavily impacted during the 1992 Foothills Fire, but are recovering and moving toward desired conditions (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 16). Most of the mature, large stem sized aspen were burned in the fire. Fallen stems are still evident in many of the areas where aspen are regenerating. Very few large aspen are found in the overstory, and the most trees in the stand are typically uniform in stem size and overall tree height. Most of the aspen stands observed during field visits were less than one acre in size. The District Wildlife Biologist noted that no trees greater than 10 inches diameter breast height (dbh) where detected during field visits (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 10). Stands did have the appropriate mix of mid level aspen canopy 1”- 8” dbh and aspen understory of < 1”. He also noted that after the large sprouting event post fire, regeneration has been occurring at slower rates as stands radiate out slowly increasing in size.

The Rangeland Management Specialist determined that rush skeleton weed, a noxious weed, is present on the Dawes Creek Allotment (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 21). Although livestock and wildlife may introduce and/or spread rush skeletonweed, the main vector for spreading this weed species is wind.



Some of the direct effects of livestock grazing on upland and riparian vegetation are trampling and the removal of plant cover; however, these are usually temporary impacts and can be controlled by the timing, intensity, and duration of livestock grazing.

Annual grazing by livestock can reduce fine fuels (grass) in rangeland cover types, lowering fire intensity and interrupting the rate and extent of spread of fire across the landscape. Where sagebrush canopies are heavy and consistent across a landscape, grazing has little effect on fire frequency and rate of spread. Independent of current grazing, the sagebrush structure of these types will remain or continue towards dense continuous cover types and will remain outside the range of natural variability until treatment or a wildfire event occurs. Patterns of different age classes and distinct cover types will become more homogenous and the diversity of species will be lower.


22

The Rangeland Management Specialist has determined that the continuation of livestock grazing would not have a substantial effect on vegetation conditions on the Dawes Creek Allotment (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 22). Changes in range management activities through the years have led to a substantial improvement in vegetative condition on the allotment. Static or improving trends in ground cover and vegetation condition will continue.

It can be expected that sagebrush will naturally progress to denser stands across the allotment as they continue to recover post-fire. Over time, as the sagebrush canopy continues to recover from the effects of the Foothills Fire, it is expected that sagebrush canopy will progress to and then past desired conditions. Management consistent with current Forest Plan standards is expected to maintain conditions where riparian resources are currently at the desired condition or move those areas that are not meeting toward achieving desired conditions in the long-term. The revised Forest Plan standards and guides that are implemented under this alternative are more restrictive than the previous management direction and provide for seasonal and long-term recovery of riparian vegetation, which should continue to move riparian vegetation in an upward trend until desired condition is achieved. Aspen stands will continue to move toward desired conditions as they mature. Continued grazing would most likely result in some minor noxious weed spread by livestock. The permittee would continue to monitor the allotment and report new noxious weed infestations in the project area. The permittee provides an early detection resource for identifying new infestations due to their frequent presence, extensive travel through the allotment, and desire to prevent the spread of these weed species.


Elimination of grazing on NFS lands after two years would most likely have little effect on upland conditions in sagebrush stands (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 23). Without a disturbance such as fire or livestock grazing, sagebrush stands become dense and plant diversity within these stands is reduced. Implementation of this alternative would lead to slight increases in upland vegetation in selected areas where cattle currently tend to congregate. Removal of livestock would allow these areas to revegetate over time.

Riparian vegetation would quickly progress toward desired condition once livestock are removed from the allotment, especially in areas where livestock tend to congregate or water (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 23). Increased bank stability can also be expected to occur in the short term (3 to 5 years) under this alternative.

Removal of livestock would eliminate the possibility of noxious weed spread by livestock. The primary vector (wind) for spreading these weeds would not be changed. Without the presence of livestock on the allotment, the permittee would not be riding the allotment on a regular basis and reporting noxious weed infestations. This could result in new infestations going undetected and becoming large infestations that are difficult to treat and manage.


The potential direct and indirect effects of either the continued grazing or no grazing alternatives on upland and riparian vegetation are so localized and negligible that they would not accumulate in time and space with the effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 29).


23

3.5 RARE PLANT SPECIES The Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report is hereby incorporated by reference in the

Project Record (40 CFR §1502.21). The Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the Botanist relied upon to reach the conclusions disclosed in the EA.


The Dawes Creek Allotment is dominated by non-forested shrub and grasslands, including aspen stands. Interspersed are patches and stringers of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Forest lands and drainages are generally steep; most of the flatter land of the plateaus is privately owned and much has been converted to agriculture. Elevation within the project area ranges from 3,400 to 5,200 ft. The majority of the allotment is on a northwest, north or northeast aspect, with the exception of the portion in the Willow Creek Watershed, where the land slopes west and southwest. The entire allotment is within the boundaries of the 1992 Foothills Fire. Average annual precipitation within the project area ranges from 18-24 inches. Streams crossing NFS lands on the allotment include Chicken, Crank, Dawes, Willow and Wood Creeks, as well as unnamed intermittent channels. Perennial streams on NFS total over six miles, with about three miles classified as intermittent. Less than a mile of perennial stream occurs on private land, plus additional intermittent channels. All waters eventually drain into the South Fork Boise River, which forms the northern boundary of the allotment.

3.5.1.1 RARE PLANTS AND RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES

The District Botanist determined that there are no known rare plant populations within the allotment, either on Forest Service or private land (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 24). There is a documented population of tall swamp onion (Allium validum) on the eastern boundary of the Lower South Fork Boise Watershed. Tall swamp onion occurrences are in wet, upper elevations subalpine fir or spruce habitats. There is no suitable habitat for the species within the project area, and there will be no further discussion of them in this analysis. There are no known rare plant populations within the Willow Creek Watershed. No other rare plants are documented within either the Lower South Fork Boise or Willow Creek 5th Field Watersheds, but potential habitat for other rare species within and around the allotment will be discussed. Along with several R4 Sensitive species; habitat or unknown populations of the Forest Watch plants mourning milkvetch (Astragalus atratus var. inseptus), least and scalloped moonwort (Botrychium simplex/B. crenulatum) or cinquefoil tansy (Vesicarpa potentilloides var. nitrophila) may be present within or near the allotment (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 24).

3.5.1.2 NATIVE PLANTS

The District Rangeland Management Specialist found that although introduced species such as bulbous bluegrass and cultivated wheatgrasses were noted on the allotment, native bunchgrasses, shrubs and forbs were noted across the allotment. The native species present are consistent with those indicated in the Appendix A of the Forest Plan as being typically found in the habitat types (Project Record, Vegetation Specialist’s Report, page 9).

The District Botanist determined that additional field data and analysis of historical records is needed to provide an accurate assessment of plant species diversity and trends in native plant condition on the allotment (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 2). Site visits


24

completed by the ID team and others provided some information, but more detailed information on species richness, frequency and distribution would be needed to make comparisons with species lists, plant associations, or species cover data collected in reference communities.

The District Botanist determined that the mountain sagebrush densities are lower than desired in parts of the allotment, likely tied to the vast 1992 Foothills Fire and competition from invasive species. In other areas density is higher than that of desired condition. Native bunchgrass populations appear intact on observed north slopes, but depauperate on weed infested south slopes. Additional information on condition is desirable to more accurately access rangeland conditions. Conifer stands within the allotment are limited and have a low likelihood of supporting rare plant species. Riparian vegetation appeared largely intact and functional with limited exceptions in the most heavily disturbed areas (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 2).


Botanical surveys were completed on the Dawes Creek Allotment in 2006 and 2010 when the District Botanist visited the allotment. Surveys were conducted at the cursory level, in which the surveyor gives the site a quick once-over by walking through the project area. A species list of plants identified was generated (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 13). Only Listed, Proposed Listed, and Candidate species identified by the US Fish & Wildlife Service for Section 7 consultation and R4 Sensitive species for which there is potential habitat within or adjacent to the project area, were analyzed. Table 5 identifies those species and their habitats.

Table 5 - Rare plant species habitat and locations (Listed, Proposed Listed, Candidate or R4 Sensitive) for the Dawes Creek Allotment

Rare Plant Species Populations/Habitat

Habitat Description

Documented Location in Surrounding 5th Field HUs?

Potential Habitat In/Near

Project Area?

USFWS Listed/Proposed/ Candidate Species

Lepidium papilliferum Slickspot Peppergrass (Threatened)

Small-scale openings in sagebrush-steppe habitat. Occurs in microsites where soils have a higher clay and sodium content than adjacent areas. Low –mid elevation.

No Low Likelihood

R4 Sensitive

Botrychium lineare Slender-leaf moonwort

Wide variety of habitats including meadows and forested types. 3000-10000' + or - on BNF.

No Yes2

Bryum calobryoides Bryum Moss

Moist meadows or open forest, moist to dry soil or rock outcrops, cliffs at montane to subalpine elevations. Basic to acid substrate. 5000'+.

No Yes2

Phacelia minutissima Small (Least) Phacelia

Sagebrush and aspen stands with late snow banks or seeps. Dense false hellebore patches, down slope from aspen, open understory. 5000-8200'

No Yes2


25

Rare Plant Species Populations/Habitat

Habitat Description

Documented Location in Surrounding 5th Field HUs?

Potential Habitat In/Near

Project Area?

Pyrrocoma insecticruris (syn. Happlopapus) insecticruris) Bugleg/Wholeleaf Goldenweed

Vernally wet meadows and flats with shallow, basalt soils (also found on granitics). Grassland/sagebrush communities. 4600-6500'.

No Yes2

Yes1 documented sites are found in the project area or close by in the analysis area (5th HU). Yes2- no documented sites are known from project area, but potential habitat/or populations may occur there.

The District Botanist determined that no effects or impacts to other Listed, Proposed Listed, Candidate or R4 Sensitive plant species are anticipated due to a lack of suitable habitat within the project area. The Project Record includes a list and habitat descriptions of those plant species that are tracked on the Boise National Forest, but not discussed in detail in this EA (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 27 and Appendix 1).



Table 6 summarizes the determinations for the rare plant species considered.

Table 6 - Determinations for rare plant species (Listed, Proposed Listed, Candidate or R4 Sensitive) for continued grazing on the Dawes Creek Allotment

Rare Plant Species Populations/Habitat Effect/Impact Determination

USFWS Listed/Proposed/ Candidate Species


Lepidium papilliferum Slickspot Peppergrass

NLAA NE

R4 Sensitive

Botrychium lineare Slender-leaf moonwort

MII BI

Bryum calobryoides Bryum Moss

MII BI

Phacelia minutissima Small Phacelia

MII BI

Pyrrocoma insecticruris Bugleg goldenweed

MII BI

Boise Forest Watch Risk to Population Viability

Botrychium crenulatum Scalloped moonwort

Low None

Botrychium simplex Least moonwort

Low None

Astragalus atratus var. inseptus Mourning milkvetch

Low None


26

Rare Plant Species Populations/Habitat Effect/Impact Determination

Vesicarpa potentilloides var nitrophilum Cinquefoil tansy/Fivefinger chickensage

Low None

NI = No impact to any populations, species or habitat. MII = May impact individuals, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the populations or species. BI= Beneficial impact to the species or habitat.

3.5.2.1.1 SLICKSPOT PEPPERGRASS (THREATENED)

There are no known slickspot peppergrass sites on the Boise NF, but there may be suitable habitat on the southern portions of the Mt. Home Ranger District. However, available vegetative, climatic and geologic information indicate that there is a low likelihood that suitable habitat for the plant occurs on the Dawes Creek Allotment ((Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 34). It is unlikely that continued grazing in this allotment would affect this species.

• The closest known slickspot peppergrass occurrence is 14 miles to the southwest in Wyoming big sagebrush habitat (IDFG, 2009).

• The dominant vegetation type within the allotment is classified as mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata vaseyana), whereas slickspot peppergrass has thus far only been identified in Wyoming or basin big sagebrush habitats. Neither Wyoming nor basin big sagebrush was identified (and verified) in any of the past or current range monitoring information, IDT field visits or vegetation studies (IDFG, 2008).

• Precipitation in the allotment ranges from 18-24 inches annually, while all known slickspot occurrences are in areas that receive between 8-16 inches.

• There is no match of any of the soil types within the allotment to those of known slickspot peppergrass occurrences. Generally the soils on the allotment are well-drained types that would not be conducive to slickspot formation. Conclusions on lack of suitable soils are supported by landtype and range monitoring information.

• A predictive distribution model in development by the Idaho Fish and Game (Colket, Draft Report 2008) rates the likelihood of occurrence on Forest Service lands as low.

3.5.2.1.2 REGION 4 SENSITIVE SPECIES

The District Botanist determined that reauthorization of current grazing management may impact slender-leaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare), Bryum moss (Bryum calobryoides), small phacelia (Phacelia minutissima) or bugleg goldenweed (Pyrrocoma insecticruris) individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MII). There would be no impacts to potential habitat for other Sensitive plant species (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 31).

Slender-leaf Moonwort: Negative impacts relative to current grazing practices on the Dawes Creek Allotment are expected to be moderate for this species. Managing to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, implementing management prescriptions, and using monitoring trigger points are all activities that would improve vigor and biodiversity in RCAs and aspen stands, and would contribute positively to moonwort habitat. In areas outside aspen stands that are suitable for moonwort ferns, the status of habitat relative to current levels of grazing is expected to remain static on the NFS portion of the allotment. While impacts would continue to occur, particularly in the more heavily used sections of the allotment such as the RCAs, managing to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, implementing management prescriptions, and


27

using monitoring trigger points should prevent current conditions from deteriorating (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 35).

Bryum Moss: The District Botanist determined that for areas suitable for Bryum moss, the status of habitat relative to current levels of grazing is expected to remain static on the NFS portion of the allotment. Negative impacts relative to current grazing practices on the Dawes Creek Allotment are expected to be moderate for this species. Managing to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, implementing management prescriptions, and using monitoring trigger points are all activities that would improve vigor and biodiversity in RCAs, and would contribute positively to Bryum moss habitat (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 36).

Small Phacelia: Springs, seeps and aspen patches within the allotment could provide habitat for small phacelia, however it was not identified in aspen stand surveys conducted by IDFG within the project area (IDFG, 2005). Negative impacts relative to current grazing practices on the Dawes Creek Allotment are expected to be moderate for this species. Management activities that improve vigor and biodiversity in aspen stands would improve least phacelia habitat. In areas outside aspen stands that are suitable for small phacelia, the status of habitat relative to current levels of grazing is expected to remain static on the NFS portion of the allotment. While impacts would continue to occur, particularly in the more heavily used sections of the allotment, managing to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, implementing management prescriptions, and using monitoring trigger points should prevent current conditions from deteriorating (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 37).

Bugleg Goldenweed: In areas suitable for bugleg goldenweed, the status of habitat relative to current levels of grazing is expected to remain static on the NFS portions of the allotment. While impacts would continue to occur, especially in the more heavily used portions of the allotment, managing to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, implementing management prescriptions, and using monitoring trigger points are all activities that would contribute positively to least phacelia habitat (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 38).


3.5.2.2.1 SLICKSPOT PEPPERGRASS

As it is unlikely that the dominant sagebrush-steppe vegetation associations in this allotment provide suitable habitat for this species, there is not expected to be any differences in impacts to L. papilliferum between grazing and not grazing the allotment (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 42).

3.5.2.2.2 REGION 4 SENSITIVE SPECIES

The District Botanist determined that sensitive species within the allotment are tied to habitat in aspen stands and riparian areas, seeps, springs (although sometimes on the fringe in sagebrush habitats). Cessation of grazing in these areas should lead to eventual recovery of proper functioning conditions and structure in any areas where detrimental disturbance has occurred. This does not mean that the vegetative composition would summarily revert to that of the pre-grazing era. Heavy past use of livestock in this allotment may have altered the soil characteristics (through erosion, loss or structural change) enough that it does not support the same suite of species that it did historically. Additionally, some species may have been extirpated from the area, and means of regeneration are not present (seed, spores or plant propagules). However, overall habitat for these rare plants and more common native species would be expected to improve without livestock grazing. Even in those areas of current heavy disturbance, it appears


28

that the source material for native plant restoration is still present on site or nearby and eventual recovery would be anticipated (Project Record, Biological Assessment/Evaluation – Botany Report, page 42).

Suitable habitat present in rocky or steep areas that are inaccessible to cattle would be expected to remain in similar condition as it is currently.


3.5.2.3.1 CONTINUED GRAZING ALTERNATIVE (NO ACTION)

Past Grazing: Impacts of the intense past grazing use would have been severe on rare plant populations or potential habitat in uplands and riparian, springs, seeps, meadows and aspen stands. There are currently no documented rare plant populations on the allotment, but intensive focused botanical surveys across the allotment have not been conducted. There are also no historical floristic records to compare to present day plant species, so it is unknown whether other species (including any rare species) that once existed in this area are now extirpated. There are species records from range monitoring in the 1980s, but these are focused on forage productivity and do not include specific information about all species, especially annuals, ferns and non-vascular plants. Effects from past grazing and range management efforts that may still be impacting habitat for rare plants and other native species on the allotment include soil compaction, change in species composition and abundance, and introduction and spread of non-native plants and weeds.

Current Grazing outside Dawes Creek Allotment: Effects of grazing in surrounding allotments are similar to those described for the allotment analyzed by the District Botanist. Negative cumulative effects may occur if native plant species diversity, cover, distribution and reproductive capability, etc. are not maintained at desired conditions on a larger scale, because this could reduce the self-sustainability of shrubland plant communities as a whole and the capacity for site recovery of disturbed areas. Introduction of weeds as well as non-native seeded grass species from adjacent allotments can also contribute negatively to the health and sustainability of the native plant communities and rare plant habitat in the Dawes Creek Allotment.

Non-native Species Introduction: “Improved” range and pasture grasses such as smooth brome and crested wheatgrass have been seeded in parts of the allotment. These plants are typically introduced to increase livestock forage, or sometimes to combat noxious weed invasions. Introduced species are often strong competitors and may inhibit the establishment and growth of native species.

Noxious and Non-native Weeds: Weeds pose a serious threat to native plant communities and rare plant species, because they aggressively compete for space, nutrients and other resources. Weed introduction and spread can be the result of multiple causes, including livestock use and related activities such as road/trail use, construction of range improvements, etc. Livestock can also be used strategically to help control some existing weed populations.

Both the Big-Fiddler-Soap and the Lower Willow Creek Subwatersheds in which the Dawes Creek Allotment falls have an inherently high risk of weed establishment and spread. Livestock use is identified as an activity contributing to this risk.

The Idaho-Listed noxious weed rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) is present in the Dawes Creek Allotment and notably abundant in some areas. This is a highly competitive species with the potential to spread up to 50% a year (USDA, 2003a). Other prominent non-native species include cheatgrass and bulbous bluegrass. In these areas there is a low abundance of native species. Cheatgrass is a flammable annual occupies the interspaces between native bunchgrasses, and its spread across the western United States has altered fire regimes and resulted in changes to native rangeland plant communities. Bulbous


29

bluegrass may not be as detrimental from a fire regime or livestock forage perspective, but may generate changes in native plant communities by forming dense, monotypic stands.

Recreation Site Use and Dispersed Camping: A limited number of permanent recreation facilities exist within the allotment, but do contribute to loss of native plant or rare plant habitat. This occurs first through vegetation removal during construction and then through additional ground disturbance (past, current and future) in the form of travel routes, gradual expansion of bare ground around camping sites, soil compaction and increased risk of weed invasion and spread.

Effects of dispersed camping on native plant communities and rare plant habitat in the allotment depends on the amount of associated new disturbance (i.e. creation of new campsites, off-trail OHV use), introduction and or spread of weeds or undesirable non-natives along road corridors or other previously uninfested locations.

Road Construction and Maintenance: These activities may negatively impact native plant communities and rare plant habitat if they disturb or destroy plants or habitat, or by creating areas of bare ground that are subject to weed/non-native species invasion. The area of potential direct impact would be limited in acreage, but the spread of weeds can be wide ranging, especially for those wind dispersed seed.

Special Use Permit: Borrow Site: Borrow sites are areas where the vegetation would be continually disturbed, and re-establishment would not occur and until use was discontinued. The commitment of native plant resources for access is long-term, and risks of weed introduction and spread in these types of location is typically high.

Wildfire: Fire is a natural part of western ecosystems, and most plants in fire prone areas are adapted to living under such conditions. This applies to rare as well as common plant species. If fires fall within historic norms for severity and frequency, eventual and full recovery of habitat supporting rare plant species is expected. This would be applicable to both wildfire and prescribed fire, including that done by the permittee on private land.

The Foothills Fire (1992) burned much of the allotment area and the surroundings. Depending on the patchiness and intensity of the fires, and the amount of sagebrush and bitterbrush killed, affects would be expected to have ranged from none to moderate and typically be short term in nature if shrub regeneration is possible. In some areas of the allotment, shrub recruitment appears low. The native bunchgrass and forb component would be stimulated, as well as the aspen stand vigor. The increase in the Idaho-listed noxious weed, rush skeletonweed, and cheatgrass component are negative fire related effects, and are likely impacting the native species composition.

3.5.2.3.2 NO GRAZING ALTERNATIVE

Elimination of grazing on Forest land could improve conditions for some (but not all) rare plant species analyzed in this report, particularly those whose potential habitat is moist or wet habitats such as meadows or aspen stands.

3.6 WATERSHED RESOURCES The Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report including the Biological Assessment is hereby

incorporated by reference in the Project Record (40 CFR §1502.21). The Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report including the Biological Assessment contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the Watershed Specialist relied upon to reach the conclusions disclosed in this section of the EA.


30


The Fisheries and Watershed Specialists used the 6th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) or subwatershed scale, unless otherwise stated, as the analysis area for depicting existing watershed and fisheries resource conditions and potential effects from implementation of the proposed action. The allotment is located within the South Fork Boise River 4th field subbasin (17050113). The allotment includes portions of the Lower Willow (170501131201) and Big Fiddler-Soap (170501130101) 6th field subwatersheds. The specialists’ based this determination on GIS analysis which also indicates there are approximately 3.59 miles of perennial stream (1.01 miles of which are on lands administered by the Boise National Forest) and 5.62 miles of intermittent stream (2.89 miles of which are on lands administered by the Boise National Forest) within the Dawes Creek allotment boundaries (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 24).

The 2008 Integrated Report prepared by IDEQ and Approved by the EPA in February 2009, identified two assessment units within the South Fork Boise River Subbasin #17050113 identified as Section §303(d) listed streams. These are AU # ID17050113SW004_06 (South Fork Boise River) and AU #17050113SW002b_04 (Lower Willow Creek). The 4th order Willow Creek assessment unit is listed for unknown pollutants in 1st and 2nd order tributaries on the 2002 §303(d) list and carried over to the 2008 list. The South Fork Boise River AU is listed for Sediment. IDEQ is recommending that based on existing data, both AU’s be moved off the §303(d) list and are fully supporting beneficial uses (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 27).

In December 2008 IDEQ completed a Subbasin Assessment, a temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and a 5 Year Review for the South Fork of the Boise River. The TMDL quantifies pollutant sources and allocates responsibility for load reductions needed to return listed waters to a condition of meeting water quality standards. In the South Fork Boise River subbasin, 10 assessment units (AUs) were found to be impaired by temperature, or contributing thermal loads to impaired streams, and TMDLs were developed for those AUs. None of the assessment units within the allotment required the development of a temperature TMDL. While the TMDLs were in the development phase, Idaho approved legislation to implement a review process for SBAs and TMDLs. The South Fork Boise River subbasin was scheduled for review in 2008 and thus was included in this new assessment (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 27).

Perennial streams have a 300-foot RCA (designated from the ordinary high water mark) on both sides of the streams. Intermittent streams, ponds and wetlands have 150-foot RCAs (designated from the ordinary high water mark). RCAs within the allotment’s boundaries are primarily associated with intermittent streams.


The Watershed and Fisheries Specialists considered effects of grazing to all watershed condition indicators (WCIs) identified in Appendix B of the Forest Plan and determined that nine WCIs would be affected by the continued grazing and no grazing alternatives on the Dawes Creek Allotment. The nine WCIs and their current baseline condition on Lower Willow and Big Fiddler-Soap subwatershed scale are described in


31

Table 7.

Table 7 - Current functionality of relevant WCIs in the Lower Willow and Big Fiddler-Soap subwatersheds Pathway WCI Lower Willow Big Fiddler-Soap

Water Quality

Water Temperature FR FR

Sediment/Turbidity FUR FR

Chemical Contaminants/ Nutrients FR FR

Channel Condition and Dymanics

Width/Max Depth Ratio FA FA

Streambank Condition FA FUR

Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows FA FA

Change in Drainage Network FUR FR

Watershed Conditions

Riparian Conservation Areas FR FR

Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions

FR FA

FA = Functioning Appropriately FR = Functioning at Risk FUR = Functioning at Unacceptable Risk

The current functionality of the WCIs shown in Table 7 is an average for the entire subwatershed, including all land ownerships. Based on field reviews, the Forest Hydrologist determined that the condition of NFS lands within the allotment are in large part at or near desired conditions as compared to other ownerships. This is likely due to these lands being grazed based on the Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2010a, 2010b).



Under the proposed action, cattle grazing would continue to occur on the allotment. The Forest Hydrologist determined that the effects of grazing on the upland soil-hydrologic, and riparian conservation areas functions and processes should be maintained where currently functioning appropriately and trending toward desired condition where currently not at desired conditions. He further determined that negative effects from cattle grazing on water quality and associated beneficial uses would be minimized because this alternative requires proper use of streamside riparian vegetation (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 30).

3.6.2.1.1 WATER QUALITY PATHWAY

The temperature, sediment/turbidity, and chemical contaminants/nutrient WCIs for water quality would be maintained or show no measurable change in the temporary, short, and long term under this alternative. Potential immeasurable improvements in stream temperature, and slight reductions in sediment, would occur as vegetative conditions within and outside of RCAs continue on an improving trend where not currently meeting desired conditions (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 8).


32

3.6.2.1.2 CHANNEL CONDITION AND DYNAMICS PATHWAY

The width/max depth ratio and streambank condition WCIs would be maintained or show no measurable change in the temporary, short, and long term under this alternative. As vegetation conditions in the allotment improve where not currently meeting desired conditions, the potential for sediment inputs would continue to decrease and width to depth ratio and streambank condition would improve negligibly (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 17).

3.6.2.1.3 FLOW/HYDROLOGY PATHWAY

The current functionality of this WCI for the subwatersheds within the Dawes Creek Allotment ranges from Functioning Appropriately (FA) to Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (FUR). Improving trends in upland vegetation and improvements in the condition of the RCA due to the incorporation of Forest Plan Standard RAST01 should result in immeasurable improvements to this WCI.

3.6.2.1.4 WATERSHED CONDITION

The Forest Hydrologist determined that the effects of grazing on the watershed condition functions and processes should be maintained where currently functioning appropriately and trending toward desired condition where currently not at desired conditions. The proposed action would continue to incrementally move towards appropriately functioning watershed, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions, due to the implementation of the Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Even though site-specific impacts are anticipated to occur under the Proposed Action, riparian and in-stream habitat conditions should improve on the subwatershed level and over time. Improved riparian and water quality conditions leading to overall improved habitat conditions will occur on NFS lands within the subwatersheds. It is important to note that the majority of riparian areas occur on non-NFS land.


A minimum of two years’ notice is required to the permittee before removing livestock. Therefore, grazing would continue for two years. During those two years, effects to watershed resources would be identical to the effects of the continued grazing alternative. Under the no grazing alternative, effects associated with former and ongoing grazing management on NFS land would improve over time. Overall, there would be improved riparian and water quality conditions on NFS land, leading to overall improved watershed conditions and associated water quality for beneficial uses. These improvements would occur more quickly as compared to the continued grazing alternative (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 31).

The degree of change from baseline riparian and in-stream habitat quality conditions that could be anticipated with the end of cattle grazing on the NFS portion of the allotment would vary depending upon the type and severity of effects associated with former and ongoing grazing management. Sedges, grasses, and some other riparian plants tend to rebound quickly to non-cattle-grazed density and vigor. Grazing effects to willows and other riparian shrubs are more variable. Growth of an existing shrub would more quickly respond to implementation of the no grazing alternative than would density of a group of plants or potential re-colonization of areas from which willows had been extirpated.

For the most part, recovery towards vegetative desired conditions under this alternative should be noticeable within three to ten years. A longer time interval may be necessary before improvements to soil, water runoff, streambanks, and aquatic habitat are recognizable. Depending upon the specific causes of


33

any water temperature increases associated with current grazing (riparian vegetation impacts), water temperatures should moderate within a year.

3.6.2.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities considered in cumulative effects analysis are listed in the project record. Lacking any measurable direct or indirect effects of the continued grazing alternative, there is no potential for direct or indirect effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities to accumulate with the effects of that alternative.

Direct and indirect effects of the no grazing alternative would have a negligible benefit to the WCIs. However, the direct and indirect effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities are negligible and would not overlap in space or time with the effects of the no grazing alternative.

3.7 FISHERIES The Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report including the Biological Assessment for Threatened

and Endangered Species (Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report including the Biological Assessment) is hereby incorporated by reference in the Project Record (40 CFR §1502.21). This report contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the Fisheries Biologist relied upon to reach the conclusions disclosed in this section of the EA.


The District Fisheries Biologist analyzed effects on all fish species and fish habitat present within the Lower Willow (170501131201) and Big Fiddler-Soap (170501130101) subwatersheds. He determined that bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are the only ESA-listed fish species with habitat on the Mountain Home Ranger District and were analyzed by the District Fisheries Biologist.

In addition to the exclusion of certain WCIs as discussed in Section 3.6, the District Fisheries Biologist noted that there is only one perennial stream on NFS land within the Dawes Creek allotment within the Lower Willow and Big Fiddler-Soap subwatersheds (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 31). He determined that intermittent streams do not likely support fish populations (ie they only flow water during snowmelt and significant rainfall events). Field reviews of the allotment showed the intermittent streams to be in stable (well vegetated) conditions and no downstream effects to fisheries resources are expected from these intermittent streams.

Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are the only fish management indicator species in the Forest Plan and are also listed as Threatened under the ESA. This District Fisheries Biologist determined that continued grazing would have “no effect” on bull trout because bull trout have not been documented in any watershed within the Dawes Creek allotment. In addition, he concluded that habitat conditions within the allotment are not likely to support a bull trout population primarily due to high annual stream temperatures and intermittent flows (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report including the Biological Assessment, page 37).

Westslope cutthroat trout (O. clarki lewisi) are listed as a sensitive species by the Regional Forester (USDA 2003b). In 2000, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the listing of westslope cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. Westslope cutthroat trout are not known to be native to the Boise River drainage (Behnke 1992). The District Fisheries Biologist determined that there


34

would be no impact to westslope cutthroat trout or their habitat within their historical range because they are not known to be native to the Boise River drainage (Behnke 1992) (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report , page 28).

Rainbow/redband trout (O. mykiss) are native to the Boise River and many of its tributaries. The Boise River, Arrowrock Reservoir and several tributaries and nearby ponds have been stocked with varieties of hatchery rainbow trout for many years (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/fish/stocking/). It is not possible to visually distinguish between native redband and stocked rainbow trout without genetic evaluation, so they are referred to as rainbow/redband. The South Fork Boise River is known as a quality fishery with selective (no bait and barbless hooks) regulations. Harvest of rainbow/redband trout is limited to two fish over 20 inches per day.

Kokanee (Onchorhynchus nerka), whitefish (Prosopium sp.), Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), suckers, brook trout and dace are additional fish species commonly found in the Boise River and its various tributaries. These are likely the primary fish species occurring on or directly downstream of the allotment.

Rainbow trout, brook trout, and other fishes are present within Lower Willow Creek and it is the primary stream within the allotment, and likely contains the majority of aquatic habitat within the allotment. Dawes and Crank Creeks do not appear to be large enough to support fish and are limited by intermittent flows.



While stream temperature data within the watersheds are limited, available data suggests that stream temperatures within the allotment regularly exceed desired conditions (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 33). Stream shading is a function of vegetation composition, stand height, stand density, latitude, topography, stream width, and orientation of stream channel (Spence et al. 1996). The District Fisheries Biologist determined that stream temperatures in both subwatersheds are likely elevated due to their relatively low elevation, non-forested characteristics, south facing aspects, and intermittent nature, and not primarily due to the livestock grazing (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Report, page 33). Maintenance of existing stream temperatures in the temporary-, short-, and long-term time frames within both watersheds is expected with potential negligible improvements as vegetation conditions in the RCAs improve where not currently meeting desired conditions.

The allotment has a Forest Plan Standard (RAST01) of a four-inch minimum stubble height at the end of growing season. Grazing intensities that reduce stubble heights to less than four inches can increase browsing on woody species (Clary and Leininger 2000). Therefore, with implementation of Forest Plan Standard (RAST01) riparian woody vegetation should be maintained or improved where currently not meeting desired conditions, resulting in overall improving trends in stream shading within the allotment.

The District Fisheries Biologist determined that implementation of the proposed action should not change the current aquatic habitat conditions of the subwatersheds within the allotment. The overall habitat conditions and fish community within the subwatershed would continue to function with some risk. Sediment (due to extensive OHV trail system), inherently high stream temperatures, barriers to fish migration and restricted (predominately intermittent) stream flows, would continue to be the limiting factors for fish in the affected subwatersheds. Improvements in vegetative conditions in the subwatersheds would likely result in immeasurable improvements to RCA conditions and in turn, improvements to fish habitat and associated water quality beneficial uses (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Report, page 36).


35

As noted by Spence et al (1996), devegetation, compaction, and soil exposure can be significant causes of erosion within grazing allotments. However, data in the Vegetation Specialist Report (Project Record) shows slight improving trends in vegetative cover (primarily consisting of sagebrush) and a corresponding decrease in the amount of bare ground. These improving trends would suggest that sediment delivery to streams from upland areas within the allotment is decreasing. The field reviews of the Dawes Creek Allotment in May 2010 indicated uplands that exhibited stable soil-hydrologic conditions. There were no visual indicators of sediment delivery to stream channels from adjacent hill slopes (refer to the Soil Specialist’s Report). Miller Creek and Chicken Creek appeared to have adequate riparian vegetation, stable banks, and normal channel and hydrologic functions and processes

Per Forest Plan Standard RAST04 (p. III-45) livestock salting is prohibited in RCAs. While site-specific effects from cattle excrement may occur, no effects to the chemical contaminants/nutrients WCI due to reauthorization of the grazing permit and livestock salting is expected at the subwatershed scale in any timeframe.


The District Fisheries Biologist determined that after cattle have been removed from the allotment, effects to WCIs would continue to occur. The condition of several of the WCIs would improve, primarily in areas not currently meeting desired conditions, resulting in negligible changes in the quality of fish habitat, both within the allotment and downstream (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 38). Depending upon the specific causes of any water temperature increases associated with current grazing (riparian vegetation impacts) water temperatures should moderate within 3 to 5 years.

A minimum of two years’ notice is required to the permittee before removing livestock. Therefore, grazing would continue for two years. During those two years, effects to fisheries and aquatic habitat would be identical to the effects of the continued grazing alternative (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report, page 38). After two years, the District Fisheries Biologist noted that a faster recovery towards riparian vegetative desired conditions under the no grazing alternative should be noticeable within the short term (three to ten years). Several years may be necessary before improvements to soil, water runoff, streambanks, and aquatic habitat are recognizable. Depending upon the specific causes of any water temperature increases associated with current grazing (riparian vegetation impacts) water temperatures should moderate within a year.

3.7.2.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE

Cumulative effects to fisheries are the same as those discussed for watershed resources.

3.8 WILDLIFE The Wildlife Technical Report including the Biological Evaluation for Listed/Proposed/Candidate and

Sensitive Species is hereby incorporated by reference in the Project Record (40 CFR §1502.21). This document contains the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation that the Wildlife Biologist relied upon to reach the conclusions disclosed in the EA.


36


3.8.1.1 LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES

The Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) for the Boise National Forest identifies 311 species of wildlife (amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles) that occur or potentially could occur on the forest. Focal species - those species selected during this analysis to represent other species within a source habitat family - were determined by determining the range of the species, components of habitat utilized by the species, surveys, occurrence data, and impacts to species contributable to grazing. Of the focal species analyzed, the District Wildlife Biologist determined that four species, including the gray wolf, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk and bald eagle, have the potential to be impacted by proposed activities. Table 8 lists all wildlife species considered and those that were analyzed in detail (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 20). Because the Dawes Creek Allotment contains no forested habitat, no focal species for that source habitat, the District Wildlife Biologist did not were analyze any focal species for that habitat in detail.

Table 8 - Wildlife Species Considered, Species Status, and Associated Source Habitat Suite and Family

Source Habitat Restricted to…

Family # Family Name Species Considered

this Analysis Species Status1

Selected Focal Species

(Analyzed in Detail)

Suite 1: Forest Only

1 Low Elevation, Old Forest

White-headed Woodpecker

S/MIS

2 Broad Elevation, Old Forest

American Three-toed Woodpecker

S

Black-backed Woodpecker

MIS

Boreal Owl S

Fisher S

Flammulated Owl S

Great Gray Owl S

Northern Goshawk S

Pileated Woodpecker MIS

3 Forest Mosaic

Canada Lynx T

Mountain Quail S

Wolverine S

4 Early-seral and Lower Montane

None2 NA

Suite 2: Combination of Forest and Rangeland

5 Forest and Range Mosaic

Gray Wolf T X

Mule Deer -- X

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

S

Rocky Mountain Elk -- X

Peregrine Falcon S

6 Forests, Woodlands, and Montane Shrubs

None2 --

7 Forests, Spotted Bat S


37

Source Habitat Restricted to…

Family # Family Name Species Considered

this Analysis Species Status1

Selected Focal Species

(Analyzed in Detail)

Woodlands, and Sagebrush

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

S

8 Rangeland and Early and Late-seral Forests

No TEPC/S/MIS/FP focal NA

Suite 3: Rangeland Only

10 Range Mosaic No TEPC/S/MIS/FP focal NA

11 Sagebrush Greater Sage Grouse C/S

12 Grassland and Open-canopy Sage Brush

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

S

Suite 4: Riverine and Non-riverine Riparian and Wetland

13 Riverine Riparian and Wetland

Bald Eagle S X

Columbia Spotted Frog S

Yellow-billed Cuckoo C/S

14 Non-riverine riparian and wetland

Common Loon S

1Species Status: C = candidate (USFWS 2010); E = endangered (USFWS 2010); MIS = Forest Plan management indicator species (Forest Plan Appendix E); P = proposed (USFWS 2010); S = sensitive (USFS R4 2010); and T = threatened (USFWS 2010)

The District Wildlife Biologist considered effects of continued grazing to listed wildlife species with habitats on the Mountain Home Ranger District. Continued grazing of the Dawes Creek Allotment would have “no effect” to the Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) (Threatened) and “no impact” to the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (Candidate). Continued grazing would “not likely jeopardize proposed species or modify proposed critical habitat” for the gray wolf.

No suitable habitat for lynx is present on the Dawes Creek Allotment (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 23). Neither alternative would affect identified linkage zones for lynx. The allotment is also outside any designated or proposed lynx analysis unit (LAU). The District Wildlife Biologist determined that the Dawes Creek Allotment occurs outside of current and historic range of sage grouse (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 33). The Mountain Home Ranger District, including the Dawes Creek Allotment, does not contain large (greater than 25 acres) stands of cottonwood with a willow understory and neither alternative would directly or indirectly affect suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 38).

Table 9 - Determinations for Listed Wildlife Species with Habitat Present on the Dawes Creek Allotment Species Common Name

Scientific Name Status1 Determination2,3

Alt A Alt B

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis T NE NE

Gray wolf Canis lupus T NLTJ NLTJ

Greater Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus C NI NI

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C NI NI 1Status: E = endangered; T = threatened; P = proposed; and C = candidate.


38

2Determination language for TEP species: NA= species is not listed for the Ranger District where the project occurs; NE = “no effect”; NLAA = “not likely to adversely affect”; LAA = “likely to adversely affect”; NLTJ = “not likely to jeopardize proposed species or modify proposed critical habitat”; LTJ = “likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat”. 3Determination language for candidate species: NI = “no impact”; B = “beneficial effects”; MII = “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”; L = “likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”

3.8.1.1.1 GRAY WOLF

Gray wolves have large home ranges and make seasonal movements in pursuit of ungulates, their primary prey. The primary threat to wolves is human-caused mortality. Human factors have been the greatest source of documented mortality for wolves in Idaho (Nadeau et al 2009). Roads, trails, and their associated human use and development increase the potential for human-wolf conflict as does the presence of livestock.

The District Wildlife Biologist determined that although a few animals of the predominant prey base would utilize the Dawes Creek Allotment throughout the summer, the project area does not have a sufficient annual prey base to support a wolf pack. This in turn, leads to conflict between wolves and livestock producers when wolves begin to prey on livestock. It is unlikely that a wolf pack could establish itself within or near the project area without conflicts occurring between livestock and the wolves (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 26).

The District Wildlife Biologist determined that neither alternative would have direct or indirect effects to source habitat for wolves. The project area does not have sufficient annual prey base to support a wolf pack. If a wolf pack where to establish within the project area, conflict with private land owners and/or livestock producers would most likely result in lethal removal of the pack.

3.8.1.2 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES

The District Wildlife Biologist considered whether habitats for Sensitive species were present on the Dawes Creek Allotment and determined that the proposed action would have no impact to those sensitive wildlife species without habitat on the allotment. Those species without habitat include white-headed woodpecker, American three-toed woodpecker, boreal owl, fisher, flammulated owl, great gray owl, northern goshawk, wolverine, peregrine falcon, spotted bat, greater sage grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse and common loon.

Table 10 shows the impact determinations for Sensitive species with habitats present within the Dawes Creek Allotment.

Table 10 - Determinations and Rationale for Sensitive Wildlife Species with Habitat Present on the Dawes Creek Allotment

Species Determination Rationale

Mountain Quail No Impact No effects to foraging opportunities or source habitat

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep No Impact No known occurrence of Species within allotment

Spotted Bat No Impact No known occurrence of Species within allotment or District

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat No Impact Grazing would not affect the availability of roosting or foraging habitat

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse No Impact No known occurrence of Species within allotment


39

Bald Eagle No Impact Nest site in an area not accessed by livestock

Columbia Spotted Frog No Impact Grazing would not occur until after eggs hatch and frogs/larvae are capable of avoiding trampling

3.8.1.3 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

The Wildlife Biologist considered possible effects to white-headed woodpecker (also a Sensitive species), black-backed wood pecker, and pileated woodpecker and found no reason to expect that any of these species would be affected by either alternative (Wildlife Technical Report, pages 14, 16 and 20). These species will not be discussed further in this EA.

3.8.1.4 OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES

The District Wildlife Biologist determined that continued grazing on the Dawes Creek Allotment would have no affect to Rocky Mountain elk (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 27). He found that the project area occurs primarily within transition habitat for elk. The allotment is classified as winter range for elk and does function as winter habitat during years of low snow depths and during early spring (late February to early April) as snow melt occurs. Current grazing management under the Forest Plan was designed to provide ample forage for wildlife ungulates and livestock. Grazing levels have been set to meet the standard utilization on 350 acres of capable range. The 2100 acres of non-capable range which occurs primarily on steep slopes and higher elevation is available for winter range. Snow depths on the allotment are commonly of sufficient depth that elk would choose lower elevation sites over the allotment. On the Dawes Creek allotment capable range is primarily within one half mile of a major road that elk would avoid.

The District Wildlife Biologist determined that continued grazing on the Dawes Creek Allotment would have no affect on mule deer. He found that mule deer winter range does not occur within the Dawes Creek Allotment; it is however, along their migration route and will typically act as spring to fall range (Project Record, Wildlife Technical Report, page 27). Spring range is a key component of year-round habitat, and the quality of forage available on these transitional ranges affects production and fawn survival. Mule deer hunting within game management units (GMU) 39 is the highest in the state with an average of over 26,000 hunters and an average mule deer population of 26, 000 over the last decade. Currently mule deer are meeting all management conditions set by IDFG. This unit is managed for opportunities to harvest a deer and not for trophy quality.

3.8.2 DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS


The District Wildlife Biologist determined that there would be no direct or indirect effects to the sensitive species with habitat in the Dawes Creek Allotment. Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects to sensitive species.


The District Wildlife Biologist determined that there would likely be no difference in direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sensitive species under the no grazing alternative.


40

3.8.3 OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES

Continued grazing on the Dawes Creek Allotment will have no affect to source habitat of mule deer or Rocky Mountain elk.

3.9 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

A number of disclosures involving compliance with various laws, executive orders, and regulations are required in grazing NEPA analyses. These disclosures are listed below.

3.9.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The District Wildlife Biologist considered effects of continued grazing to listed wildlife species with habitats on the Mountain Home Ranger District. Continued grazing of the Dawes Creek Allotment would have “no effect” to Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) (Threatened) or yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus ) (Candidate).

The District Wildlife Biologist considered effects of continued grazing to listed wildlife species with habitats on the Mountain Home Ranger District. Continued grazing of the Dawes Creek Allotment would have “no effect” to the Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) (Threatened) and “no impact” to the Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (Candidate) and the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (Candidate). Continued grazing would “not likely jeopardize proposed species or modify proposed critical habitat” for the gray wolf.

Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are the only fish management indicator species in the Forest Plan and are also listed as Threatened under the ESA. However the continued grazing alternative would have “no effect” on bull trout because bull trout have not been documented in any streams within the Dawes Creek Allotment.

There is a low likelihood that suitable habitat is present within the Dawes Creek Allotment for threatened slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) and reauthorization of current grazing management “is not likely to adversely affect” this species or potential habitat.

3.9.2 CLEAN WATER ACT

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a federal statute that requires states and tribes to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The watershed and fisheries analyses were focused on effects to nine WCIs that serve as surrogates for the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water potentially affected by the Dawes Creek Allotment. The analyses showed that there would either be no effect or a negligible beneficial effect to the WCIs, thus meeting the intent of the Act (Project Record, Fisheries and Watershed Specialists’ Report including the Biological Assessment, Appendix E, p. 58).

3.9.3 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Decisions for the Dawes Creek Allotment would be consistent with E.O. 11988 because neither would increase flood hazards.


41

3.9.4 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

Decisions for the Dawes Creek Allotment would be consistent with E.O. 11990 because neither would result in a net loss of wetlands.

3.9.5 PRIME FARMLAND, RANGELAND, AND FOREST LAND (DEPT. REGULATION 9500-3)

Decisions for the Dawes Creek Allotment would not affect prime farmlands, rangeland, or forest lands because there are no prime farmlands, rangeland, or forest lands located on the Boise National Forest (Boise National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS, p. 3-979).

3.9.6 FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT (FLPMA), SECTION 402(G)

Decisions for the Dawes Creek Allotment would be in compliance with FLPMA. Section 402(g) of FLPMA requires two years’ advance notice to a grazing permittee that the permittee’s grazing privileges may be cancelled, except in emergency situations. If the no grazing alternative were to be selected for the Dawes Creek Allotment, the affected grazing permittees would be sent the required advance written notification of the proposed closure of either allotment.

3.9.7 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Decisions for the Dawes Creek Allotment would be in compliance with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations” because the decision does not have the potential to place any burden or disproportionate impact which could be considered an environmental injustice or unequal protection on any segment of the population, including the population of Elmore County, Idaho.

3.9.8 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186 AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT OF 1918

Neotropical migratory birds are those that breed in the United States and winter primarily south of the United States-Mexico border. They include a large group of species, including many hawks, shorebirds, warblers, and other song birds, with diverse habitat needs spanning nearly all successional stages of most plant community types. Of the 225 migratory birds that are known to occur in the western hemisphere, about 120 are known to breed in Idaho. Nationwide declines in population trends for neotropical migrants have developed into an international concern. Habitat loss is considered the primary factor in the decline of some of these species. Since there are so many different species in this group, it is difficult to assign an appropriate analysis area scale. Generally the subwatersheds that contain the project area would be an appropriate scale for the species in this group for the period of the year that they utilize the area.

Migratory birds are present during the implementation period (normally present from the end of June to October). Project activities could displace individuals any time during this period. Unintentional take could occur through destruction of nests and nestlings. Activities associated with grazing on the allotment would have little influence on migratory birds. Most migratory bird species are finished with the nesting period by July 1 and young have reached the fledged stage allowing them to fly out of harm.


42

3.9.9 SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA)

The Forest Cultural Resource Specialist found that the historical record documents the cultural sensitivity of lands included in the boundaries of the Dawes Creek Allotment boundaries. Approximately 290 acres have been intensively surveyed for cultural resources (focusing on areas of high probability i.e. drainages, springs, ridges, saddles, and areas with slopes less than twenty five percent). These surveys documented two sites within the project area, of which one is potentially eligible and one is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Forest Service and Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) have agreed that the rangeland management program will be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in a Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Forest Service and the SHPO regarding the Rangeland Management Program (see FS Agreement No. 06-MU-11040218-059) to satisfy the Boise National Forest’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings of the program. The PA outlines procedures for the identification, evaluation, and resolution of adverse effects to historic properties in allotment areas. The criteria for determining adverse effects are outlined in the PA. The resolution of adverse effects, if adverse effects are identified, is also established in the PA.

The Cultural Resource Specialist considered the likelihood of potential adverse effects to historic properties from rangeland management activities, including (but not limited to) braided livestock trails, denuded vegetation, increased erosion, and intense soil churning within site boundaries. Range improvements such as salting grounds and water developments within or adjacent to site boundaries can encourage increased livestock use of the area. Historic structures, pictographs, and petroglyphs are also susceptible to rubbing by livestock.

The Cultural Resource Specialist has reviewed the project under the terms of the PA regarding the Rangeland Management Program (FS Agreement No.: 06-MU-11040218-059) and determined that there is little difference between the alternatives in the magnitude, intensity, or duration of effects to historic properties in the project area. Adverse effects to historic properties have not been identified at this time and are not likely to occur if either is implemented. Implementation of either alternative would likely result in No Effect or No Adverse Effect to historic properties.

3.9.10 OTHER DISCLOSURES

This decision does not have the potential to affect congressionally designated areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Research Natural Areas, protected caves, or parklands because there are none of these areas on the Dawes Creek Allotment.

Approximately 1170 acres of the NFS land within the Dawes Creek Allotment lie in the Danskin Inventory Roadless Area; however the proposed action will have no affect to that area. The Project Leader determined that continued grazing at current levels would not increase evidence of man’s activity nor affect the manageability of the IRA (Project Record, Inventory Roadless Report, page 5). She also determined that existing opportunities of solitude and primitive recreation would not be affected by continued grazing because those opportunities are based upon physical terrain characteristics which would not be affected by continued grazing. No special features within the area of the Danskin IRA are included within the Dawes Creek Allotment and the characteristics of recreation, timber, minerals, land ownership and special uses of the IRA would not be impacted.


43

Chapter 4 -- Consultation and Coordination

4.1 FOREST SERVICE IDT MEMBERS

Tina Ruffing Team Leader, Range Resources, Vegetation Resources

Kay Beall Rare Botanical Resources

Joe Bergstrom Cultural Resources

Scott Bodle Wildlife Resources

Casey Watson Fisheries Resources

Terry Hardy Soils Resources

Carol Brown, Cyd Weiland

NEPA Coordination

Susie Osgood Cultural Resources Consultant

John Thornton Watershed Resources

4.2 TRIBES CONSULTED Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley


44

References

Alexander, E.B. and D.R. Gilman. 1994. Compaction and recovery of rangeland soils in the Owyhee Upland, Idaho. Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science. 30(1): 49-52.

Behnke, R. 1992. Native nrout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. Bethesda, MD.

Clary, W.P., and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 53:562-573.

Colket, Beth. 2008. Draft Report: Slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) field survey and predictive distribution modeling. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. 21 pp. plus appendices.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Unpublished study. Classification of Riparian Vegetation on the Boise and Sawtooth National Forests. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Progress Report. Translocation of Mountain Quail into Range in Idaho. Project W-160-R-34. Idaho Department Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Classification of Upland Shrubland Vegetation on the Boise and Sawtooth National Forests. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 194 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Rare Plant Database. Information Systems Bureau, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Laycock, W.A. 1994. Implications of Grazing vs. No Grazing on Today’s Rangelands. In Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West; Vavra, Martin; W. A. Laycock, R. D. Pieper.1994. Pgs. 250-280.

Nadeau, M.S., C. Mack, J. Holyan, J. Husseman, M. Lucid, D. Spicer, B. Thomas. 2009. Wolf conservation and management in Idaho; progress report 2008. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 600 South Walnut, Boise, Idaho; Nez Perce Tribe, P.O. Box 365, Lapwai, Idaho. 106 pp.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomincky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR-4501-96-6057, ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Management Handbook. FSH 2209-21. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Biological Assessment for the Revised Land Management Plan for the Boise, Sawtooth, and Payette National Forests.

USDA Forest Service 2003b. Intermountain Region Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. Website: http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/bpr_web/r4_tes_lst_03.rtf

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Boise National Forest Record of Decision: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan Amendments to Facilitate Implementation of the 2010 Plan Scale Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Phase 1 – Forested Biological Community.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan Amendments to Facilitate Implementation of the 2010 Plan Scale Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Phase 1 – Forested Biological Community. Volumes 1 and 2.


45

Wendt, G.E., R.A. Thompson, and K.N. Larson. 1975. Land systems inventory – A basic inventory or planning and management. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 54 p.

Wendt, G.E., W.T. Shiverdecker, and E.N. Dean. 1973. Soil Hydrologic Reconnaissance. Mountain Home Ranger District, Boise National Forest. Initial draft, unpublished report. 214 p. plus Appendices.


46

Appendix: Response to Comments

The Cat Creek, Dawes Creek, Lockman Gulch, and Windy Gap C&H allotments were originally scoped with a Proposed Action Report that was mailed to several interested agencies, groups, and individuals in 2009. At that time, the Forest Service’s intent was to complete decision memos that, if no extraordinary circumstances were found in analysis, would have categorically excluded these analyses from documentation in Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements. Scoping comment letters were received from the Idaho Department of Lands, Southwest Area Office; Neil and Sandra Helmick; and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Southwest Region.

The Forest Service is disclosing the results of the environmental analysis of the allotment in an Environmental Assessment. To comply with the 30-day notice and comment period required for Environmental Assessments under 36 CFR 215, a “Legal Notice of Proposed Action” for the Cat Creek, Dawes Creek, Lockman Gulch and Windy Gap allotments was published in The Idaho Statesman, the newspaper of record, on December 18, 2009, and Proposed Action Reports were mailed to those interested parties who had commented in 2005. The 30-day notice and comment period ended at 11:59 p.m. on January 18, 2010.

The Forest Service considered each comment received during scoping. The following is the Forest Service’s consideration of comments received during scoping that expressed opposition or concern with the proposed action. Following each comment is a number that identifies the commenter: (1) for Neil Helmick, (2) for Southwest Region, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and (3) for Southwest Supervisory Area, Idaho Department of Lands.

1. Wet meadows, seeps, and springs, which are important late brood rearing habitats for sage-grouse, should be managed to maintain a diverse mixture of forbs and perennial grass cover. (2)

Forest Service Response: The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and any other action alternatives on sage-grouse and riparian habitat will be disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

2. Sage brush habitats should be managed to ensure adequate residual grass cover for nesting sage-grouse and other sage brush obligate birds. (2)

Forest Service Response: The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and any other action alternatives on sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate and bird species habitat will be disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

3. Current livestock grazing may be precluding the production of understory grasses, forbs, or shrubs needed to meet Idaho Bird Conservation Plan habitat objectives for sagebrush obligate bird species. (2)

Forest Service Response: The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and any other action alternatives on sagebrush-obligate bird species habitat will be disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

4. A 4-inch stubble height will provide little value for wildlife and may result in streambank degradation. (2)

Forest Service Response: The Forest Plan direction which addresses rangeland resources applies to these project areas and already includes standards for maximum forage utilization in riparian areas.


47

Conditions that would require a change in the level of utilization to allow for vegetative recovery are not expected on these allotments. If these utilization rates are found to be insufficient to meet resource objectives, they will be adjusted for this allotment.

5. We recommend evaluating the potential of fencing fragile portions of riparian areas to protect and enhance riparian plant production and prevent streambank degradation. (2)

Forest Service Response: The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and any other action alternatives on riparian areas will be disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

6. We recommend livestock utilization of native grass species do not exceed 35% to facilitate improvement of rangeland vegetation and wildlife habitat. (2)

Forest Service Response: The Forest Plan direction which addresses rangeland resources applies to these project areas and already includes standards for maximum forage utilization in riparian areas. Conditions that would require a change in the level of utilization to allow for vegetative recovery are not expected on this allotment. If these utilization rates are found to be insufficient to meet resource objectives, they will be adjusted for this allotment.

7. We recommend the USFS closely monitor livestock utilization to ensure annual availability of grasses and shrubs for big game use, especially on winter range.

Forest Service Response: The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and any other action alternatives on riparian areas will be disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

8. The Department recommends the environmental analysis evaluate the impacts to wildlife habitat resulting from the introduction and spread of invasive plant species attributable to livestock grazing. (2)

Forest Service Response: The Forest Service acknowledges the relationship between livestock grazing and noxious weeds. Noxious weeds are discussed at the site-specific level in the range specialist’s report. Known populations of noxious weeds within the project area on NFS lands are treated as part of the district weed treatment program.

9. Evaluate these allotments with respect to potential impacts to bull trout and redband trout populations and habitat and identify actions that will be taken to reduce stream sedimentation and increase streambank and channel stability (2)

Forest Service Response: The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and any other action alternatives on bull trout and redband trout populations and habitat will be disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

dawes creek ea 09 17 10 -...

Documents